Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 484 / Act 179 of 1991
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2506 (2026)

Violation of MCL 484.2505 or MCL 484.2507; contested case; hearings; remedies and penalties; exception; finding of frivolous complaint or defense.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MICHIGAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT


Act 179 of 1991


484.2506 Violation of MCL 484.2505 or MCL 484.2507; contested case; hearings; remedies and penalties; exception; finding of frivolous complaint or defense.

Sec. 506.

    (1) Upon the receipt of a complaint filed by a person alleging a violation of section 505 or 507, an end-user who has been switched to another provider or had services added in violation of section 505 or 507, or a provider who has been removed as an end-user's provider without the end-user's authorization, or upon the commission's own motion, the commission may conduct a contested case as provided under section 203. The commission shall create, and shall supply upon request, a form affidavit designed to enable an end-user to provide all information necessary to promote efficient resolution of complaints alleging a violation of section 505 or 507. Hearings conducted under this section shall comply with the following requirements:

    (a) Hearings shall be conducted in a manner as to optimize expediency, convenience, and the ability of end-users to bring and prosecute, without the assistance of counsel, complaints alleging violations of section 505 or 507, while preserving the rights of the parties.

    (b) If possible, the commission shall hold the hearing at a location near the end-user's residence or place of business.

    (2) If the commission finds that a person has violated section 505 or 507 or an order issued under section 505 or 507, the commission shall order remedies and penalties to protect and make whole end-users and other persons who have suffered damages as a result of the violation, including, but not limited to, 1 or more of the following:

    (a) Order the person to pay a fine for the first offense of not less than $20,000.00 or more than $30,000.00. For a second and any subsequent offense, the commission shall order the person to pay a fine of not less than $30,000.00 or more than $50,000.00. If the commission finds that the second or any of the subsequent offenses were knowingly made in violation of section 505 or 507, the commission shall order the person to pay a fine of not more than $70,000.00. Each switch made in violation of section 505 or service added in violation of 507 shall be a separate offense under this subdivision.

    (b) Order an unauthorized provider to refund to the end-user any amount greater than the end-user would have paid to an authorized provider.

    (c) Order a portion between 10% to 50% of the fine assessed under subdivision (a) be paid directly to the customer who suffered the violation of section 505 or 507.

    (d) Order an unauthorized provider to reimburse an authorized provider an amount equal to the amount paid by the end-user that should have been paid to the authorized provider.

    (e) If the person is licensed under this act, revoke the license if the commission finds a pattern of violations of section 505 or 507.

    (f) Issue cease and desist orders.

    (3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), a fine shall not be imposed for a violation of section 505 or 507 if the provider has otherwise fully complied with sections 505 and 507 and shows that the violation was an unintentional and bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adopted to avoid the error. Examples of a bona fide error include clerical, calculation, computer malfunction, programming, or printing errors. An error in legal judgment with respect to a person's obligations under section 505 is not a bona fide error. The burden of proving that a violation was an unintentional and bona fide error is on the provider.

    (4) If the commission finds that a party's complaint or defense filed under this section is frivolous, the commission shall award to the prevailing party costs, including reasonable attorney fees, against the nonprevailing party and their attorney.

History: Add. 1998, Act 259, Eff. Oct. 1, 1998 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 295, Imd. Eff. July 17, 2000

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2001–2008 · leading case: In Re Complaint of Rovas Against Sbc, 754 N.W.2d 259 (Mich. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
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.”
In Re Complaint of Knox, 660 N.W.2d 777 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “Accordingly, the commission held a contested-case hearing on the complaint as specifically provided for by MCL 484.2506(1). Additionally, in its decision, the commission applied its existing antislamming rule that had been set forth in case number U-11900.”
In Re Canales Complaint, 637 N.W.2d 236 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “*503 MCL 484.2506 at the pertinent time stated in relevant part: (2) If the commission finds that a person has violated section 505 or an order issued under section 505, the commission shall order remedies and penalties .”
In Re Martinez Complaint, 649 N.W.2d 403 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “[MCL 484.2506(2)(a).] On December 16, 1999, in another case involving Qwest, the mpsc found that Qwest violated the anti-slamming provisions of the MTA in a contested case proceeding arising from a complaint filed by Dagoberto and Mary Canales and ordered Qwest to pay a fine of…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2506(1) — 2 cases
In Re Complaint of Knox, 660 N.W.2d 777 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “Accordingly, the commission held a contested-case hearing on the complaint as specifically provided for by MCL 484.2506(1). Additionally, in its decision, the commission applied its existing antislamming rule that had been set forth in case number U-11900.”
In Re Canales Complaint, 637 N.W.2d 236 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “*503 MCL 484.2506 at the pertinent time stated in relevant part: (2) If the commission finds that a person has violated section 505 or an order issued under section 505, the commission shall order remedies and penalties .”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2506(2)(a) — 1 case
In Re Martinez Complaint, 649 N.W.2d 403 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “[MCL 484.2506(2)(a).] On December 16, 1999, in another case involving Qwest, the mpsc found that Qwest violated the anti-slamming provisions of the MTA in a contested case proceeding arising from a complaint filed by Dagoberto and Mary Canales and ordered Qwest to pay a fine of…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2506(3) — 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.”
In Re Canales Complaint, 637 N.W.2d 236 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “*503 MCL 484.2506 at the pertinent time stated in relevant part: (2) If the commission finds that a person has violated section 505 or an order issued under section 505, the commission shall order remedies and penalties .”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2506(4) — 1 case
In Re Martinez Complaint, 649 N.W.2d 403 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “[MCL 484.2506(2)(a).] On December 16, 1999, in another case involving Qwest, the mpsc found that Qwest violated the anti-slamming provisions of the MTA in a contested case proceeding arising from a complaint filed by Dagoberto and Mary Canales and ordered Qwest to pay a fine of…”
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.