The telecom industry's SEC filings say alot:
VERIZON:
We are subject to a significant amount of litigation, which could require us to pay significant damages or settlements.
Our business faces a substantial amount of litigation, including, from time to time, patent infringement lawsuits, antitrust class actions, wage and hour class actions, personal injury claims and lawsuits relating to our advertising, sales, billing and collection practices.
In addition, our wireless business also faces personal injury and consumer class action lawsuits relating to alleged health effects of wireless phones or radio frequency transmitters, and class action lawsuits that challenge marketing practices and disclosures relating to alleged adverse health effects of handheld wireless phones. We may incur significant expenses in defending these lawsuits. In addition, we may be required to pay significant awards or settlements.
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011
Verizon Communications Inc.
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC (Form: 10-K, Received: 02/24/2012 15:11:42)
..............
SPRINT NEXTEL:
Concerns about health risks associated with wireless equipment may reduce the demand for our services.
Portable communications devices have been alleged to pose health risks, including cancer, due to radio frequency emissions from these devices. Purported class actions and other lawsuits have been filed against numerous wireless carriers, including us, seeking not only damages but also remedies that could increase our cost of doing business. We cannot be sure of the outcome of those cases or affected by litigation of this nature or public perception about health risks. The actual or perceived risk of mobile communications devices could adversely affect us through a reduction in subscribers, reduced network usage per subscriber or reduced financing available to the mobile communications industry. Further research and studies are ongoing, and we cannot guarantee that additional studies will not demonstrate a link between radio frequency emissions and health concerns.
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010
Commission file number 1-04721
SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION
http://investors.sprint.com/Cache/11...=&FID=10793990
....
NOKIA:
Allegations of possible health risks from the electromagnetic fields generated by base stations and mobile devices, and the lawsuits and publicity relating to this matter, regardless of merit, could have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations, share price, reputation and brand value by leading consumers to reduce their use of mobile devices, by increasing difficulty in obtaining sites for base stations, or by leading regulatory bodies to set arbitrary use restrictions and exposure limits, or by causing us to allocate additional monetary and personnel resources to these issues.
There has been public speculation about possible health risks to individuals from exposure to electromagnetic fields from base stations and from the use of mobile devices. A substantial amount of scientific research conducted to date by various independent research bodies has indicated that these radio signals, at levels within the limits prescribed by safety standards set by, and recommendations of, public health authorities, present no adverse effect on human health. We cannot, however, be certain that future studies, irrespective of their scientific basis, will not suggest a link between electromagnetic fields and adverse health effects that could have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and share price. Research into these issues is ongoing by government agencies, international health organizations and other scientific bodies in order to develop a better scientific and public understanding of these issues.
Over the past ten years Nokia has been involved in several class action matters alleging that Nokia and other manufacturers and cellular service providers failed to properly warn consumers of alleged potential adverse health effects and failed to include headsets with every handset to reduce the potential for alleged adverse health effects. All but one of these cases have been withdrawn or dismissed, with one dismissal currently on appeal. In addition, Nokia and other mobile device manufacturers and cellular service providers were named in five lawsuits by individual plaintiffs who allege that radio emissions from mobile phones caused or contributed to each plaintiff's brain tumor.
Although Nokia products are designed to meet all relevant safety standards and recommendations globally, we cannot guarantee we will not become subject to product liability claims or be held liable for such claims or be required to comply with future regulatory changes in this area that could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even a perceived risk of adverse health effects of mobile devices or base stations could have a material adverse effect on us through a reduction in sales of mobile devices or increased difficulty in obtaining sites for base stations, and could have a material adverse effect on our reputation and brand value, results of operations as well as share price.
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010. Commission file number 1-13202
Nokia Corporation
e20vf
....
MOTOROLA
Allegations of health risks with using Motorola Mobility products, and the lawsuits and publicity relating to them, regardless of merit, could negatively impact our business, operating cash flows and financial condition.
Assertions about health and safety, hazardous materials usage and other environmental concerns related to using Motorola Mobility products could adversely impact our business, operating cash flows and financial condition.
Adverse factual developments or lawsuits against us, or even the perceived risk of adverse health effects from chemical or physical agents associated with the use of smartphones or other devices we sell could negatively impact sales, subject us to costly litigation and/or harm our reputation, business, operating cash flows and financial condition.
There has been public speculation about possible health risks to individuals from exposure to radio frequency energy from the use of mobile devices. Government agencies, international health organizations and other scientific bodies are currently conducting research into these issues. In addition, we have been named in individual plaintiff and class action lawsuits alleging that radio frequency emissions from mobile phones have caused or contributed to brain tumors, and that the use of mobile phones poses a health risk.
There has been significant scientific research by various independent research bodies that has indicated that exposure to electromagnetic fields or to radio frequency energy, at levels within the limits prescribed by public health authority standards and recommendations, presents no known adverse effect to human health. Nevertheless, there can be no assurance that other studies will not suggest or identify a link between electromagnetic fields or radio frequency energy and adverse health effects or that we will not be the subject of future lawsuits relating to this issue. See "Item 3. Legal Proceedings".
Item 3: Legal Proceedings
Personal Injury Cases
Cases relating to Wireless Telephone Usage
Farina v. Nokia, Inc., et al.
On April 19, 2001, Farina v. Nokia, Inc., et al., was filed in the
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County. Farina, filed
on behalf of a Pennsylvania class, claimed that the failure to
incorporate a remote headset into cellular phones or warning against
using a phone without a headset rendered the phones defective by
exposing users to alleged biological injury and health risks and
sought compensatory damages and injunctive relief. After removal to
federal court, transfer and consolidation with now-dismissed similar
cases, an appeal, remand to state court and a second removal, the case
proceeded in the federal district court in Philadelphia. The original
complaint was amended to add allegations that cellular telephones sold
without headsets are defective because they present a safety risk when
used while driving. In the current complaint, Plaintiff seeks actual
damages in the form of the greater of $100 or the difference in value
of a Motorola phone as delivered and with a headset, the amount
necessary to modify the phones to permit safe use, out of pocket
expenses, including the purchase of headsets, treble damages and
attorney's fees and costs. On September 2, 2008, the federal district
court in Philadelphia dismissed the Farina case, finding that the
complaint is preempted by federal law. On October 22, 2010, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the
complaint. On February 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed a petition for writ
of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. On October 3, 2011, the U.S.
Supreme Court denied plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari. The
decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing the complaint is final.
The Murray Cases
During 2001 and 2002, several cases were filed in the Superior Court
of the District of Columbia alleging that use of a cellular phone
caused a malignant brain tumor: Murray v. Motorola, Inc., et al.,
filed November 15, 2001; Agro, et al. v. Motorola, Inc., et al., filed
February 26, 2002; Cochran, et al. v. Audiovox Corporation, et al.,
filed February 26, 2002, and Schofield, et al. v. Matsu****a Electric
Corporation of America, et al., filed February 26, 2002 (collectively
the "Murray cases"). Each complaint seeks compensatory damages in
excess of $25 million, consequential damages in excess of $25 million
and punitive and/or exemplary damages in excess of $100 million. After
removal to federal court, transfer, consolidation and remand, the
defendants moved to dismiss the Murray cases on November 30, 2004. On
August 24, 2007, the Superior Court granted the defendants' motion and
dismissed the cases with prejudice on federal preemption grounds. On
September 20, 2007, Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the District
of Columbia Court of Appeals.
On October 30, 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in
part and reversed the decision in part. The Court affirmed dismissal
of claims challenging the adequacy of the FCC's Standards on conflict
preemption grounds. The Court also held that Plaintiffs' claims may
not be preempted to the extent they are based on allegations that
their injuries were caused by wireless phones that did not comply with
the FCC's Radio Frequency ("RF") exposure standards passed in 1996
(regardless of when Plaintiffs purchased their phones). The Court
further held that claims asserted under DC Code Section 28-3904 (DC
unlawful trade practices act) alleging that defendants provided false
and misleading information about cell phones or omitted to disclose
material information may not be preempted if Plaintiffs are able to
base their claims on allegations that do not challenge the adequacy of
the FCC's safety standards. The Court remanded the cases to the
Superior Court.
On May 3, 2010, Plaintiffs filed amended complaints. Plaintiffs'
amended complaints assert the same claims raised in their previous
complaints but purport to limit their claims to those involving: (1)
phones manufactured before the FCC adopted its Specific Absorption
Rate standards in 1996; (2) post-1996 phones that do not comply with
the FCC's standards; and (3) allegedly non-preempted claims sounding
in misrepresentation, non-disclosure, and failure to warn. Plaintiffs
have not changed their allegations regarding the Motorola phones they
allegedly purchased and used, other than to assert that none of the
Motorola phones they purportedly purchased was compliant with the
FCC's Specific Absorption Rate standards. Plaintiffs seek the same
damages as in the original complaints.
On August 31, 2011, plaintiffs filed amended complaints, dropping
claims related to District of Columbia's Consumer Protection
Procedures Act and retained other claims. Plaintiffs' amended
complaint seeks the same damages as the initial complaint discussed
above.
The Marks Case
On May 5, 2010, Alan and Ellen Marks filed suit in the Superior Court
of the District of Columbia, Alan Marks, et. al v. Motorola, Inc., et.
al., alleging that use of a cellular phone caused Alan Marks'
malignant brain tumor ("Marks Case"). The complaint is based on the
same legal theories and factual allegations as the Murray cases and
seeks compensatory damages of $25 million, consequential damages in
excess of $25 million and punitive and/or exemplary damages of $100
million. On August 31, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
based on the August 31, 2011 Murray complaint.
The Kidd Case
On October 22, 2010, Shawn and Alisha Kidd filed suit in the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia, Shawn Kidd, et. al. v. Motorola,
Inc., et. al., alleging that use of a cellular phone caused Shawn
Kidd's malignant brain tumor ("Kidd Case"). The complaint is based on
the same legal theories and factual allegations as the Murray cases
and seeks compensatory damages of $25 million, consequential damages
in excess of $25 million and punitive and/or exemplary damages of $100
million. On August 31, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
based on the August 31, 2011 Murray complaint.
The Prischman Case
On March 21, 2011, the Estate of Paul Prischman filed suit in the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Prischman et. al. v.
Motorola, Inc., et. al., alleging that use of a cellular phone caused
Paul Prischman's malignant brain tumor. ("Prischman Case."). The
complaint seeks compensatory damages of $25 million, consequential
damages in excess of $25 million and punitive and/or exemplary damages
of $100 million. On August 31, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint based on the August 31, 2011 Murray complaint.
The Bocook Case
On March 31, 2011, Bret Bocook and his wife filed suit in the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia, Bocook et. al. v. Motorola, Inc.,
et. al., alleging that use of a cellular phone caused Bret Bocook's
malignant brain tumor. ("Bocook Case."). The Bocook plaintiffs assert
the same causes of action and demand the same relief as the Murray
plaintiffs and also assert claims under the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act and the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act. The case was transferred to the same judge handling the
Murray cases. On September 14, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint.
The Solomon case
On October 27, 2011, Andrew and Monique Solomon filed suit in the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Solomon v. Motorola, et
al, Case No. 11CA8472B, alleging that use of a cellular phone caused
his malignant brain tumor ("Solomon Case"). The complaint is based on
the same legal theories and factual allegations as the Murray cases
and seeks compensatory damages in excess of $50 million, consequential
damages in excess of $50 million and unspecified punitive and/or
exemplary damages. The Solomon case has no claims for consumer
protection act violations. On December 19, 2011, the Solomon case was
transferred to the same judge handling the Murray cases.
Dahlgren v. Motorola, Inc., et al.
On September 9, 2002, Dahlgren v. Motorola, Inc., et al., was filed in
the D.C. Superior Court containing class claims alleging deceptive and
misleading actions by defendants for failing to disclose the alleged
"debate" related to the safety of wireless phones reflected in studies
that allegedly show wireless phones can cause harm. On December 9,
2005, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in Dahlgren. On March 5,
2008, the court stayed Dahlgren pending the outcome of Murray v.
Motorola, Inc., et al. After the Murray decision, the Court lifted the
stay and the Plaintiff amended the complaint to remove the class
allegations and sue in a representative capacity on behalf of the
General Public of the District of Columbia. Dahlgren seeks treble
damages or statutory damages in the amount of $1,500 per violation,
whichever is greater, disgorgement of profits, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees, costs or disbursements. On July 8, 2010, the court
granted Defendant's motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part.
The court dismissed claims asserting that Defendants failed to
disclose the "safety debate" regarding cellular telephones and certain
claims pre-dating October 2000. The court denied Defendants' argument
that federal preemption barred Plaintiff's claims in their entirety.
Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint on September 21, 2010.
Yigdal Goldstein v. Partner Communications Company Limited v. Motorola
Mobility Israel (2010) Ltd.
In May 2010, Yigdal Goldstein filed suit before the Central District
Court in Petach Tikva in Israel against Partner Communications Company
Limited, a cellular phone distributor, asserting that his use of
Samsung and Motorola cellular phones caused his cancer, lymphoma.
Partner filed a third party notice, the equivalent of a third party
complaint, against Motorola Mobility Israel (2010) Ltd. ("Motorola
Israel"), a subsidiary of Motorola Mobility, Inc., claiming that
Motorola Israel was the proper defendant because it manufactured the
cellular phone. Partner subsequently served Motorola Israel with the
complaint and Motorola Israel answered on December 1, 2011. Plaintiff
seeks damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of $650,000.
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011
MOTOROLA MOBILITY HOLDINGS, INC.
Form 10-K
.....
AT&T
Risk factors:
* The outcome of pending, threatened or potential litigation, including patent and product safety claims by or against third parties.
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011
AT&T INC.
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....I1L3htbA%3d%3d
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
