MICHIGAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT
Act 179 of 1991
484.2505 Switching to another telecommunications provider; authorization of end user required.
Sec. 505.
(1) An end user of a telecommunications provider shall not be switched to another provider without the authorization of the end user.
(2) The commission shall issue orders to ensure that an end user of a telecommunications provider is not switched to another provider without the end user's oral authorization, written confirmation, confirmation through an independent third party, or other verification procedures subject to commission approval, confirming the end user's intent to make a switch and that the end user has approved the specific details of the switch. The order issued under this section shall require that all providers comply with the regulations established by the federal communications commission on verification procedures for the switching of an end user's telecommunications provider.
History: Add. 1998, Act 260, Eff. Oct. 1, 1998 ;-- Am. 2005, Act 235, Imd. Eff. Nov. 22, 2005
PopularName Notes:
Slamming
Notes of Decisions
In Re Complaint of Rovas Against Sbc, 754 N.W.2d 259 (Mich. 2008).
· cites it 2× “2505(1) provides that "[a]n end user of a telecommunications provider shall not be switched to another provider without the authorization of the end user.”
Rovas v. SBC Michigan, 482 Mich. 90 (Mich. 2008).
· cites it 2× “2505(1) provides that “[a]n end user of a telecommunications provider shall not he switched to another provider without the authorization of the end user.” MCL 484.”
In Re Complaint of Knox, 660 N.W.2d 777 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS On October 27, 1999, Mark and Sheryl Knox filed a complaint with the commission against Lotel, alleging that their toll service had been switched by Lotel without their authorization in violation of the mta, *456 and in particular its…”
In Re Martinez Complaint, 649 N.W.2d 403 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “” In an opinion and order issued January 19, 2000, the mpsc found that Qwest had violated § 505 of the Michigan Telecommunications Act (MTA), MCL 484.2505, 1 by switching Mr. Martinez’ service without authorization.”
In Re Canales Complaint, 637 N.W.2d 236 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Canales, alleged two counts: (1) that Qwest switched the Canaleses’ long-distance service without authorization in violation of § 505 of the mta, MCL 484.2505, and (2) that before this unauthorized switch, the Canaleses received false, misleading, or deceptive statements from a…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2505(1) — 3 cases
In Re Complaint of Rovas Against Sbc, 754 N.W.2d 259 (Mich. 2008).
“2505(1) provides that "[a]n end user of a telecommunications provider shall not be switched to another provider without the authorization of the end user.”
Rovas v. SBC Michigan, 482 Mich. 90 (Mich. 2008).
“2505(1) provides that “[a]n end user of a telecommunications provider shall not he switched to another provider without the authorization of the end user.” MCL 484.”
In Re Martinez Complaint, 649 N.W.2d 403 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
“” In an opinion and order issued January 19, 2000, the mpsc found that Qwest had violated § 505 of the Michigan Telecommunications Act (MTA), MCL 484.2505, 1 by switching Mr. Martinez’ service without authorization.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2505(3)(a) — 2 cases
In Re Canales Complaint, 637 N.W.2d 236 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).
“Canales, alleged two counts: (1) that Qwest switched the Canaleses’ long-distance service without authorization in violation of § 505 of the mta, MCL 484.2505, and (2) that before this unauthorized switch, the Canaleses received false, misleading, or deceptive statements from a…”
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.