MICHIGAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT
Act 179 of 1991
484.2502 Provider of basic local exchange service; prohibited conduct; assurance of discontinuance of method, act, or practice.
Sec. 502.
(1) A provider of a basic local exchange service shall not do any of the following:
(a) Make a statement or representation, including the omission of material information, regarding the rates, terms, or conditions of providing a service that is intentionally false, misleading, or deceptive. As used in this subdivision, "material information" includes, but is not limited to, a good faith estimate of all applicable fees, taxes, and charges that will be billed to the end-user, regardless of whether the fees, taxes, or charges are authorized by state or federal law.
(b) Charge an end-user for a subscribed service for which the end-user did not make an initial affirmative order. Failure to refuse an offered or proposed subscribed service is not an affirmative order for the service.
(c) If an end-user has canceled a service, charge the end-user for service provided after the effective date the service was canceled.
(d) Cause a probability of confusion or a misunderstanding as to the legal rights, obligations, or remedies of a party to a transaction by making an intentionally false, deceptive, or misleading statement or by failing to inform the customer of a material fact, the omission of which is deceptive or misleading.
(e) Represent or imply that the subject of a transaction will be provided promptly, or at a specified time, or within a reasonable time, if the provider knows or has reason to know it will not be so provided.
(f) Require the purchase of a regulated service of the provider as a condition of purchasing an unregulated service.
(g) If a bona fide dispute exists between a customer and the provider, disconnect the service to the customer for nonpayment of that disputed amount.
(2) When the commission has authority to bring a proceeding for a violation of this section, the commission may accept an assurance of discontinuance of a method, act, or practice that is alleged to be unlawful under this section from the person who is alleged to have engaged, be engaging, or be about to engage in the method, act, or practice. The assurance of discontinuance is not an admission of guilt and shall not be introduced in any other proceeding. Unless rescinded by the parties or voided by the court for good cause, the parties to the assurance of discontinuance may enforce the assurance in circuit court. The assurance of discontinuance may include a stipulation for any of the following:
(a) The voluntary payment by the person for the cost of investigation.
(b) An amount to be held in escrow pending the outcome of an action.
(c) An amount for restitution to an aggrieved person.
History: Add. 1995, Act 216, Imd. Eff. Nov. 30, 1995 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 295, Imd. Eff. July 17, 2000 ;-- Am. 2005, Act 235, Imd. Eff. Nov. 22, 2005 ;-- Am. 2011, Act 58, Imd. Eff. June 14, 2011 ;-- Am. 2014, Act 52, Imd. Eff. Mar. 25, 2014
Notes of Decisions
In Re Complaint of Rovas Against Sbc, 754 N.W.2d 259 (Mich. 2008).
· cites it 10× “I would uphold the PSC's decision because it correctly applied MCL 484.2502( l )(a) [2] to prohibit statements made with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity or with knowledge of their falsity.”
Rovas v. SBC Michigan, 482 Mich. 90 (Mich. 2008).
· cites it 10× “The limitations it imposed on SBC’s ability to charge the $71 service fee concern only SBC’s premature imposition of the fee based on insufficient testing for a commonly occurring problem.”
Guardian Env't Servs., Inc. v. Bureau of Constr. Codes & Fire Saf., 755 N.W.2d 556 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
“6 Our Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal in another case involving the issues of: “(1) what legal framework appellate courts should apply to determine the degree of deference due an administrative agency in its interpretation if a statute within its purview; [and] (2)…”
Gen. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 291 Mich. App. 64 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
“*89 At issue in In re Complaint of Rovas, was whether SBC Michigan (SBC) violated § 502(1) (a) of the Michigan Telecommunications Act, MCL 484.2502(l)(a), by sending customers an erroneous bill.”
Complaint of Rovas v. Ameritech Michigan, 740 N.W.2d 523 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“Initially, this Court affirmed the PSC’s determination that SBC violated MCL 484.2502(l)(a) by making false statements to its customers with regard to the source of their telecommunications problems.”
In Re Sprint Commc'ns Co., 592 N.W.2d 825 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
“[MCL 484.2502(a); MSA 22.1469(502)(a).] The MPSC also concluded that the misleading and anticompetitive bill insert constituted a "condition for" regulated telecommunication services, i.”
In Re Canales Complaint, 637 N.W.2d 236 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 3× “2505, and (2) that before this unauthorized switch, the Canaleses received false, misleading, or deceptive statements from a representative of Qwest in violation of subsection 502(a) of the mta, MCL 484.2502(a). The PSC staff participated in the case and supported the complaint.”
Trj & E Props. LLC v. City of Lansing, 919 N.W.2d 795 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“In Rovas , the Michigan Supreme Court considered the meaning of the word "false" in MCL 484.2502(1)(a). Id . at 111-112, 754 N.”
In Re Complaint of Bierman Against Centurytel of Michigan, Inc, 627 N.W.2d 632 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).
“Bierman accused Cen-turyTel of violating its tariff by billing her for toll charges for the calls to the MSEN access number and argued that CenturyTel’s actions were misleading under § 502 of the mta, MCL 484.2502. Bierman’s complaint also alleged that CenturyTel had wrongfully…”
Ameritech Michigan v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 592 N.W.2d 825 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
“[MCL 484.2502(a); MSA 22.1469(502)(a).] The MPSC also concluded that the misleading and anticompetitive bill insert constituted a “condition for” regulated telecommunication services, i.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2502(1) — 1 case
Guardian Env't Servs., Inc. v. Bureau of Constr. Codes & Fire Saf., 755 N.W.2d 556 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
“6 Our Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal in another case involving the issues of: “(1) what legal framework appellate courts should apply to determine the degree of deference due an administrative agency in its interpretation if a statute within its purview; [and] (2)…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2502(1)(A) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2502(1)(a) — 6 cases
In Re Complaint of Rovas Against Sbc, 754 N.W.2d 259 (Mich. 2008).
“I would uphold the PSC's decision because it correctly applied MCL 484.2502( l )(a) [2] to prohibit statements made with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity or with knowledge of their falsity.”
Rovas v. SBC Michigan, 482 Mich. 90 (Mich. 2008).
“The limitations it imposed on SBC’s ability to charge the $71 service fee concern only SBC’s premature imposition of the fee based on insufficient testing for a commonly occurring problem.”
Trj & E Props. LLC v. City of Lansing, 919 N.W.2d 795 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“In Rovas , the Michigan Supreme Court considered the meaning of the word "false" in MCL 484.2502(1)(a). Id . at 111-112, 754 N.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2502(a) — 4 cases
In Re Sprint Commc'ns Co., 592 N.W.2d 825 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
“[MCL 484.2502(a); MSA 22.1469(502)(a).] The MPSC also concluded that the misleading and anticompetitive bill insert constituted a "condition for" regulated telecommunication services, i.”
In Re Canales Complaint, 637 N.W.2d 236 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).
“2505, and (2) that before this unauthorized switch, the Canaleses received false, misleading, or deceptive statements from a representative of Qwest in violation of subsection 502(a) of the mta, MCL 484.2502(a). The PSC staff participated in the case and supported the complaint.”
Ameritech Michigan v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 592 N.W.2d 825 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
“[MCL 484.2502(a); MSA 22.1469(502)(a).] The MPSC also concluded that the misleading and anticompetitive bill insert constituted a “condition for” regulated telecommunication services, i.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2502(b) — 1 case
In Re Canales Complaint, 637 N.W.2d 236 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).
“2505, and (2) that before this unauthorized switch, the Canaleses received false, misleading, or deceptive statements from a representative of Qwest in violation of subsection 502(a) of the mta, MCL 484.2502(a). The PSC staff participated in the case and supported the complaint.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2502(l)(a) — 3 cases
Rovas v. SBC Michigan, 482 Mich. 90 (Mich. 2008).
“The limitations it imposed on SBC’s ability to charge the $71 service fee concern only SBC’s premature imposition of the fee based on insufficient testing for a commonly occurring problem.”
Gen. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 291 Mich. App. 64 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
“*89 At issue in In re Complaint of Rovas, was whether SBC Michigan (SBC) violated § 502(1) (a) of the Michigan Telecommunications Act, MCL 484.2502(l)(a), by sending customers an erroneous bill.”
Complaint of Rovas v. Ameritech Michigan, 740 N.W.2d 523 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“Initially, this Court affirmed the PSC’s determination that SBC violated MCL 484.2502(l)(a) by making false statements to its customers with regard to the source of their telecommunications problems.”
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.