U.S. Code » Title 47 » Chapter CHAPTER 5— WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— COMMON CARRIERS › Part Part I— Common Carrier Regulation

47 U.S.C. § 207

Recovery of damages

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

Any person claiming to be damaged by any common carrier subject to the provisions of this chapter may either make complaint to the Commission as hereinafter provided for, or may bring suit for the recovery of the damages for which such common carrier may be liable under the provisions of this chapter, in any district court of the United States of competent jurisdiction; but such person shall not have the right to pursue both such remedies.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 193 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1958–2026 · leading case: United States Telecom Ass'n v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States Telecom Ass'n v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir. 2016). · cites it 4× “The partial dissent agrees, pointing specifically to 47 U.S.C. § 207 , which subjects Title II common carriers to private complaints.”
Global Crossing Telecomm., Inc. v. Metrophones Telecomm., Inc., 550 U.S. 45 (2007). · cites it 4× “" 47 U.S.C. § 207 (emphasis added). This language makes clear that the lawsuit is proper if the FCC could properly hold that a carrier's failure to pay compensation is an "unreasonable practice" deemed "unlawful" under § 201(b).”
Lozano v. AT & T Wireless Servs., Inc., 504 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “47 U.S.C. § 207 . In Coeur d’Alene Tribe, we held that, by restricting jurisdiction to the FCC and the federal district court, Congress intended to leave no room for “adjudication in any other forum — be it state, tribal, or otherwise.”
Autotel v. Nevada Bell Tel. Co., 697 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “Oberdorfer refiled the complaint a few days later.”
US West, Inc. v. Bus. Disc. Plan, Inc., 196 F.R.D. 576 (D. Colo. 2000). · cites it 6× “Defendant BDP next argues that the Communications Act claims of Plaintiffs Vista Village, Quail Hill, Woodshire East, and Feldberg must be dismissed pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 207 . I agree. Section 207 of the Communications Act states Any person claiming to be damaged by any…”
Ting v. AT & T, 182 F. Supp. 2d 902 (N.D. Cal. 2002). · cites it 2× “See 47 U.S.C. § 207 . In interpreting the FCA’s tariff requirements, the courts developed the filed rate doctrine which prohibited a regulated entity from charging rates “for its services other than those properly filed with the appropriate federal regulatory authority.”
CenturyTel of Chatham, LLC v. Sprint Commc'ns Co., 861 F.3d 566 (5th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “47 U.S.C. § 207 . A carrier is liable for “damages sustained in consequence of” the carrier’s doing “any act, matter, or thing in this chapter prohibited or declared to be unlawful”, as well as “a reasonable counsel or attorney’s fee”.”
Beattie v. CenturyTel, Inc., 511 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2007). “47 U.S.C. § 207 . The FCC also enacted a regulation intended to clarify the meaning of § 201(b): Descriptions of billed charges.”
TPS Utilicom Servs., Inc. v. AT & T CORP., 223 F. Supp. 2d 1089 (C.D. Cal. 2002). · cites it 2× “The Ninth Circuit does hold that Subchap-ter II of the FCA vests exclusive jurisdiction for actions under 47 U.S.C. § 207 in both the federal courts and the FCC.”
McGuire v. Ameritech Servs., Inc., 253 F. Supp. 2d 988 (S.D. Ohio 2003). · cites it 2× “This will not lie, and Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under 47 U.S.C. § 207 . That section allows a party to challenge a carrier’s compliance with its rate schedule; it does not allow the party to challenge the rate itself, or to bring a cause of action for…”
Law Offices of Curtis v. Trinko, L.L.P., Individually & on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Bell Atl. Corp., 305 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “See 47 U.S.C. § 207 . 4 Sections 206 and 207 are broadly written and explicitly encompass all of the substantive provisions of the Communications Act.”
Robert Johnson v. Am. Towers, LLC, 781 F.3d 693 (4th Cir. 2015). “” 47 U.S.C. § 207 . The section states that a party may bring an action to the FCC or district court, but cannot seek relief from both, rather than suggesting that the FCC and the district court are the sole places to bring an action.”
Show all 193 citing cases →
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.