Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 267.0

524US1

Unit: $U84

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

222

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

“extend to any person any privileges or facilities in such
communication, or employ or enforce any classiﬁcations, reg-
ulations, or practices affecting such charges, except as speci-
ﬁed in such schedule.” These provisions are modeled after
similar provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA) and
share its goal of preventing unreasonable and discriminatory
charges. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American
Telephone & Telegraph Co., 512 U. S. 218, 229–230 (1994).
Accordingly, the century-old “ﬁled rate doctrine” associated
with the ICA tariff provisions applies to the Communications
Act as well. See id., at 229–231; Arkansas Louisiana Gas
Co. v. Hall, 453 U. S. 571, 577 (1981); cf. United States Nav.
In Louis-
Co. v. Cunard S. S. Co., 284 U. S. 474, 481 (1932).
ville & Nashville R. Co. v. Maxwell, 237 U. S. 94, 97 (1915),
we described the basic contours of the ﬁled rate doctrine
under the ICA:

“Under the Interstate Commerce Act, the rate of the
carrier duly ﬁled is the only lawful charge. Deviation
from it is not permitted upon any pretext. Shippers
and travelers are charged with notice of it, and they as
well as the carrier must abide by it, unless it is found
by the Commission to be unreasonable.
Ignorance or
misquotation of rates is not an excuse for paying or
charging either less or more than the rate ﬁled. This
rule is undeniably strict and it obviously may work
hardship in some cases, but it embodies the policy
which has been adopted by Congress in the regulation
interstate commerce in order to prevent unjust
of
discrimination.”

Thus, even if a carrier intentionally misrepresents its rate
and a customer relies on the misrepresentation, the carrier
cannot be held to the promised rate if it conﬂicts with the
published tariff. Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Carl, 227
U. S. 639, 653 (1913).