Google Pixel 5 User Sues for Fraud, Breach of Contract After Losing 5G Access
After installing a software update for his Google Pixel 5 smartphone, plaintiff Steve Nichols, Fort Collins, Colorado, no longer had 5G service in locations where he previously did, alleged a Saturday fraud and breach of contract class action (docket 1:23-cv-01022) in U.S. District Court for Colorado in Denver.
After installing the update, the network signal regularly displayed an exclamation point instead of bars representing service, Nichols said. The complaint cited a March 25 article from Phone Arena saying Google's Pixel 4a (5G), Pixel 5 and Pixel 5a phones no longer have support for 5G stand-alone networks since the March update.
After the update, Nichols contacted his wireless carrier, Verizon, which confirmed the phone was 5G-capable. Verizon went through troubleshooting steps with Nichols and was unable to solve the problem, the customer said. The carrier confirmed there were no 5G network outages, said the complaint.
Nichols then contacted Google, whose representatives guided him through a phone reset, but the reset didn’t fix the issue, Nichols said. He asked the tech support rep if the March software update could have caused the problem and was told network access wouldn’t be related to a software update, the complaint said. The rep said issues were due either to a faulty SIM card or other hardware problems, it said.
The rep told Nichols to take his phone to a repair store, which confirmed the device didn’t have any hardware issues, the complaint said. Later in March, Nichols noticed his second Google Pixel 5 also showed it no longer had 5G coverage. The plaintiff used his phones often as Wi-Fi spots to log onto his computer while traveling for work, he said.
Nichols bought his first Pixel 5 in October 2020 for about $700 and paid more for it than he would have if he knew it “would not remain capable of accessing the 5G network,” said Nichols. He expected the phones to remain 5G-capable based on Google’s representations and wouldn't have paid as much without Google’s “false and misleading statements and omissions.”
In addition to violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, Nichols claims violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and unjust enrichment. He seeks injunctive relief to remove, correct and/or refrain Google from the challenged practices; statutory and/or punitive damages; attorneys’ fees and legal costs. Google didn’t comment Monday.