## Facts

- Jessica Hall, an Illinois resident, bought wireless service from Sprint under a one-year agreement that included a $150 early termination fee (ETF).
- Hall’s account included two phone numbers; Sprint discontinued service for nonpayment in October 2003.
- When Hall sought to cancel, Sprint refused to cancel unless she paid the account balance plus the ETF.
- In December 2003, Hall paid $415.61 under protest on one line, including the ETF, to terminate that line.
- Hall alleged she could not afford the ETF to terminate the second line; Sprint continued to bill and later wrote off that account for nonpayment.
- Hall sued individually and on behalf of a putative nationwide class, alleging breach of contract, statutory consumer fraud, unjust enrichment, and entitlement to relief from unlawful penalties, all based on the theory that the ETF was an unlawful penalty.
- The service agreement contained a choice-of-law clause selecting Kansas law.
- The circuit court certified a 48-state class of Sprint customers concerning Sprint’s collection of ETFs.

## Issues

1. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by certifying a 48-state class challenging Sprint’s ETF under standardized wireless service agreements.
2. Whether asserted choice-of-law complications, including proposed application of Kansas law under the contract’s choice-of-law clause, defeated predominance or rendered the class unmanageable at the certification stage.
3. Whether common questions concerning the form contract and Sprint’s ETF practices predominated over individualized issues for purposes of class treatment.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the class-certification order.
- It held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the class requirements satisfied.
- It concluded common questions concerning Sprint’s standardized ETF provision and related practices predominated over individual issues.
- It rejected Sprint’s argument that potential variations in state law and customer circumstances required decertification at this stage.
- It noted certification could be revisited if later developments showed predominance or manageability problems.

## Legal Principles

- Class certification decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and trial courts have broad discretion in ruling on certification.
- Where a claim targets a uniform practice and a standardized contract term, common questions may predominate even if class members have differing account histories or damages.
- Potential choice-of-law disputes and multistate-law differences do not necessarily preclude certification when the litigation’s core questions are shared and can be managed as the case develops.
- A contractual choice-of-law clause may support use of a single state’s law for certain common-law claims at the certification stage, subject to later modification if conflicts or manageability concerns emerge.
- Class treatment may be superior when individual damages are relatively small and the challenged conduct is common across a large group of consumers.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld certification of a 48-state class challenging Sprint’s early termination fee, ruling that the trial court reasonably found predominance and manageability despite multistate considerations and the developing choice-of-law questions.


Hall v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., 376 Ill. App. 3d 822, 876 N.E.2d 1036 (Ill. App. Ct. 5th Dist. 2007)