Appeals court throws out suit over AT&T cell phone fees
A lawsuit that Martha Self filed 14 years ago has finally come to an end.
October 31, 2012 at 06:57 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
A lawsuit that Martha Self filed 14 years ago has finally come to an end.
In 1998, Self sued AT&T Inc. over fees the phone company added to her cell phone bill. The fees, which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mandated, supported AT&T's contributions to the Universal Service Fund (USF). The fee amount was based on the company's revenues from all in-state calls between January 1998 and October 1999.
In a separate case in 1999, the 5th Circuit ruled that the FCC had exceeded its authority by including revenue made from all state-to-state calls in the calculation of wireless carriers' USF payments. The appeals court held that the FCC could only calculate wireless carriers' mandatory contributions to the USF based on revenue from long-distance calls made state-to-state and internationally.
The FCC interpreted the court's decision to mean that it didn't need to refund the incorrect payments the carriers had already made. Self argued that although the carriers weren't entitled to a refund, consumers were. She sought a refund of the USF fees she paid in 1998 and 1999, before the 5th Circuit's decision.
A lower court dismissed Self's case in 2008. And yesterday, the 11th Circuit said the lower court correctly dismissed her case because it didn't have jurisdiction to invalidate an FCC requirement.
Read the 11th Circuit's opinion here.
For more recent stories about billing and fee challenges, read:
A lawsuit that Martha Self filed 14 years ago has finally come to an end.
In 1998, Self sued
In a separate case in 1999, the 5th Circuit ruled that the FCC had exceeded its authority by including revenue made from all state-to-state calls in the calculation of wireless carriers' USF payments. The appeals court held that the FCC could only calculate wireless carriers' mandatory contributions to the USF based on revenue from long-distance calls made state-to-state and internationally.
The FCC interpreted the court's decision to mean that it didn't need to refund the incorrect payments the carriers had already made. Self argued that although the carriers weren't entitled to a refund, consumers were. She sought a refund of the USF fees she paid in 1998 and 1999, before the 5th Circuit's decision.
A lower court dismissed Self's case in 2008. And yesterday, the 11th Circuit said the lower court correctly dismissed her case because it didn't have jurisdiction to invalidate an FCC requirement.
Read the 11th Circuit's opinion here.
For more recent stories about billing and fee challenges, read:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCoinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250