MICHIGAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT
Act 179 of 1991
484.2601 Remedies and penalties.
Sec. 601.
If after notice and hearing the commission finds a person has violated this act, the commission shall order remedies and penalties to protect and make whole ratepayers and other persons who have suffered an economic loss as a result of the violation, including, but not limited to, 1 or more of the following:
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), the person to pay a fine for the first offense of not less than $1,000.00 nor more than $20,000.00 per day that the person is in violation of this act, and for each subsequent offense, a fine of not less than $2,000.00 nor more than $40,000.00 per day.
(b) If the provider has less than 250,000 access lines, the provider to pay a fine for the first offense of not less than $200.00 or more than $500.00 per day that the provider is in violation of this act, and for each subsequent offense a fine of not less than $500.00 or more than $1,000.00 per day.
(c) A refund to the ratepayers of the provider of any collected excessive rates.
(d) If the person is a licensee under this act, that the person's license is revoked.
(e) Cease and desist orders.
(f) Except for an arbitration case under section 252 of part II of title II of the communications act of 1934, chapter 622, 110 Stat. 66, attorney fees and actual costs of a person or a provider of less than 250,000 end-users.
History: 1991, Act 179, Eff. Jan. 1, 1992 ;-- Am. 1995, Act 216, Imd. Eff. Nov. 30, 1995 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 295, Imd. Eff. July 17, 2000
Notes of Decisions
Ameritech Michigan v. Psc Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 658 N.W.2d 849 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “The PSC may impose penalties pursuant to MCL 484.2601. The PSC’s reliance on these provisions is misplaced because the mta does not give the PSC jurisdiction to address issues of identity theft, collection practices, and credit reporting procedures.”
In Re Complaint of Michigan Cable Telecomm. Ass'n Against Ameritech Michigan, 615 N.W.2d 255 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 4× “Despite finding Ameritech Michigan in violation of MTA subsection 308(3), and ordering it to “cease and desist” from further violations of this type, the MPSC concluded that this case did not merit a fine under MTA § 601, MCL 484.2601; MSA 22.1469(601), because there were…”
In Re Complaint of Southfield Against Ameritech Michigan, 599 N.W.2d 760 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 3× “Finally, the PSC held that, pursuant to the mandate of § 601 of the Michigan Telecommunications Act (MTA), MCL 484.2601; MSA 22.1469(601), to make whole ratepayers and other persons who have suffered an economic loss as a result of violation of any provision of the MTA,…”
In Re Michigan Cable Telecomm. Ass'n Complaint, 609 N.W.2d 854 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “” The mcta’s complaint requested that the PSC: (1) order Ameritech Michigan and its affiliates to terminate the AmeriChecks program and to refrain from further violations of subsection 305(3); (2) impose a fine as authorized by § 601 of the MTA, MCL 484.2601; MSA 22.1469(601);…”
In Re MCI Telecomm. Corp. Complaint, 612 N.W.2d 826 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “” See MCL 484.2601; MSA 22.1469(601). THE MPSC’S REQUIREMENT THAT AMERITECH ALLOW VERIFICATION BY TPV OR LOA FOR CUSTOMERS IN THE PIC PROTECTION PROGRAM Ameritech first argues that the MPSC erred in concluding that Ameritech violated the order in Case No.”
In Re Canales Complaint, 637 N.W.2d 236 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).
“While subsection 601(a) of the MTA, MCL 484.2601, provides for the assessment of a fine for a first offense and allows a greater fine for any subsequent violations of the mta, it does not set the fines increasingly higher for each additional subsequent violation.”
City of Dearborn v. Ins. Co. of Pennsylvania, 119 F. App'x 710 (6th Cir. 2004).
“Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2601 . The heart of the City’s argument on appeal is that under this provision of the MTA, attorney fees are awarded as a measure of damages.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2601(a) — 1 case
In Re Complaint of Southfield Against Ameritech Michigan, 599 N.W.2d 760 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
“Finally, the PSC held that, pursuant to the mandate of § 601 of the Michigan Telecommunications Act (MTA), MCL 484.2601; MSA 22.1469(601), to make whole ratepayers and other persons who have suffered an economic loss as a result of violation of any provision of the MTA,…”
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.