Limitation of Liability

What it is

T-Mobile's responsibility for damages caused by service outages, dropped calls, or failures to connect emergency calls is severely limited — your maximum recovery from T-Mobile is generally capped at what you paid over the prior 12 months.

Why it matters (compliance & governance perspective)

If T-Mobile's service fails during an emergency or causes financial harm, the agreement limits T-Mobile's financial responsibility to your recent payments — which may be far less than the actual harm suffered.

Clause Stability Stable

Consumer impact (what this means for users)

If you experience a serious harm because T-Mobile's service was unavailable — including during an emergency — the agreement limits your financial recovery against T-Mobile to the amount you paid for service in the prior 12 months, and bars recovery for consequential or indirect damages entirely.

Institutional analysis (Compliance & governance intelligence)

REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: Limitations of liability in telecommunications service agreements are subject to FCC review under the Communications Act's just and reasonable service standards. The exclusion of liability for failure to connect emergency calls (911) engages specific FCC rules governing emergency service obligations of wireless carriers under 47 C.F.R. Part 20. Some state consumer protection statutes impose minimum liability standards that may override contractual limitations, particularly for personal injury or death caused by service failure. GOVERNANCE EXPOSURE: Medium. The exclusion of liability for emergency call failures is particularly notable given FCC rules requiring wireless carriers to transmit 911 calls without charge and to support location accuracy. While liability limitation clauses are standard across the telecommunications industry, the emergency call carve-out creates heightened regulatory and reputational exposure. Courts in several jurisdictions have refused to enforce liability limitations in cases involving personal injury or death resulting from service failures. JURISDICTION FLAGS: Several states, including New Jersey and Washington, have found broad liability limitation clauses in consumer service agreements to be unconscionable in cases involving personal injury. The 12-month cap on liability may be unenforceable in personal injury or wrongful death contexts in many jurisdictions regardless of the agreement's terms. California's consumer protection statutes may impose additional constraints. CONTRACT AND VENDOR IMPLICATIONS: Business customers relying on T-Mobile service for mission-critical operations (including emergency response, healthcare, or financial services) should evaluate whether the agreement's liability cap is compatible with their operational risk tolerance and whether supplemental insurance or contractual protections are needed. COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: The emergency call liability exclusion should be reviewed against current FCC emergency service obligations to confirm it does not purport to waive T-Mobile's regulatory duties — a contractual waiver of regulatory liability would not be enforceable against the FCC. Legal teams should monitor state court decisions regarding liability limitation enforceability in telecommunications contexts, particularly for personal injury scenarios.

Applicable agencies

Applicable regulations

Provision details

Other risks in this policy

• Mandatory Arbitration Clause high
• Class Action Waiver high
• Unilateral Right to Modify Terms medium
• CPNI Use and Marketing Opt-Out medium
• Service Suspension and Termination Rights medium
• Equipment Installment Plan and Early Payoff medium