Iowa Code » Chapter 476 — PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATION
Iowa Code

Iowa Code § 476.103 (2026)

Unauthorized change in service — civil penalty

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. Notwithstanding the deregulation of a communications service or facility under section 476.1D, the commission may adopt rules to protect consumers from unauthorized changes in telecommunications service. Such rules shall not impose undue restrictions upon competition in telecommunications markets.

2. As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:

a. “Change in service” means the designation of a new provider of a telecommunications service to a consumer, including the initial selection of a service provider, and includes the addition or deletion of a telecommunications service for which a separate charge is made to a consumer account.

b. “Consumer” means a person other than a service provider who uses a telecommunications service.

c. “Executing service provider” means, with respect to any change in telecommunications service, a service provider who executes an order for a change in service received from another service provider.

d. “Service provider” means a person providing a telecommunications service.

e. “Submitting service provider” means a service provider who requests another service provider to execute a change in service.

f. “Telecommunications service” means a local exchange or long distance telephone service other than commercial mobile radio service.

3. The commission shall adopt rules prohibiting an unauthorized change in telecommunications service. The rules shall be consistent with federal communications commission regulations regarding procedures for verification of customer authorization of a change in service. The rules, at a minimum, shall provide for all of the following:

a. (1) A submitting service provider shall obtain verification of customer authorization of a change in service before submitting such change in service.

(2) Verification appropriate under the circumstances for all other changes in service.

(3) The verification may be in written, oral, or electronic form and may be performed by a qualified third party.

(4) The reasonable time period during which the verification is to be retained, as determined by the commission.

b. A customer shall be notified of any change in service.

c. Appropriate compensation for a customer affected by an unauthorized change in service.

d. Commission determination of potential liability, including assessment of damages, for unauthorized changes in service among the customer, previous service provider, executing service provider, and submitting service provider.

e. A provision encouraging service providers to resolve customer complaints without involvement of the commission.

f. The prompt reversal of unauthorized changes in service.

g. Procedures for a customer, service provider, or the consumer advocate to submit to the commission complaints of unauthorized changes in service.

4. a. In addition to any applicable civil penalty set out in section 476.51, a service provider who violates a provision of this section, a rule adopted pursuant to this section, or an order lawfully issued by the commission pursuant to this section, is subject to a civil penalty, which, after notice and opportunity for hearing, may be levied by the commission, of not more than ten thousand dollars per violation. Each violation is a separate offense.

b. A civil penalty may be compromised by the commission. In determining the amount of the penalty, or the amount agreed upon in a compromise, the commission may consider the size of the service provider, the gravity of the violation, any history of prior violations by the service provider, remedial actions taken by the service provider, the nature of the conduct of the service provider, and any other relevant factors. \n Tue Dec 09 22:08:33 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 476 (110, 2) §476.103, PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATION 58\n\n c. A civil penalty collected pursuant to this subsection shall be forwarded by the chief operating officer of the commission to the treasurer of state to be credited to the commerce revolving fund created in section 546.12 and to be used only for consumer education programs administered by the commission.

d. A penalty paid by a rate-of-return regulated utility pursuant to this section shall be excluded from the utility’s costs when determining the utility’s revenue requirement, and shall not be included either directly or indirectly in the utility’s rates or charges to its customers.

e. The commission shall not commence an administrative proceeding to impose a civil penalty under this section for acts subject to a civil enforcement action pending in court under section 714D.7.

5. If the commission determines, after notice and opportunity for hearing, that a service provider has shown a pattern of violations of the rules adopted pursuant to this section, the commission may by order do any of the following:

a. Prohibit any other service provider from billing charges to residents of Iowa on behalf of the service provider determined to have engaged in such a pattern of violations.

b. Prohibit certificated local exchange service providers from providing exchange access services to the service provider.

c. Limit the billing or access services prohibition under paragraph “a” or “b” to a period of time. Such prohibition may be withdrawn upon a showing of good cause.

d. Revoke the certificate of public convenience and necessity of a local exchange service provider.

6. The commission has primary jurisdiction over a complaint pursuant to this section initiated by a service provider.

7. Subsection 6 does not preclude proceedings before the federal communications commission to enforce applicable federal law. However, a service provider or a consumer, for the same alleged acts, shall not pursue a complaint both before the federal communications commission and pursuant to this section.

8. The commission shall adopt competitively neutral rules establishing procedures for the solicitation, imposition, and lifting of preferred carrier freezes. A valid preferred carrier freeze prevents a change in service unless the subscriber gives the service provider from whom the freeze was requested the subscriber’s express consent. 99 Acts, ch 16, §1; 2009 Acts, ch 181, §51; 2018 Acts, ch 1160, §21; 2023 Acts, ch 19, §2680; 2024 Acts, ch 1170, §369 Referred to in §476.1B, 476.95A, 714D.6\n\n SUBCHAPTER XVIII SEVERABILITY \n

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 2006–2020 · leading case: Evercom Sys., Inc. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 805 N.W.2d 758 (Iowa 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Evercom Sys., Inc. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 805 N.W.2d 758 (Iowa 2011). · cites it 40× “The issue in this case concerns the proper construction of Iowa Code section 476.103 (2005) and Iowa Administrative Code rule 199-22.”
Nextera Energy Resources LLC v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 815 N.W.2d 30 (Iowa 2012). · cites it 14× “We first had to determine the appropriate standard of review for the “Board’s interpretation of the term ‘unauthorized change in service’ under Iowa Code section 476.103, and the Board’s interpretation of the definition of ‘cramming’ as that term is defined in Iowa…”
Off. of Consum. Advocate v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 744 N.W.2d 640 (Iowa 2008). · cites it 18× “” Iowa Code § 476.103 (3). The legislature required the rules to “be consistent with federal communications commission regulations regarding procedures for verification of customer authorization of a change in service.”
Hawkeye Land Co. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 847 N.W.2d 199 (Iowa 2014). · cites it 6× “In cases involving section 476.103, we have held the legislature clearly vested IUB with interpretive authority.”
Off. of Consum. Advocate v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 770 N.W.2d 334 (Iowa 2009). · cites it 20× “Iowa Code § 476.103 . Having docketed OCA petitions for civil penalties under section 476.”
Sz Enter., LLC D/B/A Eagle Point Solar v. Iowa Utils. Bd., a Div. of the Dep't of Com., State of Iowa, 850 N.W.2d 441 (Iowa 2014). · cites it 6× “2d at 643 (“unauthorized-change-in-service” in 19 section 476.103), we can determine the scope of the legislatively defined terms in this case without any unusual expertise.”
The Waldinger Corp., Emcasco Ins. Co., & Second Injury Fund of Iowa v. Michael B. Mettler, 817 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2012). · cites it 4× “Iowa Utilities Board, we concluded the legislature’s directive to “adopt rules prohibiting an unauthorized change in telecommunication service” evidenced a clear 12 vesting of authority in the Iowa Utilities Board to interpret the unauthorized-change-in-service provisions in…”
OCMC, Inc. v. Norris, 428 F. Supp. 2d 930 (S.D. Iowa 2006). · cites it 8× “Specifically, One Call asserts that Iowa Code § 476.103 and 199 Iowa Administrative Code Rule 22.”
Off. Of Consum. Advocate Vs. Iowa Utils. Bd. (Iowa 2009). · cites it 17× “Iowa Code § 476.103 . Having docketed OCA petitions for civil penalties under section 476.”
Off. Of Consum. Advocate Vs. Iowa Utils. Bd. Vs. Iowa Utils. Bd. (Iowa 2008). · cites it 11× “The OCA requested the Board impose civil penalties against MCI for committing an unlawful slam in violation of Iowa Code section 476.103. On July 14, 2004, a hearing was held before an administrative law judge (ALJ), at which Kilaru and a representative from MCI testified.”
Hawkeye Land Co. v. Iowa Utils. Bd. (Iowa 2014). · cites it 6× “In cases involving section 476.103, we have held the legislature clearly vested IUB with interpretive authority.”
John Allen Christensen & Lila Christensen v. Iowa Dep't of Revenue (Iowa 2020). · cites it 2× “2d 758 , 762–63 (Iowa 2011) (holding the Iowa Utility Board was vested with authority to interpret “unauthorized change in telecommunication service” because it was “a substantive term within the special expertise of the agency” (first quoting Iowa Code § 476.103 (3) (2005); and…”
— Iowa Code § 476.103(2)(a) — 3 cases
Evercom Sys., Inc. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 805 N.W.2d 758 (Iowa 2011). “The issue in this case concerns the proper construction of Iowa Code section 476.103 (2005) and Iowa Administrative Code rule 199-22.”
Off. of Consum. Advocate v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 744 N.W.2d 640 (Iowa 2008). “” Iowa Code § 476.103 (3). The legislature required the rules to “be consistent with federal communications commission regulations regarding procedures for verification of customer authorization of a change in service.”
Off. Of Consum. Advocate Vs. Iowa Utils. Bd. Vs. Iowa Utils. Bd. (Iowa 2008). “The OCA requested the Board impose civil penalties against MCI for committing an unlawful slam in violation of Iowa Code section 476.103. On July 14, 2004, a hearing was held before an administrative law judge (ALJ), at which Kilaru and a representative from MCI testified.”
— Iowa Code § 476.103(3) — 5 cases
Nextera Energy Resources LLC v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 815 N.W.2d 30 (Iowa 2012). “We first had to determine the appropriate standard of review for the “Board’s interpretation of the term ‘unauthorized change in service’ under Iowa Code section 476.103, and the Board’s interpretation of the definition of ‘cramming’ as that term is defined in Iowa…”
Evercom Sys., Inc. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 805 N.W.2d 758 (Iowa 2011). “The issue in this case concerns the proper construction of Iowa Code section 476.103 (2005) and Iowa Administrative Code rule 199-22.”
Hawkeye Land Co. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 847 N.W.2d 199 (Iowa 2014). “In cases involving section 476.103, we have held the legislature clearly vested IUB with interpretive authority.”
Hawkeye Land Co. v. Iowa Utils. Bd. (Iowa 2014). “In cases involving section 476.103, we have held the legislature clearly vested IUB with interpretive authority.”
Off. Of Consum. Advocate Vs. Iowa Utils. Bd. Vs. Iowa Utils. Bd. (Iowa 2008). “The OCA requested the Board impose civil penalties against MCI for committing an unlawful slam in violation of Iowa Code section 476.103. On July 14, 2004, a hearing was held before an administrative law judge (ALJ), at which Kilaru and a representative from MCI testified.”
— Iowa Code § 476.103(3)(a) — 1 case
Off. Of Consum. Advocate Vs. Iowa Utils. Bd. Vs. Iowa Utils. Bd. (Iowa 2008). “The OCA requested the Board impose civil penalties against MCI for committing an unlawful slam in violation of Iowa Code section 476.103. On July 14, 2004, a hearing was held before an administrative law judge (ALJ), at which Kilaru and a representative from MCI testified.”
— Iowa Code § 476.103(3)(u) — 1 case
Off. of Consum. Advocate v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 744 N.W.2d 640 (Iowa 2008). “” Iowa Code § 476.103 (3). The legislature required the rules to “be consistent with federal communications commission regulations regarding procedures for verification of customer authorization of a change in service.”
— Iowa Code § 476.103(4) — 2 cases
Off. of Consum. Advocate v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 770 N.W.2d 334 (Iowa 2009). “Iowa Code § 476.103 . Having docketed OCA petitions for civil penalties under section 476.”
Off. Of Consum. Advocate Vs. Iowa Utils. Bd. (Iowa 2009). “Iowa Code § 476.103 . Having docketed OCA petitions for civil penalties under section 476.”
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.