‘Squeeze and Buy’: T-Mobile ‘Betrayed’ Minority-Owned Stores In Wake of Sprint Merger, Lawsuit Alleges

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

T-Mobile faces a lawsuit that alleges the carrier unlawfully misled the government and minority-owned retailers by claiming “hundreds of stores” would open up after its $26 billion merger with Sprint and failing to disclose “an internal conspiracy” to take over existing stores “without just and fair compensation.” 

Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here. 

The 26-page lawsuit accuses T-Mobile of playing a game of “squeeze and buy” in conspiring with “master dealer” and co-defendant Arch Telecom to announce to franchisees that their “viable and profitable” stores would be closed, and then essentially work the businesses over by offering to buy the stores for next to nothing. 

Per the case, the five plaintiff companies represent “a tiny fraction” of the mostly minority-owned, community-based businesses, called “sub-dealers,” who have been “betrayed” by T-Mobile and “master dealers” such as Arch Telecom, who the lawsuit contends have a legal duty to warn the plaintiffs of “any events or changes” that might impact their earnings, store operations and livelihoods. 

“It is not corporate greed and dishonesty that the Plaintiffs challenge here,” the filing reads. “Rather, it is T-Mobile and Defendants’ blatant violations of law which the Plaintiffs seek to address through this action.” 

More specifically, the complaint alleges T-Mobile knew that the initial terms of its agreements with the plaintiffs and other sub-dealers lasted until June 2024 yet conspired with Arch Telecom to “create an earlier and artificial termination date” of March 2023. In the lead-up to this month, the case says, T-Mobile allowed, and still allows, Arch Telecom to “contact the Plaintiffs to work them over,” namely by announcing the termination of their contracts and then offering to buy their businesses for next to nothing. 

“This is occurring as of the time this Complaint is being filed,” the suit stresses. 

Upon the April 2018 announcement of its merger with Sprint, T-Mobile promised that “hundreds” of stores would be created, not eliminated. The plaintiffs charge that T-Mobile, prior to the approval of the merger, never informed them or other sub-dealers of its plan to close stores. 

Per the suit, T-Mobile managers who showed up to audit the plaintiffs’ stores continued to claim that “business is continuing as usual,” and even represented that the carrier was creating more stores, not shutting them down. 

“T-Mobile and Arch Telecom continued to pretend as if business was as good as usual, urging Sub-Agents to continue to renovate and renew existing leases for as long as five (5) years,” the lawsuit says. “This gave the Plaintiffs the absolutely false impression that, even after the merger, their respective small businesses would continue to thrive.”

One plaintiff, the case states, spent more than $150,000 to renovate its Brooklyn store “to T-Mobile standards,” including remodeling the space and buying new furniture and equipment. The plaintiffs have generally renewed their leases, becoming saddled with significant rental costs, “[i]n reliance on the promises and concealments” of T-Mobile, the suit claims. 

Others, the lawsuit continues, took out loans during the pandemic to ensure their T-Mobile businesses continued to operate. 

“The Plaintiffs—unlike the Defendants—were loyal,” the suit attests. 

According to the filing, defendant The Portables Choice Group LLC (PCG) and Arch Telecom knew of T-Mobile’s plans to eliminate sub-dealers yet failed to pass this information along to the plaintiffs while suggesting that business would continue as usual. Per the case, within roughly two months of Arch’s announcement that it had acquired PCG, the former sent the plaintiffs notice stating that T-Mobile was exercising its right to terminate their locations in March 2023. 

After being told they must close their stores, however, the plaintiffs and other sub-dealers received calls from Arch Telecom, whose agent said the company would be willing to buy their store “for a negligible amount of money,” far less than required to compensate the business owners for renovation costs and the loss of commissions, investments and profits, the suit says. 

The plaintiffs request for themselves damages of $100 million, plus punitive damages of $1 billion. 

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.