Wash. Rev. Code » Title 80 · Chapter 80.36
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 80.36.520 (2026)

Disclosure of alternate operator services

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The utilities and transportation commission shall by rule require, at a minimum, that any telecommunications company, operating as or contracting with an alternate operator services company, assure appropriate disclosure to consumers of the provision and the rate, charge or fee of services provided by an alternate operator services company.
For the purposes of this chapter, "alternate operator services company" means a person providing a connection to intrastate or interstate long-distance services from places including, but not limited to, hotels, motels, hospitals, and customer-owned pay telephones.
[ 1988 c 91 s 2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2003–2004 · leading case: Judd v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 95 P.3d 337 (Wash. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Judd v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 95 P.3d 337 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 10× “Judd also purports to challenge the validity of certain exemptions or waivers provided in the disclosure regulations that the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) promulgated pursuant to RCW 80.36.520. Finally, Judd challenges the trial court's finding that…”
Judd v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 152 Wash. 2d 195 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 10× “Judd also purports to challenge the validity of certain exemptions or waivers provided in the disclosure regulations that the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) promulgated pursuant to RCW 80.36.520. Finally, Judd challenges *199 the trial court’s finding…”
Judd v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 116 Wash. App. 761 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 15× “Judd’s amended complaint alleges that the phone companies failed to make the rate disclosures required under the alternate operator services disclosure statute, RCW 80.36.520. In that statute, the legislature directed the WUTC to establish rules to require the “appropriate…”
Judd v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 66 P.3d 1102 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 15× “Judd's amended complaint alleges that the phone companies failed to make the rate disclosures required under the alternate operator services disclosure statute, RCW 80.36.520. In that statute, the Legislature directed the WUTC to establish rules to require the "appropriate…”
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.