Supreme Court Asks Solicitor General about Truth-in-Billing Case
The Supreme Court asked the solicitor general for the federal govt.’s views on Sprint Nextel v. NASUCA. That could be good news for carriers that hope to see the 11th U.S. Appeals Court, Atlanta, truth-in-billing (TIB) decision overturned. The high court often listens to views of the solicitor when considering whether to hear a case. The fight pits wireless carriers and the FCC against NASUCA and NARUC.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
At issue in the case is the authority of the FCC rather than state commissions to regulate line items on bills sent to carriers. The court rejected a March 2005 FCC order that said state rules requiring or barring line items on mobile carrier bills are rate regulation preempted by federal law. “The alternative would have been denying [the case],” said a wireless industry lawyer: “The fact that the court asked the solicitor general for its views is favorable. In a significant majority of the cases where the solicitor general provides its views, the Supreme Court will follow that.” Another lawyer said: “The fact that they've reached out to the solicitor general means they're more serious about hearing the case.”
Billing remains a focus of the FCC. Chmn. Martin has indicated the FCC likely will act this year on petitions by CTIA and SunCom asking the agency to determine that early termination fees (ETFs) in wireless carriers’ service contracts are “rates charged” for service and exempt from state regulation under Sec. 332 of the Communications Act.
SunCom indicated in a filing at the FCC that Consumer & Govt. Affairs Bureau aides had asked how to weigh the 11th Circuit decision against the ETF proceeding. “SunCom clarifies that the 11th Circuit’s decision in NASUCA to reverse the Commission’s 2nd truth-in-billing order in no way limits the Commission’s authority to define ETFs as ‘rates charged’ in the current proceeding,” SunCom said: “If anything, the 11th Circuit’s analysis reinforces SunCom’s and CTIA’s position that defining ETFs as ‘rates charged’ fits squarely within the Commission’s authority under Section 332. The NASUCA decision had nothing to do with ETFs or any other rates, rate elements, charges, or fees imposed on wireless customers.”