Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 261

524US1

Unit: $U84

[09-06-00 20:39:07] PAGES PGT: OPIN

216

AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO.
v. CENTRAL OFFICE TELEPHONE, INC.
Opinion of the Court

David W. Carpenter argued the cause for petitioner.
With him on the briefs were Carter G. Phillips, Thomas W.
Merrill, Peter D. Keisler, and Marc E. Manly.

Bruce M. Hall argued the cause and ﬁled a brief for

respondent.*

Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent Central Ofﬁce Telephone, Inc. (COT), a re-
seller of long-distance communications services, sued peti-
tioner AT&T, a provider of long-distance communications
services, under state law for breach of contract and tortious
interference with contract. Petitioner is regulated as a
common carrier under the Communications Act of 1934, 48
Stat. 1064, as amended, 47 U. S. C. § 151 et seq. The issue
before us is whether the federal ﬁled-tariff requirements
of the Communications Act pre-empt respondent’s state-law
claims.

I

Respondent purchases “bulk” long-distance services—
volume-discounted services designed for large customers—
from long-distance providers, and resells them to smaller
customers. Like many other resellers in the telecommuni-
cations industry, respondent does not own or operate facili-
ties of its own; it is known as a “switchless reseller,” which
is the industry nomenclature for arbitrageur. Of course re-
spondent passes along only a portion of the bulk-purchase
discount to its aggregated customers, and retains the re-
maining discount as proﬁt.

Petitioner provides long-distance services and, as a com-
mon carrier under the Communications Act, § 153(h), must

*Gary M. Epstein, Maureen E. Mahoney, Teresa D. Baer, Walter H.
Alford, William B. Barﬁeld, M. Robert Sutherland, and Michael J.
Zpevak ﬁled a brief for the United States Telephone Association et al. as
amici curiae urging reversal.

Henry D. Levine, Ellen G. Block, and James S. Blaszak ﬁled a brief for
the Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee et al. as amici curiae.