Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Communications Co., 971 F.Supp. 302, 305-06 (W.D.Tenn.1997). Plaintiffs rebanee on these cases is misplaced for several reasons. None of these cases analyzed whether a court could ignore a federal consumer-protection regulation simply because a tariff was filed with the FCC. The MCI case dealt with whether federal courts have jurisdiction to hear billing-dispute cases arising out of long-distance contracts where the long-distance provider had filed tariffs with the FCC. The issue was one of jurisdiction and the case did not at all address the applicability of federal regulations. In Wegoland, the issue was whether plaintiffs could attack long-distance rates on the theory that the providers had engaged in fraud. Although the Second Circuit broadly reaffirmed the “filed tariff’ doctrine (<HOLDING>), the court did not discuss whether federal 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the respondents statelaw claims are barred by the filed rate doctrine (B) holding that under the filed rate doctrine a question regarding reasonable rates should be addressed to the department of insurance and that the rate plaintiff was charged is conclusively presumed reasonable under the filed rate doctrine (C) holding that suits against longdistance companies for unreasonable rates were barred if the defendant had filed a rate tariff with the fcc (D) holding that the filed rate doctrine barred private right of action for consumer fraud (E) holding that filed rate doctrine did not apply because pharmaceutical companies do not file rates with any agency
Output (English): holding that filed rate doctrine did not apply because pharmaceutical companies do not file rates with any agency