We use cookies to improve the functionality and performance of this site. By continuing to use this site, you are providing us with your consent to our use of cookies on the site. Please see our Privacy Policy for details.

Team Experience Thought Leadership About Press Room Locations Careers
Related Sites
MWE China Law Offices McDermott+Consulting
MENU McDermott Will & Emery
Languages
Deutsch English Français Italiano
McDermott Will & Emery
Team Experience Thought
Leadership
About Press
Room
Locations Careers
Languages
Deutsch English Français Italiano

Thought Leadership

Connect Share Print pdf your pages
  • {{page.name}}
  • Linked In
    Linked In
  • Xing
    Xing
  • Twitter
    Twitter
  • Facebook
    Facebook
  • Email This
    Email This
  • PDF
    PDF
  • In Depth

Supreme Court Allows Private Claims for Certain FCC Rule Violations

April 25, 2007

In Depth

On April 17, 2007, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed a plaintiff’s right to bring action in federal court against a telecommunications carrier for damages caused by the carrier’s violation of certain rules of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). In Metrophones Telecommunications v. Global Crossing Telecommunications, the Supreme Court considered whether a payphone operator could bring suit in federal court to collect compensation owed by a long-distance carrier for its customers’ use of the plaintiff’s payphones. FCC rules required carriers to reimburse payphone operators $0.24 per completed call. The FCC had declared that a carrier’s failure to pay would be deemed an "unreasonable practice" under Section 201 of the Communications Act.

Although Section 207 of the Communications Act permits claims to be brought in federal court for damages caused by a carrier’s violation of the statute, the Supreme Court agreed with Metrophones that claims could also be brought in federal court for a carrier’s violation of an FCC rule if the FCC specifically states that the rule is intended to prohibit "unreasonable practices" under Section 201 of the Act. Because the FCC had declared that a refusal to remit payphone compensation would be an "unreasonable practice," the Supreme Court concluded that Metrophones was entitled to bring a collection action in federal court under Section 207. The Supreme Court’s decision has the potential to expand opportunities for plaintiffs to bring action against carriers in federal court based on FCC rule violations if those rules are clearly intended to prohibit "unjust or unreasonable" carrier practices.

© 2018 McDermott Will & Emery

Legal Notices Imprint Privacy and Cookies Policy Client Connect Connect@McDermott Contact Us
Related Sites MWE China Law Offices McDermott+Consulting
Attorney Advertising