Re: Ripped of by AT&T

last person who tried to challenge that practice lost -- see below:

Plaintiff filed a class action in California state court against Cingular Wireless alleging violations of the state’s unfair competition law (UCL): According to the class action complaint, Cingular advertises that it will give purchasers a 50% discount off the retail price of a wireless phone they enroll in a calling plan package. California’s Code of Regulations requires that Cingular compute the sales tax on the “non-sale price” of the phone, but does not require that this charge be passed on to the purchaser. Cingular does pass the sales tax on to its customers, but prior to sale does not advise them that the sales tax will be computed based on the full price of the phone. The class action alleged that Cingular engaged in false advertising “by failing to inform the consumer that the tax would be imposed on the full price of the cell phone.” Yabsley v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, ___ Cal.App.4th ___, 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 903 (Cal.App. August 18, 2008) [Slip Opn, at 1]. Defense attorneys demurred to the first amended class action complaint on the ground that the regulations provide a “safe harbor” for the payment of taxes such as the one underlying the class action’s UCL claim; the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. Id., at 1-2. The Court of Appeal affirmed.

The class action complaint alleges that Cingular “advertised a cell phone for $149.99, a 50 percent reduction in the phone's retail price, if the purchaser enrolled in a Cingular wireless calling plan.” Yabsley, at 2. Plaintiff saw the advertisement and purchased the phone and enrolled in the plan: His sales receipt, however, disclosed that he had been taxed on the phone’s regular price of $299.99, rather than its discounted price, resulting in $11.62 more in sales tax. Id. Plaintiff filed his class action complaint against Cingular and the State Board of Equalization “asserting that Regulation 1585, governing taxation of sales of wireless communication devices, was invalid because it conflicted with Revenue and Taxation Code section 6051 imposing a sales tax on gross receipts.” Id. Plaintiff’s first amended class action complaint also named the Board and Cingular as defendants, but plaintiff dismissed the Board that same day. Id. The class action alleged that Cingular's advertisements were deceptive because they “fail[ed] to apprise prospective customers that sales tax would be charged on the undiscounted price of the cell phone.” Id. Defense attorneys demurred, arguing that the safe harbor provided by Regulation 1585 (see Note) immunized Cingular against such claims: “This regulation requires that sales tax on a ‘bundled’ cell phone sale, i.e., a cell phone purchased with a call plan, be calculated based on the phone's higher, unbundled price.” Id., at 3. The trial court agreed and dismissed the class action. Id.