S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
* * * * *
In the matter of the complaint of ) MARILYNN PATTISON against AT&T ) Case No. U-13164 COMMUNICATIONS OF MICHIGAN, INC. ) ) At the April 16, 2002 meeting of the Michigan Public Service Commission in Lansing,
Michigan.
PRESENT: Hon. Laura Chappelle, Chairman
Hon. David A. Svanda, Commissioner Hon. Robert B. Nelson, Commissioner
OPINION AND ORDER
I.
HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS
On October 25, 2001, Marilynn Pattison filed a complaint against AT&T Communications of
Michigan, Inc., (AT&T) alleging violations of the Michigan Telecommunications Act (MTA),
MCL 484.2101 et seq. Specifically, the complaint asserted that AT&T violated Sections 505(1)
and 502(a) of the MTA by slamming1 her long distance service and by making one or more
unspecified misrepresentations, respectively. AT&T filed its answer and affirmative defenses on
December 11, 2001.
Pursuant to due notice (and following an agreed-upon adjournment), an evidentiary hearing
was conducted on January 14, 2002 before Administrative Law Judge Barbara A. Stump (ALJ).
1“Slamming” refers to switching one or more of an end-use customer’s telecommunications services from one provider to another without the customer’s permission.
Page 2 U-13164
Mrs. Pattison, AT&T, and the Commission Staff (Staff) participated in the proceedings. On that
date, and after the submission of the Complainant’s proofs, the ALJ also heard oral argument on
AT&T’s motion to dismiss Count II of the complaint, which concerned the alleged violation of
Section 502(a). Based on Mrs. Pattison’s acknowledgement that AT&T had not made any false,
misleading, or deceptive statements in its dealings with her, the ALJ granted AT&T’s motion,
leaving only the alleged slamming violation to be resolved. The record consists of 172 pages of
transcript and 8 exhibits, all of which were received into evidence.
Mrs. Pattison, AT&T, and the Staff filed briefs on January 25, 2002. On February 2, 2002,
reply briefs were filed by AT&T and the Staff.
On February 14, 2002, the ALJ issued a Proposal for Decision (PFD) in which she recom-
mended finding that AT&T technically violated Section 505(1) of the MTA, concluding that no
fine should be imposed because that violation arose from a bona fide error, and directing AT&T to
pay Mrs. Pattison $656 to cover the costs she incurred in pursuing her complaint. Exceptions to
the PFD were filed on February 28, 2002 by Mrs. Pattison, the Staff, and AT&T. On March 11,
2002, the Staff and AT&T filed replies to exceptions.
II.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Four witnesses testified in this proceeding. They consist of the Complainant, her husband, and
two AT&T employees. No witnesses were sponsored by the Staff.
Mrs. Pattison testified that she and her husband (Robert F. Pattison) reside at 7778 Walnut,
Jenison, Michigan, where they have two phone lines. Their original line, having the telephone
number (616) 457-0822, is not in dispute. It is the Pattisons’ second phone line, designated as
(616) 457-3365, which serves as the genesis of this complaint.
Page 3 U-13164
According to Mrs. Pattison, the 3365 number has been assigned to her family since 1972 and,
for much of that time, has been listed under her various children’s names or initials. Tr. 10.
Starting in about 1987, she continued, that phone number was listed with the local exchange
carrier (LEC), Ameritech Michigan, under the name of the Pattisons’ youngest son, Robert K.
Pattison. Tr. 11. Even though this son moved out in approximately 1990, Mrs. Pattison stated, she
and her husband left the number in his name until 1995 because they “just didn’t think to change
it.” Id. At that point, she went on to state, the 3365 number was finally changed from her son’s
name to hers.
Mrs. Pattison further testified that she and her husband first discovered that the 3365 number
had been slammed when, on August 23, 2001, they received a bill for long-distance service from
AT&T. Tr. 40. Because neither she nor her husband could understand why they had received a
bill from a company other than their preferred long-distance carrier (VarTec, Inc.), Mrs. Pattison
stated, they immediately contacted AT&T. At that point, she continued, AT&T advised them that
their service had been changed pursuant to a letter of authorization (LOA), a copy of which was
forwarded to them the following day. Tr. 7-9. As noted by Mrs. Pattison, and as reflected on
Exhibit C-3, the LOA was in the form of a check for $75 that was made out to (and endorsed by)
her son, Robert, but that included her home address and phone number instead of those belonging
to her son.
Based on subsequent discussions with her son, who currently lives in Sturgis, Michigan,
Mrs. Pattison testified that the unauthorized change in her long-distance carrier must have
occurred as follows. First, she stated, AT&T mailed the proposed LOA/check to Robert K.
Pattison at her address, instead of his. Second, she claims to have subsequently hand-delivered the
unopened letter containing that document to her son’s wife. Tr. 9. Third, she asserted, her
Page 4 U-13164
daughter-in-law apparently put the check out for Mrs. Pattison’s son to sign “when she was doing
the bills.” Id. Fourth, Mrs. Pattison stated, her son then signed the LOA/check and returned it to
AT&T in the mistaken belief that it would switch his long-distance service provider, and not that
of his mother. See, Tr. 46. As a result, she testified, her long distance service for the 3365 number
was switched to AT&T on August 9, 2001. Tr. 12. Mrs. Pattison’s testimony concerning these
events is corroborated, in many regards, by an affidavit prepared by her son and received into
evidence as Exhibit C-2.
Mrs. Pattison went on to allege that although the phone line’s long distance service was
switched back to VarTec on August 24, 2001, and despite assurances from AT&T that everything
had been straightened out, the company continued to seek recovery for calls placed during the
period of unauthorized service. Specifically, she noted that AT&T sent her a bill for $125.78 on
September 14, 2001. Tr. 13. According to Mrs. Pattison, it was not until November 2001 that
AT&T finally sent her a statement setting forth all necessary credits and reflecting a zero balance.
Tr. 50. Moreover, Mrs. Pattison concluded, this entire dispute could have been avoided if AT&T
had simply checked the phone book (which showed that the 3365 number was assigned to her,
instead of her son) before ordering the switch. Tr. 47-48.
Mrs. Pattison’s husband testified that he made numerous calls to AT&T on August 23 and 24,
2001 in an effort to determine why the switch occurred, as well as to rectify the problem.
Tr. 52-55. It was during these calls, Mr. Pattison continued, that (1) he and his wife learned of the
LOA/check that triggered the switch, (2) he advised AT&T that although only his wife was
authorized to request a change in service providers for the 3365 number, she never provided such
authorization, and (3) AT&T began making arrangements to have itself replaced as the long
distance service provider for that line. Id. Mr. Pattison went on to state that he still questions
Page 5 U-13164
whether the change in carriers was truly a mistake. This is because AT&T’s bill came addressed
to Marilynn Pattison, notwithstanding the fact that the LOA/check was made out to--as well as
signed by--his son, Robert K. Pattison. According to Mr. Pattison, this discrepancy indicates that
AT&T’s representatives “knew what they were doing” when they initially submitted the primary
interexchange carrier (PIC) change order for this phone line. Tr. 54.
The first witness called by AT&T was John Carew, the manager of the company’s consumer
acquisition list division. Mr. Carew began by noting that AT&T frequently uses LOA/checks as a
way to market its services to prospective customers. According to him, each LOA/check comes
attached to a letter containing the terms of the particular service offer, an example of which is set
forth on Exhibit R-8. Mr. Carew went on to note that both the letter and the LOA/check are
designed to give clear notice that, by signing the check, the customer is authorizing a change in
long distance carriers for the specific phone number listed on these documents. Tr. 73-76.
Moreover, he noted, a special area is included on the LOA/check for making any corrections to the
potential customer’s address or phone number, if necessary. Id.
Once the LOA/check has been signed and cashed, Mr. Carew continued, the bank sends it to
an AT&T vendor for processing. The vendor then reviews the LOA section of the check to
determine whether it has been properly executed. If so, and if no corrections to the customer’s
name, address, or phone number have been indicated, the vendor will send AT&T an electronic
report that automatically triggers the issuance of a PIC change order to the LEC assigned to that
phone number. Tr. 88-89. However, Mr. Carew continued, if the LOA contains corrections to the
preprinted information on the check, the vendor sends a different report to AT&T, which causes
AT&T to create a new order. In that situation, the new order would be subjected to a series of
procedures designed to verify that the updated information provided on the back of the LOA/check
Page 6 U-13164
was correct. Tr. 91. Unfortunately, Mr. Carew noted, Robert K. Pattison neglected to update the
pre-printed information on the LOA/check that he signed and returned to AT&T. As a result,
Mr. Carew continued, no new order was created and the PIC change order for the 3365 number
was forwarded to Ameritech Michigan without further verification.
Mr. Carew also described the various processes that AT&T uses to assemble the list of
potential customers toward whom it directs its marketing program. According to Mr. Carew, the
primary AT&T database used to store customer information and telephone numbers is called the
Residential Marketing Management System (RMMS). Tr. 79. The RMMS, he continued, receives
nearly all of its data from either of two sources. The first is in the form of automatic updates pro-
vided by all LECs that subscribe to the automated Customer Accounts Record Exchange (CARE)
system. According to Mr. Carew, AT&T receives hundreds of thousands of CARE system
updates every day. Id. The second source of information, he continued, is from existing or
potential customers themselves, such as when they call AT&T in response to an advertisement.
Tr. 80. Mr. Carew went on to state that AT&T then uses a computer program to draw certain data
from the RMMS to form a subset of information, referred to as the Relational Account Store
(RAS). Tr. 81-82. At that point, he notes, a second computer program is used to exclude
unwanted information and to develop a list of potential customers fitting a certain profile. The
program then saves those identified accounts in an electronic file that is sent to a printing and
direct mail vendor, who then uses the information to generate promotional materials (such as the
LOA/check at issue in this case). Tr. 82.
Mr. Carew next detailed the various measures AT&T uses to ensure the accuracy of the
information contained in the RMMS and the RAS prior to the vendor’s issuance of an LOA/check.
First, he noted, AT&T continually revises its lists to reflect the updated customer information
Page 7 U-13164
received through use of the CARE system. Tr. 83. Second, he stated, AT&T checks with the
United States Postal Service twice per year to ensure that each address in its various databases is
still deliverable and is not subject to a change of address notice. Tr. 83-84. Third, Mr. Carew
asserted that once each month, his company uses a process developed by “the AT&T labs . . . to
give us a list of telephone numbers that [have been] disconnected” or for which there exists some
indication that they might have been disconnected. Tr. 84. All such numbers, Mr. Carew stated,
are immediately removed from the RMMS and RAS databases. The same is true for any customer
name (as well as the corresponding address and phone number) for which a previous piece of mail
from AT&T has been returned as undeliverable. Tr. 87.
Mr. Carew further stated that, during the seven or eight months prior to sending the
LOA/check that gave rise to this complaint, AT&T sent three other direct-mail solicitations to
Robert K. Pattison at the same address in Jenison. Tr. 93-95. However, he noted, it appears that
none of those letters were ever returned to either AT&T or the Postal Service as being undeliver-
able. Tr. 95-96. As a result, no change was made to AT&T’s various databases with regard to this
potential customer.
In response to one of Mrs. Pattison’s contentions, Mr. Carew went on to explain that using the
telephone directory to verify the accuracy of AT&T’s database information would not be appro-
priate. This is because, he asserted, “the day it’s printed, it’s out of date.” Tr. 96. In support of
this assertion, he noted that AT&T alone receives almost 2.5 million pieces of information every
day that require changes in the customer information contained in the company’s RMMS and RAS
databases. Tr. 96-97.
Notwithstanding all of the processes and procedures designed to prevent AT&T from issuing
an incorrect PIC change order, Mr. Carew conceded, the company initiated a change in service
Page 8 U-13164
providers for the 3365 number. However, he noted, AT&T would not have processed the change
without further verification if Robert K. Pattison had corrected the pre-printed telephone number
and address on the LOA/check. Tr. 101-02. He further testified that at no time prior to
submission of the PIC change order did the LEC serving this phone line, namely Ameritech
Michigan, indicate that the name on the account had been changed from her son’s name to that of
Mrs. Pattison. Tr. 107. In addition, Mr. Carew pointed out that no change of address notification
was ever provided by the Postal Service, and that none of AT&T’s prior mailings to Robert K.
Pattison at his parent’s address in Jenison were ever returned as undeliverable. Tr. 112-13.
Moreover, he noted that because the 3365 number had remained in active service since at least the
early 1980s, it failed to trigger AT&T’s process for eliminating disconnected or potentially
disconnected numbers from its databases. Id. Finally, Mr. Carew testified that the only reason
that the AT&T bills were directed to Mrs. Pattison, instead of to her son, was that the PIC change
confirmation notice provided by Ameritech Michigan following the change in service providers
indicated that all of the information in AT&T’s database (i.e., address, phone number, type of
service) was correct except that the name on the account should be changed to Marilynn Pattison,
which AT&T’s system automatically did prior to its issuance of the initial bill. Tr. 102-07.
The final witness to testify in this case was Denise Pearl, AT&T’s advocacy assistant for law
and government affairs. Based on records compiled by the company, Ms. Pearl stated that
immediately after Mrs. Pattison’s husband called AT&T to report the unauthorized change in
service providers, AT&T initiated the process of switching the 3365 number back to VarTec.
Tr. 167. She went on to testify that, following that call on August 23, 2001, AT&T ceased
attempting to charge the Pattisons for long distance calls placed over that line, and instead
endeavored to credit their account for all calls placed over AT&T’s system. Tr. 167-68.
Page 9 U-13164
Ms. Pearl also noted that the first set of bill credits, in the total amount of $6.83, was reflected
on Mrs. Pattison’s September 14, 2001 bill. Id. However, she continued, due to the timing of that
bill’s issuance, AT&T was unable to immediately cancel out the remaining long distance charges
incurred during the Complainant’s unintended use of AT&T’s service. As a result, she stated, the
remaining $125.78 credit did not appear until issuance of the November 14, 2001 bill. Tr. 168-69.
Ms. Pearl concluded by testifying that, in light of potential billing lags like that experienced in this
case, AT&T’s customer service representatives are instructed to advise customers that “it can take
one to two billing cycles before [their full] credit actually appears on the bill.” Tr. 169.
III.
DISCUSSION
As noted earlier, the ALJ (1) concluded that AT&T technically slammed the 3365 number in
violation of the MTA, (2) supported exempting the company from imposition of a fine on the
grounds that the violation arose from a bona fide error, and (3) recommended directing AT&T to
reimburse Mrs. Pattison for $656 in costs incurred by pursuing this complaint.
Although it does not agree with every finding set forth in the PFD, AT&T recommends
adopting the ALJ’s position on each of these three issues. This is based on AT&T’s belief that the
ALJ’s ultimate conclusions are “supported by the record evidence” and constitute “a fair and just
result.” AT&T’s response and exceptions, p. 2.2 In contrast, the Staff excepts to her finding that
AT&T’s violation was merely “technical,” and both the Staff and Mrs. Pattison except to the
ALJ’s conclusion that the violation resulted from a bona fide error.
2“As a provisional matter,” AT&T went on to offer various exceptions to be considered only in
the event that the Commission rejects the recommendations set forth in the PFD. AT&T’s response and exceptions, p. 3. However, because this order adopts the findings and conclusions expressed by the ALJ, those provisional exceptions are moot.
Page 10 U-13164
Violation of Section 505(1)
In addressing the only remaining statutory violation alleged in this case, the ALJ noted that
Section 505(1) of the MTA reads as follows:
An end user of a telecommunications provider shall not be switched to another provider without the authorization of the end user.
MCL 484.2505(1).
According to the ALJ, “there is no dispute that AT&T switched the Complainant’s long
distance service on the 3365 number pursuant to the [LOA/check] signed by Robert K. Pattison,”
the Complainant’s son. PFD, p. 11. Moreover, the ALJ noted, Mrs. Pattison “emphatically
testified that she never gave her son authority to change the long distance carrier on the 3365
number.” Id., at 13. On the other hand, the ALJ continued, this unauthorized switch “was the
direct result of Robert K. Pattison’s negligently signing the [LOA/check] despite the fact that his
mother’s address was listed directly below his name and her phone number was listed directly
above his name.” Id. Nevertheless, she concluded, because an error in AT&T’s prospective
customer database led to that document’s creation in the first place, the company “technically
violated Section 505(1) of the MTA.” Id., at 14.
Although the Staff wholeheartedly agrees that AT&T violated Section 505(1), it excepts to the
ALJ’s characterization of that violation as being “technical” in nature. Under the MTA, the Staff
contends, “things are a violation or not a violation.” Staff’s exceptions, p. 1. Calling AT&T’s
conduct a “technical violation,” the Staff continues, “diminishes the conduct and sets up a category
of violation that does not exist.” Id.
In response, AT&T contends that the Staff presents an overly simplistic view of this case. In
contrast, AT&T continues, “the ALJ understood the complexity of the relationship” between
Sections 505(1) and 506(3) of the MTA. AT&T’s replies to exceptions, p. 15. According to
Page 11 U-13164
AT&T, the ALJ’s use of the term “technical violation” is consistent with finding that a service
provider can violate Section 505(1), but still be entitled to the defense afforded under Section
506(3), which prohibits imposition of a fine if the violation arose from a bona fide error. In
addition, AT&T contends, the Staff’s current argument flies in the face of the August 20, 1998
order in Case No. U-11639 (August 20, 1998 order), where the Commission adopted the Staff’s
assertion that a provider should be found to be in “technical violation” of Section 503 of the MTA
because it had inadvertently published a customer’s unlisted telephone number. August 20, 1998
order, p. 13.
The Commission agrees with AT&T and finds that the ALJ correctly characterized the
company’s actions as constituting a “technical violation” of Section 505(1). The Staff’s contrary
assertion (to the effect that all violations are equal) conflicts with the statutory framework of the
MTA, under which Section 506(3) is specifically designed to provide a safe harbor for clearly
unintentional violations of its anti-slamming provisions. Moreover, the Staff’s position is at odds
with the Commission’s imposition of a relatively small fine in the August 20, 1998 order, where
the service provider’s actions were found to be “technical, rather than blatant, violations of the Act
and Rules.” Id., p. 16. The Commission therefore finds that the ALJ’s initial recommendation
should be adopted, and that AT&T should be found to have committed a technical violation of
Section 505(1) of the MTA.
Page 12 U-13164
Satisfaction of Section 506(3)
The second issue addressed by the ALJ concerns whether AT&T’s violation fits within
Section 506(3) of the MTA, which states:
Notwithstanding subsection (2) [which provides for various forms of remedies and penalties], a fine may not be imposed for a violation of section 505 or 507 if the provider has otherwise fully complied with sections 505 and 507 and shows that the violation was an unintentional and bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adopted to avoid the error. Examples of a bona fide error include clerical, calculation, computer malfunction, programming, or printing errors. An error in legal judgment with respect to a person’s obligations under section 505 is not a bona fide error. The burden of proving that a violation was an unintentional and bona fide error is on the provider.
MCL 484.2506(3).
As noted above, the ALJ concluded that “the overwhelming evidence demonstrates that the
unauthorized switch of the Complainant’s long distance service by AT&T was an unintentional
and bona fide error,” notwithstanding AT&T’s “maintenance of procedures designed to [prevent]
such errors.” PFD, p. 24. In reaching this conclusion, the ALJ primarily relied on the following
three factors.
First, she noted that AT&T established numerous procedures for ensuring that all information
concerning its prospective customers is accurate. Second, the ALJ concluded that uncontroverted
testimony concerning the design of each LOA/check used in AT&T’s promotional mailings
reflects a specific intention by AT&T to “prevent the problem that occurred in this case.” PFD,
p. 16. In support of this conclusion, she noted that neither the Staff nor the Complainant allege
that the LOA/check that was forwarded to (and subsequently endorsed by) Mrs. Pattison’s son
failed to comply with the specifications set forth in the Commission’s anti-slamming procedures.
Rather, the ALJ stated, information set forth on each LOA/check issued by AT&T clearly
Page 13 U-13164
indicates that endorsing it constitutes direct approval to “change long distance carriers for the
specific [phone] number printed on the check.” Id., at p. 17. Third, she pointed out that had
Robert K. Pattison updated either the address or phone number printed on the LOA/check, as
directed, “AT&T would not have processed the order.” Id. Instead, she noted, the document
would have been subjected to a series of examinations to verify the accuracy of the potential PIC
change order. For these and other reasons, the ALJ recommended that the Commission find that
the unauthorized switch of Mrs. Pattison’s long distance service by AT&T was an unintentional
and bona fide error, within the meaning of Section 506(3).
Mrs. Pattison excepts to this recommendation on two grounds. First, she contends that
because Ameritech Michigan informed AT&T that the name assigned to the 3365 number did not
correspond to that of the person who endorsed the LOA/check, no bona fide error can be found in
this case. Second, she claims that her receipt of numerous bills from AT&T reflects an
unreasonable attempt by the company to “collect charges arising from an unauthorized switch.”
Mrs. Pattison’s exceptions, p. 4. As a result, she argues that the Commission should reject the
ALJ’s recommendation and, instead, find that AT&T failed to satisfy Section 506(3) of the MTA.
The Staff likewise excepts to the ALJ’s recommendation regarding this issue. According to it,
AT&T’s actions, both before and after the PIC change order was processed, provide adequate
reason for denying it the protection made available under Section 506(3). “Prior to the slam,” the
Staff contends, AT&T’s employees did nothing to ensure that the company’s data concerning
prospective customers “was correct or as close to correct as they could get it.” Staff’s exceptions,
p. 3. Moreover, the Staff continues, it unjustifiably ignored information provided after the PIC
change order was processed, by which Ameritech Michigan advised AT&T that the phone number
in question was actually in the name of Marilynn Pattison, instead of Robert K. Pattison.
Page 14 U-13164
AT&T responds by offering numerous reasons to reject these arguments and, instead, to adopt
the ALJ’s recommendation regarding Section 506(3). For example, AT&T notes, the first
indication that the 3365 number was in Mrs. Pattison’s name (and not that of her son) arose after
the change order had already been processed. As a result, receipt of this information--which, by
the way, was contained in Ameritech Michigan’s electronic PIC change confirmation notice,
instead of being cited by the LEC as a reason for rejecting the change order--arrived too late to
prevent the slam. Furthermore, AT&T continues, good reason exists for its computer system’s
assumption that changing the first name on the account from “Robert” to “Marilynn” was of no
great consequence. Specifically, the last names matched, the address was correct, and there was
no indication from the LEC that service to the 3365 number had ever been shut off and established
elsewhere. Moreover, AT&T contends, no repeated efforts were made to recover the cost of the
long distance calls placed over the AT&T system by Mr. and Mrs. Pattison. As specifically noted
in Ms. Pearl’s testimony, AT&T continues, it began processing a full set of credits covering all of
the Pattisons’ calls as soon as it became aware of the mix-up. The only reason those credits did
not all appear on the same bill, AT&T points out, is due to the timing of the company’s billing
cycle.
Finally, AT&T reasserts that it has established a comprehensive system for ensuring that it
does not switch a customer’s service provider against the customer’s wishes. Among other things,
AT&T notes, it (1) uses a clearly-worded LOA/check that includes repeated warnings about the
effect of signing the check, and that provides a specific area for potential customers to correct, if
necessary, any of the pre-printed information regarding their name, phone number, or address,
(2) provides for daily updates of its customer information databases pursuant to information
received through the CARE system, (3) validates all addresses in its various databases through a
Page 15 U-13164
Postal Service review conducted at least twice annually, (4) performs a monthly computer-based
search designed to eliminate all disconnected, as well as potentially disconnected, numbers from
those databases, and (5) purges from its list of prospective customers anyone for whom a direct-
mail solicitation was returned as undeliverable. For these and other reasons, AT&T asserts, the
record supports finding that its unauthorized change of Mrs. Pattison’s long distance service
provider was an unintentional and bona fide error, as described in Section 506(3) of the MTA.
The Commission agrees with AT&T and finds that the ALJ’s recommendation regarding
Section 506(3) should be adopted. It reaches this conclusion for the following three reasons.
First, the record is replete with evidence showing the lengths to which AT&T has gone to
establish procedures that are reasonably designed to avoid making unauthorized switches. This
includes creating a multi-step process to ensure that AT&T’s information concerning potential
customers is as accurate and up-to-date as reasonably possible. It further includes developing and
using an LOA/check that (1) states, in bold type across its top, “SIGNING, CASHING, AND/OR
DEPOSITING OF THIS CHECK WILL SWITCH YOUR LONG DISTANCE SERVICE TO
AT&T,” (2) prominently lists the phone number, name, and address of the payee on the face of the
check, (3) provides a specific area for making any corrections to the document’s pre-printed
customer information, and (4) states, both directly above and below the line used to endorse the
check, that the payee is agreeing to “switch my Residential Long Distance Service to AT&T.”
Exhibits C-3 and R-8.
Second, the record shows that the unauthorized switch at issue in this case arose from what
could best be described as an extraordinary and unfortunate series of coincidences. In order for
this Section 505(1) violation to occur, it required having AT&T send a direct-mail solicitation to a
potential customer who used to live in Jenison (but who moved out over 10 years ago), having that
Page 16 U-13164
letter hand-delivered to the addressee in Sturgis without either being opened or discarded in the
belief that it was simply junk mail, and having the enclosed LOA/check signed by the payee
without his ever turning the document over to see that it did not correspond to his current address
and phone number. Moreover, testimony indicates that the solicitation letter would never have
been sent in the first place had (1) the addressee submitted a change of address card to the post
office following his departure from Jenison, (2) the 3365 number ever been disconnected or
otherwise changed since its installation in 1972, or (3) any of the prior three direct-mail
solicitations been returned to either AT&T or the Postal Service as being undeliverable.
Third, notwithstanding Mrs. Pattison’s assertions to the contrary, it appears that AT&T
attempted to remedy this situation as quickly as possible. Immediately following its discussions
with the Complainant’s husband on August 23 and 24, 2001, Mrs. Pattison’s long distance service
was switched back to VarTec and AT&T’s employees directed its billing department to credit her
account for all calls placed while on AT&T’s system. Although it took a few weeks for the last of
the credits to show up on her monthly statement, the record indicates that this delay resulted solely
from the timing of the company’s billing cycle.
The Commission therefore concludes that AT&T satisfied the burden of proving that its
unauthorized switch of Mrs. Pattison’s long distance service arose from an unintentional and bona
fide error, and that this switch occurred despite the adoption of reasonable procedures designed to
avoid that error. As a result, the Commission finds that it should adopt the ALJ’s recommendation
and refrain from imposing a fine upon AT&T, pursuant to Section 506(3) of the MTA.
Page 17 U-13164
Remedies
Having found that AT&T’s actions resulted in a technical violation of Section 505(1), but
having also concluded that the violation arose from an unintentional and bona fide error, the
Commission must now determine what, if any, remedies should be granted.
As noted earlier, the ALJ recommended ordering AT&T to pay Mrs. Pattison restitution in the
amount of $656. This recommendation was based on the Complainant’s testimony that she spent a
total of 54 hours (at a rate of $10 per hour) attempting to resolve the matter informally and
preparing her complaint, as well as preparing for, traveling to, and attending the January 14, 2002
hearing. See, PFD at 24-25. It was also designed to provide recovery of all meal, hotel, and
mileage expenses incurred by Mrs. Pattison in pursuing this complaint. Id.
None of the parties excepts to that recommendation. Due to the absence of dispute among the
parties, as well as the Commission’s belief that Mrs. Pattison should be reimbursed for all costs
incurred in bringing this complaint, the Commission agrees with the ALJ and finds that AT&T
should be ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $656. The Commission also finds that
AT&T should be ordered to cease and desist from all further violations of the MTA and the
Commission’s anti-slamming procedures, as requested in the Staff’s exceptions.
The Commission FINDS that:
a. Jurisdiction is pursuant to 1991 PA 179, as amended, MCL 484.2101 et seq.; 1969 PA 306,
as amended, MCL 24.201 et seq.; and the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, as
amended, 1992 AACS, R 460.17101 et seq.
b. The complaint filed by Mrs. Pattison should be granted in part and denied in part.
c. AT&T committed a violation of Section 505(1) of the MTA.
Page 18 U-13164
d. AT&T satisfied the burden of proving that its violation arose from an unintentional and
bona fide error, pursuant to Section 506(3) of the MTA.
e. AT&T should pay restitution to Mrs. Pattison in the amount of $656.
f. AT&T should be ordered to cease and desist from further violations of the MTA and the
Commission’s anti-slamming procedures.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that:
A. The complaint filed on October 25, 2001 by Marilynn Pattison against AT&T
Communications of Michigan, Inc., is granted in part and denied in part.
B. Within 30 days from the issuance of this order, AT&T Communications of Michigan, Inc.,
shall pay restitution to Marilynn Pattison in the amount of $656.
C. AT&T Communications of Michigan, Inc., shall cease and desist from further violations of
the Michigan Telecommunications Act, MCL 484.2101 et seq., and the Commission’s anti-
slamming procedures adopted in Case No. U-11900.
The Commission reserves jurisdiction and may issue further orders as necessary.
Page 19 U-13164
Any party desiring to appeal this order must do so in the appropriate court within 30 days after
issuance and notice of this order, pursuant to MCL 462.26.
MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
/s/ Laura Chappelle
Chairman ( S E A L)
/s/ David A. Svanda Commissioner
/s/ Robert B. Nelson Commissioner By its action of April 16, 2002. /s/ Dorothy Wideman Its Executive Secretary
Page 20 U-13164
Any party desiring to appeal this order must do so in the appropriate court within 30 days after
issuance and notice of this order, pursuant to MCL 462.26.
MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
_________________________________________
Chairman
_________________________________________ Commissioner
_________________________________________ Commissioner By its action of April 16, 2002. ______________________________ Its Executive Secretary
In the matter of the complaint of ) MARILYNN PATTISON against AT&T ) Case No. U-13164 COMMUNICATIONS OF MICHIGAN, INC. ) )
Suggested Minute: “Adopt and issue order dated April 16, 2002 granting in part and denying in
part the complaint filed by Marilynn Pattison against AT&T Communications of Michigan, Inc., ordering payment of restitution in the amount of $656, and issuing a cease and desist order, as set forth in the order.”
