C.F.R. » Title 47 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION › SUBCHAPTER B—COMMON CARRIER SERVICES › PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS › Subpart Y—Truth-in-Billing Requirements for Common Carriers; Billing for Unauthorized Charges

47 C.F.R. § 64.2401

Truth-in-Billing Requirements

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

(a) Bill organization. Telephone bills shall be clearly organized, and must comply with the following requirements:

(1) The name of the service provider associated with each charge must be clearly and conspicuously identified on the telephone bill.

(2) Where charges for two or more carriers appear on the same telephone bill, the charges must be separated by service provider.

(3) Carriers that place on their telephone bills charges from third parties for non-telecommunications services must place those charges in a distinct section of the bill separate from all carrier charges. Charges in each distinct section of the bill must be separately subtotaled. These separate subtotals for carrier and non-carrier charges also must be clearly and conspicuously displayed along with the bill total on the payment page of a paper bill or equivalent location on an electronic bill. For purposes of this subparagraph “equivalent location on an electronic bill” shall mean any location on an electronic bill where the bill total is displayed and any location where the bill total is displayed before the bill recipient accesses the complete electronic bill, such as in an electronic mail message notifying the bill recipient of the bill and an electronic link or notice on a Web site or electronic payment portal.

(4) The telephone bill must clearly and conspicuously identify any change in service provider, including identification of charges from any new service provider. For purpose of this subparagraph “new service provider” means a service provider that did not bill the subscriber for service during the service provider's last billing cycle. This definition shall include only providers that have continuing relationships with the subscriber that will result in periodic charges on the subscriber's bill, unless the service is subsequently canceled.

(b) Descriptions of billed charges. Charges contained on telephone bills must be accompanied by a brief, clear, non-misleading, plain language description of the service or services rendered. The description must be sufficiently clear in presentation and specific enough in content so that customers can accurately assess that the services for which they are billed correspond to those that they have requested and received, and that the costs assessed for those services conform to their understanding of the price charged.

(c) “Deniable” and “Non-Deniable” Charges. Where a bill contains charges for basic local service, in addition to other charges, the bill must distinguish between charges for which non-payment will result in disconnection of basic, local service, and charges for which non-payment will not result in such disconnection. The carrier must explain this distinction to the customer, and must clearly and conspicuously identify on the bill those charges for which non-payment will not result in disconnection of basic, local service. Carriers may also elect to devise other methods of informing consumers on the bill that they may contest charges prior to payment.

(d) Clear and conspicuous disclosure of inquiry contacts. Telephone bills must contain clear and conspicuous disclosure of any information that the subscriber may need to make inquiries about, or contest, charges on the bill. Common carriers must prominently display on each bill a toll-free number or numbers by which subscribers may inquire or dispute any charges on the bill. A carrier may list a toll-free number for a billing agent, clearinghouse, or other third party, provided such party possesses sufficient information to answer questions concerning the subscriber's account and is fully authorized to resolve the consumer's complaints on the carrier's behalf. Where the subscriber does not receive a paper copy of his or her telephone bill, but instead accesses that bill only by e-mail or internet, the carrier may comply with this requirement by providing on the bill an e-mail or web site address. Each carrier must make a business address available upon request from a consumer.

(e) Definition of clear and conspicuous. For purposes of this section, “clear and conspicuous” means notice that would be apparent to the reasonable consumer.

(f) Blocking of third-party charges. (1) Carriers that offer subscribers the option to block third-party charges from appearing on telephone bills must clearly and conspicuously notify subscribers of this option at the point of sale and on each carrier's Web site.

(2) Carriers that offer subscribers the option to block third-party charges from appearing on telephone bills must clearly and conspicuously notify subscribers of this option on each telephone bill.

(g) Prohibition against unauthorized charges. Carriers shall not place or cause to be placed on any telephone bill charges that have not been authorized by the subscriber.

[64 FR 34497, June 25, 1999, as amended at 65 FR 43258, July 13, 2000; 76 FR 63563, Oct. 13, 2011; 77 FR 30919, May 24, 2012; 77 FR 71354, Nov. 30, 2012; 83 FR 33143, July 17, 2018]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2006–2025 · leading case: Beattie v. CenturyTel, Inc., 511 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Beattie v. CenturyTel, Inc., 511 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2007). · cites it 6× “§ 201 (b) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401 . The district court certified Plaintiffs-Appellees’ claims and granted Plaintiffs-Appellees judgment on the pleadings as to Count I.”
Beattie v. Centurytel, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 160 (E.D. Mich. 2006). · cites it 8× “§§ 201 (b), 206, and 207, as well as the FCC’s Truth-in-Billing regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401 ; Count 2 claims that the defendant’s activities constitute “cramming” contrary to these same statutes and rules; Count 3 seeks declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 47 U.”
In Re Nos Commc'ns, Mdl No. 1357, 495 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “47 C.F.R. § 64.2401 (b). The district court was correct in holding that the Truth-in-Billing regulation cannot be retroactively applied, and we affirm the district court's dismissal of the Truth-in-Billing claims asserted by Omnipure, Hudson, Honeymoon, Kids and Enns.”
BellSouth Telecomm., Inc. v. Farris, 542 F.3d 499 (6th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “It says that "[t]elephone bills shall be clearly organized," 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401 (a), and that "[c]harges contained on telephone bills must be accompanied by a brief, clear, non-misleading, plain language" statement, id.”
Nat'l Ass'n of State Util. Consum. Advocates v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 457 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2006). “at 6456 ¶ 16; see also 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401 (b). The Commission found that “the increasing number of consumer complaints to this Commission and state regulatory agencies regarding wireless billing practices provides empirical evidence that application of the truth-in-billing…”
All. Commc'ns Coop., Inc. v. Global Crossing Telecomm., Inc., 663 F. Supp. 2d 807 (D.S.D. 2009). · cites it 2× “The description must be sufficiently clear in presentation and specific enough in content so that customers can accurately assess that the services for which they are billed correspond to those that they have requested and received, and that the costs assessed for those services…”
In Re Universal Serv. Fund Tel. Billing, 619 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2010). “" 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401 (b) (emphasis added); see Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd.”
In re Long-Distance Tel. Serv. Fed. Excise Tax Refund Litig., 539 F. Supp. 2d 281 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “§ 201 (b) and Truth-In-Billing regulation 47 C.F.R. 64.2401(b), and seeks restitution, a refund of sums paid, and injunctive relief.”
Frida Sirota v. NECC Telecom, 310 F. App'x 804 (6th Cir. 2009). “§§ 201 (b), 206 and 207; 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401 . Thus, these new claims did not substantially change the theory or scope of the plaintiffs’ claims.”
Kathleen Lowden v. T-Mobile USA Inc., 378 F. App'x 693 (9th Cir. 2010). “” 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401 (b); IN THE MATTER OF TR UTH-IN-BILLING AND BILLING FORMAT, 20 F.”
Vonderhaar v. At&T Mobility Servs., LLC, 372 F. Supp. 3d 497 (E.D. Ky. 2019). “; (b) Truth-in-Billing Requirements, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401 ; (c) KRS §§ 278.535, .”
Fisher v. Nos Commc'ns, 495 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “47 C.F.R. § 64.2401 (b). The district court was correct in holding that the Truth-in-Billing regulation cannot be retroactively applied, and we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the Truth-in-Billing claims asserted by Omnipure, Hudson, Honeymoon, Kids and Enns.”
Show all 30 citing cases →
— 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401(b) — 2 cases
In re Long-Distance Tel. Serv. Fed. Excise Tax Refund Litig., 539 F. Supp. 2d 281 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “§ 201 (b) and Truth-In-Billing regulation 47 C.F.R. 64.2401(b), and seeks restitution, a refund of sums paid, and injunctive relief.”
In Re Long-Distance Tele. Serv. Fed. Excise Tax, 539 F. Supp. 2d 287 (D.D.C. 2008).
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.