What were the grounds of the CA judge's rulling on cell phone contracts?

Question

I hate getting locked into a long term cell phone contract as much as anyone, but at the end of the day it's a contract and I signed it so why should should I or anyone else be able to break the agreement penalty-free?

Apparently a judge in CA thought differently. All I can find is what was ruled(Early cancel fees are illegal), but no reasoning on WHY she ruled as such. Anyone have the details?

And to those who think the rulling is good for customers, walk into a cell phone store and look at the small print that shows how much the phones cost without a 1 or 2 year contract. That's what we'll all be paying for our phones if this ruling gains ground in the rest of the US. The long term contracts are the only way cell phones stay affordable.

Answer 1

Their is a reason given, the judge states that it violates state law.  It would be nice if they cited which law...

And you make a good point, it is a contract, which includes clauses outlining penalties for breach of contract.

I found this too, which is interesting, however irrelevant because it is a contract:

"Sprint did no damage analysis that considered the lost revenue from contracts, the avoidable costs and Sprint's expected lost profits from contract terminations," she said.

The reason why the fees exist is irrelevant; they are the terms of the breach of contract.  One can assume they are to make up for lost revenue, but they could just as easily be because the sky is blue.