US agency sues Sprint for alleged unauthorized charges

Consumer protection bureau says Sprint's third-party billing system was a breeding ground for unauthorized text message charges

The U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has filed a lawsuit accusing Sprint of illegally billing mobile customers for tens of millions[m] of dollars in unauthorized third-party charges.

Sprint operated a billing system that allowed third parties to cram unauthorized charges on customers' mobile bills and ignored complaints about the charges, the CFPB alleged in its complaint.

The complaint from the CFPB, an agency established by Congress in 2010 to protect customers of the U.S. financial sector, mirrors complaints made by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and 51 state-level governments against AT&T earlier this year. In October, AT&T agreed to pay US $105 million[m] to settle those complaints of similar unauthorized third-party charges.

As the use of mobile payments grows, the CFPB will hold mobile carriers accountable for "illegal" third-party billing, CFPB Director Richard Cordray[cq] said. "Consumers ended up paying tens of millions of dollars in unauthorized charges, even though many of them had no idea that third parties could even place charges on their bills," he said in a statement.

FCC action on Sprint charges is pending, a spokeswoman said. In the meantime, the FCC is working closely with the CFPB. "Protecting consumers from unauthorized fees on their phone bills is a team effort," she added by email.

Sprint didn't immediately respond to a request for a response to the CFPB lawsuit.

Between 2004 and 2013, many mobile carriers allowed third-party billing for premium text messages, the CFPB said. Sprint outsourced payment processing for these digital purchases to vendors called billing aggregators without properly monitoring them, the agency alleged.

That lack of oversight gave aggregators "near unfettered" access to Sprint customers' accounts, the agency alleged. Sprint's system enabled sellers who, in some cases, only needed consumers' phone numbers to cram illegitimate charges onto bills.

The charges ranged from one-time fees of $0.99 to $4.99 to monthly subscriptions that cost about $9.99 a month, the agency said. Sprint received a 30 to 40 percent cut of the gross revenue from these charges.

The CFPB alleged that Sprint violated the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act's prohibition on unfair practices, by among other things, automatically billing consumers for illegitimate charges without their consent. The company also disregarded red flags showing that its system was a "breeding ground" for unauthorized charges, the agency said.

Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for The IDG News Service. Follow Grant on Twitter at GrantGross. Grant's email address is

Join the Good Gear Guide newsletter!

Error: Please check your email address.

Tags U.S. Federal Trade Commissionsprintat&tregulationU.S. Federal Communications CommissionmobileRichard CordraygovernmentU.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Our Back to Business guide highlights the best products for you to boost your productivity at home, on the road, at the office, or in the classroom.

Keep up with the latest tech news, reviews and previews by subscribing to the Good Gear Guide newsletter.

Grant Gross

IDG News Service
Show Comments

Most Popular Reviews

Latest News Articles


GGG Evaluation Team

Kathy Cassidy


First impression on unpacking the Q702 test unit was the solid feel and clean, minimalist styling.

Anthony Grifoni


For work use, Microsoft Word and Excel programs pre-installed on the device are adequate for preparing short documents.

Steph Mundell


The Fujitsu LifeBook UH574 allowed for great mobility without being obnoxiously heavy or clunky. Its twelve hours of battery life did not disappoint.

Andrew Mitsi


The screen was particularly good. It is bright and visible from most angles, however heat is an issue, particularly around the Windows button on the front, and on the back where the battery housing is located.

Simon Harriott


My first impression after unboxing the Q702 is that it is a nice looking unit. Styling is somewhat minimalist but very effective. The tablet part, once detached, has a nice weight, and no buttons or switches are located in awkward or intrusive positions.

Featured Content

Latest Jobs

Don’t have an account? Sign up here

Don't have an account? Sign up now

Forgot password?