The second known privacy class action in four days seeking to hold Apple accountable for its allegedly deceptive use of personal data from iPhones and other devices (see 2302010017) was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan.
Plaintiffs Qwest, Level 3 and Global Crossing and defendant Peerless Network affiliates in eight states hired Frank Lamancusa of Morgan Lewis as a private mediator in their interconnect agreements dispute, said the parties in a joint status report (docket 1:21-cv-03004) posted Thursday in U.S. District Court for Colorado in Denver. Lamancusa is a former DOJ and FCC attorney who also is a professional mediator and arbitrator for the International Center for Dispute Resolution, said the report. The parties scheduled a mediation session Feb. 7-8, “with additional discussion or negotiation to follow if necessary,” it said. The case involves negotiated interconnect agreements and the access tariffs associated with them. Qwest, Level 3 and Global Crossing sued the Peerless affiliates in November 2021, alleging they engaged in a scheme of avoiding mandatory switched access charges, thereby giving them an unfair competitive advantage in the toll-free marketplace (see 2211030043). The defendants countersued in March, alleging the telecom companies used unfair and unsupported billing methods, to the detriment of the Peerless affiliates.
It's the “duty” of federal courts to exercise their case jurisdiction “in all but the most exceptional circumstances,” but the district court in businesses’ challenge of Maryland’s digital ad tax “twice refused to do so,” said the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s opening brief Tuesday (docket 22-2275) at the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
AT&T and Core Communications continued finger-pointing Friday in the latter’s legal fight to recover $11.4 million in unpaid access services charges from AT&T. The two sides disagree on who bears the burden of proof in showing the calls at issue were legitimate and not improper robocalls (see 2212280001). Defendant AT&T refused to pay plaintiff Core for its access services, claiming nearly all the calls that CoreTel affiliates in Delaware, New Jersey, Virginia and West Virginia connected were fraudulent. Core’s arguments it provided access services on “actual calls originated by genuine end users -- and did not bill for improper robocalls -- misstate the law” by failing to acknowledge “the default rule that plaintiffs ordinarily bear the burden of proof,” said AT&T’s opposition brief (docket 2:21-cv-02771) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Core’s argument “is also premised on absurd and unreasonably narrow views of its common carrier obligations,” views that the FCC already said are “unlawful,” it said. Core is also wrong in claiming its access services tariffs, which Core unilaterally drafted, “somehow excuse it from proving that it provided genuine access services, and did not route or enable improper robocalls,” said AT&T. “Simply because Core elected not to include detailed tariff provisions that bar access charges on improper robocalls does not mean that such charges are authorized by the tariffs.” Core’s opposition brief argued AT&T is trying to convince the court “to create new telecommunications law to use not only as a shield against CoreTel’s claims, but also as a sword to use against other carriers in other compensation disputes.” AT&T is asking for the court’s blessing “to do what it has done here on a larger scale: withhold all monies it owes to a carrier (even when AT&T was paid for the same traffic by its own customers),” said Core. AT&T’s arguments are “better suited for a rulemaking proceeding at the FCC advocating for the imposition of new and additional burdens on wholesalers or intermediate carriers,” said Core. “This, however, is a collection action, not a rulemaking proceeding,” it said. CoreTel “has a burden to prove a breach of contract, and a breach of contract only,” it said.
Attorneys worked the weekend racing to file the first two known class actions to hold T-Mobile accountable for the data breach that enabled bad actors to access the accounts of, by T-Mobile's own estimation, 37 million current postpaid and prepaid customer accounts. The first filings came with remarkable speed -- within days after T-Mobile disclosed the breach in a 8-K report Thursday at the SEC.
Each side in Core Communications’ legal fight to recover $11.4 million in unpaid access services charges from AT&T (see 2211230053) pointed the finger at the other in arguing which bears the burden of proof in showing that the calls at issue were legitimate and not improper robocalls.
The Dec. 21 class action alleging T-Mobile failed to protect customers' information in a SIM card swap fraud (see 2211160016) was assigned to U.S. District Judge Lauren King for Western Washington in Seattle, whose Dec. 22 summons gave the defendant 21 days to answer the complaint (docket 2:22-cv-1805).
Microsoft, positioning itself in third place among console gaming companies behind Nintendo and Sony and with “next to no presence” in mobile gaming, is trying to become “more competitive” in the expanding mobile gaming space, it said Thursday.
Defendants SellLocked, Guru Holdings and owner Jakob Zahara on Tuesday filed a motion to dismiss (docket 2:22-cv-1950) the 12 causes of action in Xfinity Mobile’s handset trafficking complaint against them for damages and injunctive relief in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in Phoenix.
A state appeals court ordered the Oregon Public Utility Commission to reconsider an order denying payphone providers refunds from Lumen. The Northwest Public Communications Council (NPCC), a regional payphone provider association, asked the PUC to order Lumen to issue refunds for payphone rates that its predecessor Qwest charged payphone companies between 1996 and 2003, saying the charged rates didn’t comply with federal law. “The PUC's prior orders in this docket neither require nor preclude the requested refunds and … we cannot say whether state and federal law require the PUC to order the requested refunds,” Oregon Appeals Court Judge Darleen Ortega wrote in Wednesday’s decision (case A166810). “However, because we conclude that the PUC relied on factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence, we reverse Order No. 17-473 and remand to the PUC for reconsideration.” The PUC hasn’t determined if the pre-2003 rates complied with federal law, said Ortega. “Under the applicable regulatory scheme, the PUC does not have discretion to simply ignore NPCC's allegations that Qwest's pre-2003 payphone rates violate section 276” of the 1996 Telecom Act, she said. “And if, after proper inquiry, the PUC finds that Qwest's pre-2003 payphone rates exceeded that allowed by federal law and amount to 'unjust and unreasonable exactions,' the PUC has a duty to protect ratepayers, including NPCC's members, by providing some appropriate remedy,” which “may include ordering refunds for overcharges.” The Oregon PUC "will be reviewing the order and will take appropriate action based on the court’s decision," a spokesperson said Monday. Lumen declined to comment.