Legal News

AT&T Ordered to Pay Damages to iPhone User for Throttling Bandwidth
Download PDF
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)

In an order that might seem apparently small and insignificant a court in California has passed a judgment that might significantly cut into corporate coffers of AT&T and start a wave of litigation from those similarly affected as the plaintiff.

The story, in short, is that an iPhone user has been awarded $850 in damages after finding out that without his consent AT&T was restricting his data speeds on an unlimited plan.

While AT&T released a statement to the media asserting, “This is a small claims matter. We are evaluating next steps, including appeal. But at the end of the day, our contract governs our relationship with our customers,” customers seem indignant at the act and welcomed the decision.


The customer contract of AT&T specifies that arbitration win would be minimum $10, 000 the amount claimed by the plaintiff. However, the court refused as small causes court did not come under arbitration, and the reasonable damages in the case would be $85 per month for the 10 months left on his unlimited plan.

The dispute arose when Matt Spaccarelli, an iPhone user with an unlimited data plan from AT&T found his data speeds were being throttled after 1.5 to 2GB usage, while users of limited plans did not face any bandwidth throttling at similar data usage thresholds.

Significantly, at least half of AT&T’s smart phone customers have unlimited data plans. With almost 17 million customers who can have similar grievances, this little judgment can lead to disaster for the communications giant.

Get JD Journal in Your Mail

Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!

AT&T representatives have mentioned that the company contract contained rights of the company to “modify or cancel” customer contracts if their usage brings loss to the company or its networks.

The case does seem headed for appeal as AT&T’s contract, surprisingly, contains a clause that prohibits a subscriber from bringing a class action suit against the company.

The prohibitory clause seems wholly against the principles of modern jurisprudence, for a contract that prohibits a party from seeking legal reliefs and procedures granted by the constitution, becomes null and void to the extent it seeks to restrain constitutional rights of citizens.



Associate Attorney


Houston Heights area commercial litigation firm has immediate opening for associate attorney. T...

Apply now

Employmt-Based Immigration: Paralegal (3+ years imm. exp pref)

USA-CA-San Diego

Full Job Description We are seeking an immigration paralegal to join our growing immigration law ...

Apply now

Immigration Attorney


We are seeking an associate Immigration Attorney for a boutique immigration practice. This position ...

Apply now

Office Manager


Commercial Real Estate Attorney: 5-8 years experience in commercial property acquisition and disposi...

Apply now




Search Now

Junior to Mid-level Investment Management Associate Attorney

USA-NY-New York City

New York City office of a BCG Attorney Search Top Ranked Law Firm seeks junior to mid-level investme...

Apply Now

Mid-level Debt Finance Associate Attorney

USA-CA-San Francisco

San Francisco office of a BCG Attorney Search Top Ranked Law Firm seeks mid-level debt finance-focus...

Apply Now

Senior Business and Corporate Law Attorney


Murrieta office of our client seeks a senior business and corporate law attorney with 3+ years of bu...

Apply Now

Most Popular


To Top