IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

TONY PRATT, individually and on behalf ) 

of a class of similarly situated individuals, ) 

) Case No. 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) Hon. 

) 

ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a Delaware ) 

limited liability company, and PREDICTO ) Magistrate Judge 

MOBILE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability ) 

company. ) 

 )

Defendants. ) 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Tony Pratt, by his attorneys, alleges upon personal knowledge as to himself and his 

own acts and experiences and upon information and belief including investigation of counsel as 

to all other matters, as follows: 

NATURE OF THE ACTION 

1. Plaintiff Pratt brings this case as a class action against Alltel Communications, 

LLC (“Alltel”) and Predicto Mobile, LLC (“Predicto”) seeking to stop Defendants’ practice of 

causing cellular telephone customers to be billed for mobile content services ordered not by 

them, but rather by the customer previously assigned their telephone number, and to obtain 

redress for all persons injured by Defendants’ conduct in this regard. 

2. The increased use of cell phones has given rise to a new industry that provides socalled “mobile content” services such as ringtones, text alerts, jokes, news, games, and daily 

horoscopes to cell phone users’ mobile devices. Predicto and other providers of mobile content 

charge for their services and cause such charges to be placed directly on customers’ cell phone 

accounts through their wireless carriers, including Alltel. The carriers simply bill and collect 

1

Case 2:09-cv-13691-DPH-MAR Document 1 Filed 09/17/09 Page 1 of 13
such amounts and remit the vast majority (i.e., two thirds) of all revenue so collected to the 

providers and aggregators of mobile content, including Predicto and OpenMarket. 

3. Because Predicto and other mobile content providers are typically unable to 

establish a direct billing and content delivery relationship with the Alltel and the other wireless 

carriers, they most often turn to one of a handful of companies known in the industry as 

“aggregators,” such as OpenMarket, that act as billing intermediaries without which the mobile 

content providers would generally be unable to provide and bill for their mobile content services. 

4. While aggregators charge Predicto and their other content provider clients upfront 

fees, each entities’ revenue is primarily generated through a “revenue share” on transactions for 

which they bill the carriers’ customers: Each time a charge is incurred in connection with an 

alleged purchase of mobile content services, the content provider directs the aggregator to cause 

the charge to be billed directly on the cellular telephone bill of the carrier’s customer who 

currently owns and/or uses the telephone number claimed to be associated with that purchase. 

5. The carrier, in this case Alltel, then bills and collects the charges from its current 

customer, retains a minority portion of the proceeds as its “revenue share” and then remits the 

balance—majority portion—to the aggregator, which retains a substantial percentage of the 

balance in the form of its own “revenue share” and which then, in turn, remits the balance to its 

content provider client, here Predicto Mobile. 

6. In a widespread industry practice little known by those outside the industry, but 

known to Defendants, carriers such as Alltel routinely “recycle” so-called “dirty” telephone 

numbers to their customers when they sign up for new cellular telephone service. The numbers 

are “recycled” in that they were previously assigned to another person or entity. The numbers 

are “dirty” in that Predicto and other content providers fail to remove the pre-existing billing 

2

Case 2:09-cv-13691-DPH-MAR Document 1 Filed 09/17/09 Page 2 of 13
obligations, as required to do under their contracts with the aggregator and/or the wireless carrier 

partners. 

7. Despite its knowledge about the problem of recycled dirty numbers, Predicto 

ignores the protocol established by wireless carriers such as Alltel to prevent this problem. 

Similarly, Alltel has not taken any steps to ensure that its recycled number protocols are followed 

and instead elects to maintain the system through which cell phone users are billed for mobile 

content services ordered not by them, but by the previous wireless subscribers formerly assigned 

their cell phone numbers. 

8. As a result, Defendants have for years systematically, repeatedly, and without 

authorization caused charges to be placed on the cell phone bills of thousands of consumers 

across the country for content that was never authorized to be purchased by the current 

subscribers of the affected phone numbers, but rather by the previous subscribers formerly 

assigned such cell phone numbers, and it has profited the most among the Defendants 

enormously from its wrongful conduct, in violation of, among other prohibitions: (a) the 

common law of unjust enrichment; (b) the common law of tortious interference with a contract; 

(c) unfair or deceptive business acts or practices; and (d) common law breach of contract. 

9. Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of himself and the class members, money damages, 

restitution, disgorgement, injunctive and declaratory relief, costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees. 

PARTIES

10. Plaintiff Tony Pratt is a resident of Michigan. 

11. Defendant Predicto Mobile, LLC is a provider of mobile content. Predicto is a 

Delaware limited liability company with its headquarters and principal place of business in New 

York. Predicto does business throughout the United States, including this District. 

3

Case 2:09-cv-13691-DPH-MAR Document 1 Filed 09/17/09 Page 3 of 13
12. Defendant Alltel Communications, LLC is a wireless carrier. Alltel is a Delaware 

limited liability company with its headquarters and principal place of business in Arkansas. It 

has recently become a subsidiary of AT&T Mobility, with respect to its Michigan customers. 

Alltel does business throughout the United States, including this District. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. The Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(d), because (a) at least one member of the putative class is a citizen of a state different from 

Defendants, (b) the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, 

and (c) none of the exceptions under that subsection apply to this action. 

14. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) because a substantial 

part of the events or omissions that are the subject of this suit occurred in this district. 

THE PROBLEM OF RECYLED DIRTY CELL PHONE NUMBERS

15. Each cell phone customer is assigned unique phone numbers for their phone, just 

like a traditional “land-line” phone. 

16. However, unlike traditional phones, people can use cell phones to pay for certain 

third-party provided mobile content services like, for example, special ringtones or subscriptions 

for horoscopes, jokes, games, or stock quotes sent periodically to customers’ cell phones. 

17. These mobile content services are generally provided by subscription that renews 

automatically each month and the resulting charges are included on the customer’s cell phone 

bill issued by the customers’ wireless carrier. 

18. This lawsuit results from what happens when the protocol established to remove 

mobile content subscriptions authorized by the previous user of a cellular number are ignored by 

both the content providers and the wireless carrier itself. (Customers abandon numbers for many 

4

Case 2:09-cv-13691-DPH-MAR Document 1 Filed 09/17/09 Page 4 of 13
different reasons—e.g. they move to a different area code, they change carriers, they no longer 

want one of their cell phones, or they want a different phone number.) 

19. Indeed, the protocol established by Alltel puts the responsibility squarely on the 

content providers such as Predicto and its aggregator partner to prevent the recycling of dirty cell 

phone numbers. The protocol calls for Alltel to provide to the aggregators and content providers 

a list containing the cellular telephone numbers that have been deactivated. It is then the 

aggregator and content provider’s responsibility per contract to cancel any mobile content 

subscriptions it has been processing to any of the phone numbers on the deactivation list. 

Aggregators in the mobile content industry other than OpenMarket, such as m-Qube, Inc. and 

mBlox, Inc., have similarly been sued and held responsible for their failure to live up to their 

obligations to the carriers and, ultimately, to consumers. On information and belief, Predicto and 

its aggregator partners actively ignore the list of deactivated phone numbers provided to it by the 

carriers in order to continue to profit from this unlawful practice. 

20. Predicto knows that these abandoned and cancelled numbers are often 

encumbered with preexisting subscriptions to mobile content services, thus rendering these 

numbers “dirty.” 

21. Nevertheless, to bilk cell phone customers, Predicto has refused to comply with 

procedures to insure that cell phone customers are not charged for preexisting subscriptions 

authorized by previous subscribers formerly assigned the numbers. 

22. Despite knowing that its protocol is not complied with, Alltel continues to allow 

its current customers to be charged for mobile content authorized by the prior owner of recycled 

numbers. 

5

Case 2:09-cv-13691-DPH-MAR Document 1 Filed 09/17/09 Page 5 of 13
FACTS RELATING TO THE NAMED PLAINTIFF

23. On or about December 24, 2008, Plaintiff Tony Pratt purchased new cell phone 

service for his personal use from an authorized Alltel sales representative. 

24. On that same day, in exchange for an Alltel cell phone service plan, Pratt agreed 

to pay Alltel a set fee each month for a period of approximately 12 months. 

25. Upon activating his cellular telephone account, Alltel provided Pratt a cellular 

phone number. 

26. Unbeknownst to Pratt at the time, Alltel provided him with a recycled “dirty” 

phone number—one saddled with preexisting obligations, encumbrances, and billing 

arrangements for products and services purportedly purchased by the previous cell phone 

subscriber assigned to that number. 

27. Thus, beginning in or about January 2009, and continuing through to the present, 

Pratt’s cell phone account was charged for multiple unwanted mobile content services from 

Defendants. 

28. At no time did Pratt authorize the purchase of these products and services offered 

by defendants and at no time did Pratt consent to Defendants’ sending the corresponding text 

messages to his telephone number. 

29. At no time did Pratt authorize Alltel, Predicto, or anyone else to bill him for these 

charges. After Pratt first became aware of the unauthorized charges on his Alltel bill, he 

contacted the company on whose behalf defendants were charging him: Defendant 

PredictoMobile, LLC. After contacting Predicto to complaint of said charges, Plaintiff was 

informed that the service bill for which Predicto was billing him had been authorized in October 

2008, a date more than two months prior to when Plaintiff signed up with Alltel and received the 

6

Case 2:09-cv-13691-DPH-MAR Document 1 Filed 09/17/09 Page 6 of 13
phone number that was charged. Pratt could not possibly have authorized the charges for which 

he was being billed. 

30. Defendants have yet to provide Plaintiff a full refund of the unauthorized charges 

for data, text messages, premium text messages, interest and/or assurance that such unauthorized 

charges would not appear in future billing periods. 

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

31. Plaintiff brings this action, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf of himself 

and two classes, defined as follows: 

A. The Predicto class: All wireless telephone subscribers in the nation who 

were charged by Predicto for mobile content services where the date of authorization for 

such charges preceded the date that the telephone number was assigned to such 

subscriber by his or her wireless carrier. 

B. The Alltel class: All Alltel wireless telephone subscribers in the nation 

who were charged by Predicto for mobile content services where the date of authorization 

for such charges preceded the date that the telephone number was assigned to such 

subscriber by his or her wireless carrier. 

Excluded from both classes are the Defendants and their employees. 

32. Each class consists of hundreds or thousands of individuals and other entities, 

making joinder of their individual claims impractical. 

33. The claims of Plaintiff Pratt are typical of the claims of all of the other members 

of each class. The factual and legal bases of Defendants’ liability to Plaintiff and to the other 

members of the classes are the same, resulting in similar injury to the Plaintiff and all of the 

other members of the classes. 

7

Case 2:09-cv-13691-DPH-MAR Document 1 Filed 09/17/09 Page 7 of 13
34. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the other 

members of the classes. Plaintiff has retained counsel with substantial experience in prosecuting 

complex litigation and class actions. Plaintiff and his counsel are committed to vigorously 

prosecuting this action on behalf of the members of the classes and have the financial resources 

to do so. Neither Plaintiff nor his counsel has any interest adverse to those of the other members 

of the classes. 

35. Defendants have acted and failed to act on grounds generally applicable to 

Plaintiff and the other members of the classes, requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief 

to ensure compatible standards of conduct toward the members of the classes. 

36. There are many questions of law and fact common to the claims of plaintiff and 

the other members of the classes. Common questions for the Predicto class include but are not 

limited to the following: 

(a) Whether Predicto has unjustly received money belonging to Plaintiff and 

the Predicto class and whether under principles of equity and good conscience, it should 

be permitted to retain it; 

(b) Whether Predicto tortiously interfered with Plaintiff’s and the Predicto 

class’s contracts with their wireless carriers by causing them to be charged for products 

and services by their carrier that were authorized by the prior owner of their telephone 

number; 

37. Common questions for the Alltel class include but are not limited to the 

following: 

(a) Whether Alltel breached its contracts with Plaintiff and the Alltel class; 

(b) What remedies are appropriate against Alltel. 

8

Case 2:09-cv-13691-DPH-MAR Document 1 Filed 09/17/09 Page 8 of 13
38. The questions of law and fact common to the members of each class predominate 

over any questions affecting only individual members. 

39. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this controversy. Absent a class action, many members of the classes would find 

the cost of resolving their claims to be prohibitive and would have no effective remedy. Class 

treatment of common questions of law and fact conserves resources and promotes consistency 

and efficiency. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

Restitution / Unjust Enrichment 

(on behalf of plaintiff and the Predicto class) 

40. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth 

herein. 

41. A benefit has been conferred upon Predicto by Plaintiff and the Predicto class. 

Predicto has received and retains money belonging to plaintiff and the Predicto class resulting 

from its causing cellular telephone customers to be billed by their cellular carriers for mobile 

content services authorized to be purchased by the previous subscriber assigned such telephone 

numbers. 

42. Predicto appreciates or has knowledge of said benefit. 

43. Predicto unjustly gained money from plaintiff and the Predicto class as a direct 

result of Predicto’s conduct described herein. 

44. Under principles of equity and good conscience, Predicto should not be permitted 

to retain the money belonging to Plaintiff and the Predicto class that Predicto unjustly received 

as a result of its actions. 

9

Case 2:09-cv-13691-DPH-MAR Document 1 Filed 09/17/09 Page 9 of 13
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

Tortious Interference with a Contract 

(on behalf of plaintiff and the Predicto class) 

45. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth 

herein. 

46. Plaintiff and the Predicto class had substantially uniform contractual relationships 

with their wireless carriers whereby they agreed to pay a certain sum of money in exchange for 

activation of their cellular telephone accounts and their carriers’ promise to provide various 

communication and related services to Plaintiff and the Predicto class and to bill Plaintiff and the 

Predicto class only for products or services the purchase of which they had authorized. 

47. Predicto knew of these contractual relationships and intended to and did induce a 

breach or disruption of the contractual relationships. 

48. Predicto intentionally interfered with said contractual relationships through 

improper motives and/or means by knowingly and/or recklessly repeatedly causing unauthorized 

charges to be placed on the cellular telephone bills of cellular telephone owners across the 

nation. 

49. Plaintiff and the Predicto class have suffered financial loss as a direct result of 

Predicto’s conduct. 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 

Breach of Contract 

(on behalf of plaintiff and the Alltel class) 

50. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth 

herein. 

51. Plaintiff and the Alltel class entered into substantially identical agreements with 

Alltel whereby plaintiff agreed to pay a certain sum of money in exchange for Alltel’s activation 

10

Case 2:09-cv-13691-DPH-MAR Document 1 Filed 09/17/09 Page 10 of 13
of Plaintiff’s cellular telephone accounts and its promise to provide various communication and 

related services to Plaintiff and the Alltel class. 

52. Alltel expressly and/or impliedly agreed to provide Plaintiff and the Alltel class 

with a cellular telephone number free of charges for third-party products and services authorized 

only by the previous subscriber and not the subsequent subscriber. 

53. Alltel further expressly and/or impliedly agreed to bill Plaintiff and the Alltel 

class only for products or services the purchase of which they had authorized. 

54. Alltel further expressly and/or impliedly agreed to carry out its obligations with 

good faith and fair dealing. 

55. Alltel breached its contractual obligations, including its contractual obligation of 

good faith and fair dealing, by billing Plaintiff and the Alltel class for products or services the 

purchase of which was never authorized by the current customer. 

56. Plaintiff and the Alltel class have performed their obligations under the contracts. 

57. Alltel breached and continues to breach its contracts with Plaintiff and the Alltel 

class through its conduct as set forth herein. 

58. Alltel, through its breaches, caused and continues to cause actual damages to 

plaintiff and members of the Alltel class. 

59. Plaintiff and the members of the Alltel class ask that this Court enjoin Alltel from 

continuing its practice of breaching its contracts as described herein. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Tony Pratt, on behalf of himself and the classes, prays for the 

following relief: 

11

Case 2:09-cv-13691-DPH-MAR Document 1 Filed 09/17/09 Page 11 of 13
A. Certify this case as a class action on behalf of the classes described above; appoint 

Pratt as class representative; and appoint his counsel as class counsel; 

B. Declare that the actions of Predicto, as set out above, result in unjust enrichment, 

constitute tortious interference with a contract; 

C. Declare that the actions of Alltel, as set out above, constitute breaches of contract; 

D. Enter judgment against defendants for all damages caused by their conduct and, 

with respect to Predicto; 

E. Award restitution against Predicto for all money that it has to which Plaintiff and 

the Predicto class are entitled in equity; 

F. Award Plaintiff and the classes their reasonable litigation expenses and attorneys’ 

fees, to the extent allowable; 

G. Award Plaintiff and the classes pre- and post-judgment interest, to the extent 

allowable; 

H. Enter injunctive and/or declaratory relief as is necessary to protect the interests of 

Plaintiff and the classes; and 

I. Award such other and further relief as equity and justice may require. 

12

Case 2:09-cv-13691-DPH-MAR Document 1 Filed 09/17/09 Page 12 of 13
13

JURY DEMAND 

Plaintiff requests a trial by jury of all issues so triable. 

 

 Respectfully submitted, 

LAW OFFICES OF FREEDMAN & FREEDMAN, PLC

 BY:______________________________________________ 

 MARK H. FREEDMAN (P47908) 

 Counsel for Plaintiffs

 24725 West 12 Mile Road, Suite 220 

 Southfield, MI 48034 

 (248) 799-9905 

 

 

Dated: September 17, 2009 

Case 2:09-cv-13691-DPH-MAR Document 1 Filed 09/17/09 Page 13 of 13