47 C.F.R. § 52.107

Hoarding

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) As used in this section, hoarding is the acquisition by a toll free subscriber from a Responsible Organization of more toll free numbers than the toll free subscriber intends to use for the provision of toll free service. The definition of hoarding also includes number brokering, which is the selling of a toll free number by a private entity for a fee.

(1) Toll free subscribers shall not hoard toll free numbers.

(2) No person or entity shall acquire a toll free number for the purpose of selling the toll free number to another entity or to a person for a fee.

(3) Routing multiple toll free numbers to a single toll free subscriber will create a rebuttable presumption that the toll free subscriber is hoarding or brokering toll free numbers.

(b) Tariff Provision. The following provision shall be included in the Service Management System tariff and in the local exchange carriers' toll free database access tariffs:

[T]he Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) has concluded that hoarding, defined as the acquisition of more toll free numbers than one intends to use for the provision of toll free service, as well as the sale of a toll free number by a private entity for a fee, is contrary to the public interest in the conservation of the scarce toll free number resource and contrary to the FCC's responsibility to promote the orderly use and allocation of toll free numbers.

(c) Toll Free Numbers Assigned via Competitive Bidding. The provisions of this section shall not apply to toll free numbers assigned via competitive bidding or to numbers transferred under the exception to § 52.105 contained in paragraph (f) of that section.

[62 FR 20127, Apr. 25, 1997, as amended at 83 FR 53396, Oct. 23, 2018]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 2002–2014 · leading case: Bus. Edge Grp., Inc. v. Champion Mortg. Co., 519 F.3d 150 (3rd Cir. 2008).
Bus. Edge Grp., Inc. v. Champion Mortg. Co., 519 F.3d 150 (3rd Cir. 2008). · cites it 17× “The following month, Champion sent Business Edge a letter stating that the contract violated an FCC regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 52.107 , and demanded reimbursement for the payments that had been made on the contract.”
Hammann v. 1-800 Ideas. Com, Inc., 455 F. Supp. 2d 942 (D. Minnesota 2006). · cites it 4× “47 C.F.R. § 52.107 (emphasis added). Thus, hoarding occurs where (1) a subscriber, (2) “acquires” a toll free number, (3) that he does not “intendf ]to use for the provision of toll free service.”
Curtis P. Jahn & Capitol Warehousing Corp. v. 1-800-flowers.com, Inc., Fresh Intellectual Props., Inc., & 800-Flowers, Inc., 284 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “The district court concluded that the royalty interest reflects at least in part the value of the 800-FLOWERS number and constitutes a sale proscribed by the 1997 regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 52.107 (a), even though a stock interest of equivalent economic value would be lawful today.”
In the Matter Of: Starnet, Inc., Debtor-Appellee Appeal Of: Global Naps, Inc. Global Naps Realty, Inc. & Global Naps Networks, Inc., 355 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 2004). “47 C.F.R. § 52.107 (a); see also Jahn v. 1-800-FLOWERS.”
Cmty. Voice Line, L.L.C. v. Great Lakes Commc'n Corp., 18 F. Supp. 3d 966 (N.D. Iowa 2014). “” (citing 47 C.F.R. § 52.107 (a) and Jahn v. 1-800-FLOWERS.”
Bus Edge Grp v. Champion Mtg (3rd Cir. 2008). · cites it 17× “The following month, Champion sent Business Edge a letter stating that the contract violated an FCC regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 52.107 , and demanded reimbursement for the payments that had been made on the contract.”
Starnet Inc v. Global Naps Inc (7th Cir. 2004). “47 C.F.R. §52.107 (a); see also Jahn v. 1-800-FLOWERS.”
— 47 C.F.R. § 52.107(a) — 2 cases
Bus. Edge Grp., Inc. v. Champion Mortg. Co., 519 F.3d 150 (3rd Cir. 2008). “The following month, Champion sent Business Edge a letter stating that the contract violated an FCC regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 52.107 , and demanded reimbursement for the payments that had been made on the contract.”
Bus Edge Grp v. Champion Mtg (3rd Cir. 2008). “The following month, Champion sent Business Edge a letter stating that the contract violated an FCC regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 52.107 , and demanded reimbursement for the payments that had been made on the contract.”
— 47 C.F.R. § 52.107(a)(1) — 2 cases
Bus. Edge Grp., Inc. v. Champion Mortg. Co., 519 F.3d 150 (3rd Cir. 2008). “The following month, Champion sent Business Edge a letter stating that the contract violated an FCC regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 52.107 , and demanded reimbursement for the payments that had been made on the contract.”
Bus Edge Grp v. Champion Mtg (3rd Cir. 2008). “The following month, Champion sent Business Edge a letter stating that the contract violated an FCC regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 52.107 , and demanded reimbursement for the payments that had been made on the contract.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.