Supreme Court Refuses Truth-in-Billing Appeal
The Supreme Court refused Tuesday to hear an appeal by Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile of an 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision voiding a March 2005 FCC truth-in-billing order (CD Aug 2/06 p1). The Atlanta ruling was deemed a major setback for wireless carriers and a win for NARUC and NASUCA, which challenged the order. The FCC said state mandates or bans on line items in mobile carrier bills constitute rate regulation preempted by federal law. The Supreme Court refused the case without comment.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
In December, Solicitor General Paul Clement recommended against Supreme Court review, though he considers the decision wrong (CD Dec 26 p2). He said the FCC is considering whether “there are other bases” for preempting state oversight of line items in cellular phone bills. “For that reason, the decision below is not of sufficient continuing importance at present to warrant the Court’s attention,” he wrote.
“The Supreme Court is underscoring the important role that State commissioners play,” NARUC said Tuesday. “This decision is a big win for consumers and it ensures that their State regulatory commissions will remain on the customer- protection beat.”
“It would be a mistake to interpret this decision as an endorsement of increased state regulation of the wireless industry,” Sprint Nextel said. The ruling shows why Congress should “stand up for consumers” by reaffirming a national framework it articulated in 1993, it said, noting enactment that year of Communications Act amendments giving the FCC exclusive jurisdiction over wireless rates. That framework lets wireless carriers be transparent with consumers on taxes, surcharges and fees, the company added. The 1993 law left the wireless industry more competitive, prices lower, usage higher, and network quality better, it said.
“The scope of federal authority to regulate ‘rates’ or ‘entry’ does not include the presentation of line items on cellular wireless bills,” the appeals judges said, 3-0. “This billing practice is a matter of ‘other terms and conditions’ that Congress intended to be regulable by the states.” The court also said the FCC “exceeded its authority” in preempting states from requiring or prohibiting use of line items on bills carriers send customers.