47 U.S.C. § 258
Illegal changes in subscriber carrier selections
No telecommunications carrier shall submit or execute a change in a subscriber’s selection of a provider of telephone exchange service or telephone toll service except in accordance with such verification procedures as the Commission shall prescribe. Nothing in this section shall preclude any State commission from enforcing such procedures with respect to intrastate services.
Any telecommunications carrier that violates the verification procedures described in subsection (a) and that collects charges for telephone exchange service or telephone toll service from a subscriber shall be liable to the carrier previously selected by the subscriber in an amount equal to all charges paid by such subscriber after such violation, in accordance with such procedures as the Commission may prescribe. The remedies provided by this subsection are in addition to any other remedies available by law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case: Valdes v. Qwest Commc'ns Int'l, Inc., 147 F. Supp. 2d 116 (D. Conn. 2001).
Valdes v. Qwest Commc'ns Int'l, Inc., 147 F. Supp. 2d 116 (D. Conn. 2001). “Specifically, the plaintiffs allege a violation of Connecticut General Statutes [“CGS”] § 16-2556Í, which regulates primary local or intrastate interexchange carrier orders, with liability pursuant to CGS § 42-110g(a) [Count One]; violation of CGS § 42-110b(a), of the…”
Clark v. Time Warner Cable, 523 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2008). “Her complaint alleged that TWC violated 47 U.S.C. § 258 (a), the federal prohibition on “slamming” — the practice in which a telecommunications carrier switches a consumer’s telephone service without the consumer’s consent.”
At&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999). “47 U. S. C. § 258 (a) (1994 ed., Supp. II).”
Cmty. Voice Line, L.L.C. v. Great Lakes Commc'n Corp., 18 F. Supp. 3d 966 (N.D. Iowa 2014). “” In their Motion To Dismiss, the Nelson Defendants seek dismissal of the “fraud-based” claims against them in Counts VII and VIII, the “conversion” claims against them in Counts XVI and XVII, and the claim of a violation of 47 U.S.C. § 258 against them in Count XVIII, 3 all for…”
At&T Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 323 F.3d 1081 (D.C. Cir. 2003). “” 47 U.S.C. § 258 (a). In its rules implementing section 258 — ánd conforming its preexisting anti-slamming regulations to the new statute — the Commission established various procedures that carriers must use to verify the subscriber’s authorization to submit the preferred…”
Commc'ns Network Int'l, Ltd. v. Mullineaux, 187 A.3d 951 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018). “§ 214 , 47 U.S.C.A. § 258 . WorldCom management responded to the general collapse of the telecom industry and the rapid erosion of its own revenue base by creating billions of dollars of fake revenue, ultimately resulting in the largest bankruptcy filing in United States history…”
City & Cnty. of Denver v. Qwest Corp., 18 P.3d 748 (Colo. 2001). “See 47 U.S.C. § 258 (c). This argument was rejected by the district court, and Denver did not pursue it on appeal.”
US West, Inc. v. Bus. Disc. Plan, Inc., 196 F.R.D. 576 (D. Colo. 2000). “” The claims alleged in the Amended Complaint are: violation of 47 U.S.C. § 258 , false advertising under 15 U.”
Doty v. Frontier Commc'ns, Inc., 36 P.3d 250 (Kan. 2001). “” This regulation provides definitions for the terms used in 47 U.S.C. § 258 (1994 ed. Supp. V. 2000), which is a part of the 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act.”
De Lage Landen Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Rasa Floors, LP, 792 F. Supp. 2d 812 (E.D. Pa. 2011). “at 12-13 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 258 ; 16 T.A.C. § 26.32; 16 T.”
SBC Commc'ns Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 138 F.3d 410 (D.C. Cir. 1998). “” 47 U.S.C.A § 258(a) (West Supp.1997). The BOCs are obliged to provide any requesting carrier with nondiscriminatory interconnection to their networks and nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements at reasonable rates, terms, and conditions; they must also offer…”
Qwest Commc'ns Corp. v. City of Berkeley, 202 F. Supp. 2d 1085 (N.D. Cal. 2001). “§ 274 (3); 47 U.S.C. § 258 (b); 47 U.S.C. § 252 (e)(6).”
— 47 U.S.C. § 258(a) — 1 case
SBC Commc'ns Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 138 F.3d 410 (D.C. Cir. 1998). “” 47 U.S.C.A § 258(a) (West Supp.1997). The BOCs are obliged to provide any requesting carrier with nondiscriminatory interconnection to their networks and nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements at reasonable rates, terms, and conditions; they must also offer…”
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.