The commission may, at its discretion, institute in any court a proceeding against a telecommunications utility for injunctive relief to compel compliance with this section, to compel the accounting and refund of any moneys collected in violation of this section or for any other relief permitted under this chapter. The commission views the two subsections as independent and unrelated. Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Public Serv. We agree with Ameritech that the argument is unavailing in that the law distinguishes between penalties, which exist to punish a wrongdoer without regard to the damages caused, and remedies, which seek to provide relief or redress for a wrong, or to prevent further injury. These are plainly remedial, rather than penal, in nature.
Legislative history is frequently problematic.
State ex rel. Indeed, as we noted, much of the material the commission offered to indicate the legislature's intent was prepared by the commission's own staff. Wis. Act 496, and makes no specific reference to the sections at issue here. Our independent review of the law satisfies us that the trial court correctly decided this issue as well. If, under the law, these consumers would not have a cause of action themselves absent compliance with that condition, it makes little sense to hold that the commission could bring the action in their place.