47 U.S.C. § 202

Discriminations and preferences

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 47 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Charges, services, etc.

It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.

(b) Charges or services included

Charges or services, whenever referred to in this chapter, include charges for, or services in connection with, the use of common carrier lines of communication, whether derived from wire or radio facilities, in chain broadcasting or incidental to radio communication of any kind.

Any carrier who knowingly violates the provisions of this section shall forfeit to the United States the sum of $6,000 for each such offense and $300 for each and every day of the continuance of such offense.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title II, § 202, 48 Stat. 1070; Pub. L. 86–751, Sept. 13, 1960, 74 Stat. 888; Pub. L. 101–239, title III, § 3002(a), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2131.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (b), was in the original “this Act”, meaning act June 19, 1934, ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064, known as the Communications Act of 1934, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 609 of this title and Tables.

Amendments

1989—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 101–239 substituted “$6,000” for “$500” and “$300” for “$25”.

1960—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 86–751 substituted “common carrier lines of communication, whether derived from wire or radio facilities,” for “wires”.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 176 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1945–2024 · leading case: Air Transp. Ass'n of Am. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n of the State of California, Defendants, 833 F.2d 200 (9th Cir. 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Air Transp. Ass'n of Am. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n of the State of California, Defendants, 833 F.2d 200 (9th Cir. 1987). · cites it 8× “107-B violated section 202(a) of the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 202 (a), on the ground that the regulation requires discontinuance of the airlines’ telephone service in an unreasonably discriminatory manner.”

Verizon v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 740 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 2014). · cites it 4× “47 U.S.C. § 202 (emphasis added). The Commission has provided no basis for concluding that in permitting “reasonable” network management, and in prohibiting merely “unreasonable” discrimination, the Order’s standard of “reasonableness” might be more permissive than 59 the…”

LSSI Data Corp. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 892 F. Supp. 2d 489 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). · cites it 10× “(“LSSi”) moves, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §§ 202 (a), 251(b)(3), and 406, for a preliminary injunction compelling defendant Time Warner Cable, Inc.”

Panatronic Usa, a California Gen. P'ship Lemar Textile Co. v. At&t Corp., 287 F.3d 840 (9th Cir. 2002). · cites it 3× “According to the plaintiffs, this several-month delay constituted unlawful price discrimination under 47 U.S.C. § 202 (a). The plaintiffs additionally contend that AT&T’s temporary failure to impose the UCC fee on its larger customers contradicted the terms of its published…”

Frank H. Boomer, on Behalf of Himself & All Others Similarly Situated v. At & T Corp., a New York Corp., 309 F.3d 404 (7th Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “47 U.S.C. § 202 (a) (emphasis added). Based on these provisions, AT & T claims that a state law challenge to the validity of the arbitration clause is preempted.”

Tenore v. AT&T Wireless Servs., 962 P.2d 104 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 3× “AT&T also argues FCC jurisdiction is appropriate because an award of damages would violate “47 U.S.C. § 202, which specifically prohibits price discrimination among customers.”

Brittan Commc'ns Int'l Corp. v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 313 F.3d 899 (5th Cir. 2002). · cites it 3× “, DISCUSSION Brittan presents the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the district court *904 erred in granting SWBT’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on Brittan’s claim under Title II of the Communications Act of 1933, 47 U.S.C. § 202 (a); (2) whether the district…”

MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 512 U.S. 218 (1994). · cites it 2× “" 47 U. S. C. § 202 (a). The Commission, upon complaint or its own motion, may hold hearings upon, and declare the lawfulness of, proposed rate increases, § 204, and may prescribe just and reasonable charges upon a finding that a carrier's actual or proposed charges are illegal,…”

Sikes v. Teleline, Inc., 281 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “§ 201 , 18 and that AT&T’s crediting or refunding of LMAD charges to some but not all customers was a discriminatory practice in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 202 . 19 The plaintiffs thus prayed for relief under 47 U.”

Nat'l Commc'ns Ass'n v. AT & T Corp., 238 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2001). · cites it 3× “(“AT & T”) had unreasonably discriminated against NCA in the provision of like communication services in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 202 (a). At trial, the jury found for NCA and awarded $1.”

LSSI Data Corp. v. Comcast Phone, LLC, 696 F.3d 1114 (11th Cir. 2012). · cites it 4× “See 47 U.S.C. §§ 202 , 222(e), 251(b)(3). After careful review, and with the benefit of oral argument as well as the views of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), we vacate the grant of the preliminary injunction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this…”

Fax Telecommunicaciones Inc. v. At&t, Michael Gilmartin & Richard Stotts, 138 F.3d 479 (2d Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “See 47 U.S.C. § 202 (a). The FCC is empowered to review filed rates, and to reject any rates deemed unjust, unfair, or unreasonable.”

Show all 176 citing cases →

— 47 U.S.C. § 202(a) — 3 cases

Russell P. Miller & Margaret Jane Miller, His Wife v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. (Hereafter At&t), 507 F.2d 759 (3rd Cir. 1974).

N. Valley Commc'ns, LLC v. Qwest Commc'ns Corp., 711 F. Supp. 2d 1018 (D.S.D. 2010).

Carter v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 365 F.2d 486 (5th Cir. 1966).

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.