Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 259.0

524US1

Unit: $U84

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

214

OCTOBER TERM, 1997

Syllabus

AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. v.
CENTRAL OFFICE TELEPHONE, INC.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the ninth circuit

No. 97–679. Argued March 23, 1998—Decided June 15, 1998

§ 203(c). The FCC requires carriers to sell

Respondent purchases “bulk” communications services from long-distance
providers, such as petitioner AT&T, and resells them to its customers.
Petitioner, as a common carrier under the Communications Act of 1934,
must ﬁle with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) “tariffs”
containing all
its “charges” for interstate services and all “classiﬁ-
cations, practices, and regulations affecting such charges,” 47 U. S. C.
§ 203(a). A carrier may not “extend to any person any privileges or
facilities in such communication, or employ or enforce any classiﬁcations,
regulations, or practices affecting such charges, except as speciﬁed
in such [tariff].”
long-
distance services to resellers under the same rates, terms, and condi-
tions as apply to other customers.
In 1989, petitioner agreed to sell
respondent a long-distance service, which, under the parties’ written
subscription agreements, would be governed by the rates, terms, and
conditions in the appropriate AT&T tariffs. Respondent soon experi-
enced problems with the service it received, and withdrew from the
contract before the expiration date. Meanwhile, it had sued petitioner
in Federal District Court, asserting, inter alia, state-law claims for
breach of contract and for tortious interference with contractual rela-
tions (viz., respondent’s contracts with its customers), the latter claim
derivative of the former. Respondent alleged that petitioner had prom-
ised and failed to deliver various service, provisioning, and billing op-
tions in addition to those set forth in the tariff, and that petitioner’s
conduct was willful, so that consequential damages were available under
the tariff. The Magistrate Judge rejected petitioner’s argument that
the claims were pre-empted by § 203’s ﬁled-tariff requirements; he
declined, however, to instruct on punitive damages for the tortious-
interference claim. The jury found for respondent and awarded dam-
ages. The Ninth Circuit afﬁrmed the judgment, but reversed the Mag-
istrate Judge’s failure to instruct on punitive damages and remanded for
a trial on that aspect of the case.

Held: The Communications Act’s ﬁled-tariff requirements pre-empt re-

spondent’s state-law claims. Pp. 221–228.