Opinion ID: 839160
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: PROPER INTERPRETATION OF MCL 484.2502(1)(a)

Text: Having determined that agencies' constructions of statutes are entitled to respectful consideration, but are not binding on courts and cannot conflict with the plain language of the statute, we now turn to review § 2502(1)(a), which provides: (1) A provider of a telecommunication service shall not do any of the following: (a) Make a statement or representation, including the omission of material information, regarding the rates, terms, or conditions of providing a telecommunication service that is false, misleading, or deceptive. The critical question here was the meaning of false and, thus, whether this statute penalized merely factually inaccurate statements, as the PSC concluded, or whether false includes a requirement that the inaccuracy be intentionally communicated. Importantly, the PSC did not actually provide an analysis for its construction of the statutory language. In its February 25, 2002, order, the PSC discussed the parties' arguments concerning this section. The hearing referee had found that the inaccuracies at issue stemmed from the difficulties inherent in diagnosing the problem experienced by the SBC customers. SBC argued that the misdiagnosis in this case was not the type of activity proscribed by the statute and the hearing referee agreed. The customers and the PSC staff contrarily argued that any untrue statement was subject to the statutory sanctions. The PSC agreed with the customers and the PSC staff, rejecting the hearing referee's application of the statute. In reaching that conclusion, the PSC first discussed three facts: (1) when the customers reported the problem, SBC's automated system informed them that they would only be charged for problems with inside wiring; (2) the technician, without entering the customers' house, informed the customers that the problem was inside and that the customers owed $71; and (3) the customers received an invoice for $71 from SBC's automated billing process, even though SBC had determined that the problem was with the outside wiring. The PSC then concluded that, [b]ased on these facts, the company's statements to [the customers] on April 3 and 4, 2001 were false, and therefore, SBC violated § 2502( l )(a). However, the PSC did not conclude that the false statements were intended to deceive. [64] In reaching this conclusion, the PSC did not analyze the language of the statute, nor did it provide a rationale for its unexplained conclusion that the statutory term false meant untrue or incorrect. The PSC's bald assertion that SBC violated the statute is not a construction of the statute. Therefore, under the Boyer-Campbell standard, there is little here for any reviewing court to respectfully consider. The PSC, having failed to offer a construction of its own that would warrant any consideration, requires that we provide, as the panel below should have provided, an interpretation of the plain language of the statute. The Court of Appeals acknowledged that false has multiple meanings, and the panel listed the following definitions: 1. not true or correct; erroneous; wrong: a false statement. 2. uttering or declaring what is untrue; lying: a false witness. 3. not faithful or loyal; treacherous; hypocritical: a false friend. 4. tending to deceive or mislead; deceptive: a false impression ....[ [65] ] The panel indicated that it favored the tending to deceive or mislead fourth definition because of the statutory context. Furthermore, the panel stated that it found insufficient evidence in the record to support an intent by SBC to mislead its customers. However, relying on an erroneous standard of review, the panel upheld the decision of the PSC because the agency's interpretation was quite literal and certainly not unlawful or unreasonable. By ignoring the statutory context, the PSC's implicit interpretation of false was erroneous. As a general matter, words and clauses will not be divorced from those which precede and those which follow. When construing a series of terms... we are guided by the principle that words grouped in a list should be given related meaning. [66] In other words, this Court applies the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, which stands for the principle that a word or phrase is given meaning by its context of setting. [67] The statute prohibits telecommunications providers from making a statement or representation ... that is false, misleading, or deceptive. [68] The context of the word false is the key to determining which of the multiple definitions of that term the Legislature intended, and the other related statutory termsmisleading and deceptiveprovide that context. Mislead means 1. to lead or guide in the wrong direction. 2. to lead into error of conduct, thought, or judgment; lead astray, [69] and deceive means to mislead by a false appearance or statement; trick. [70] Thus, both mislead and deceive require the perpetrator intentionally to trick or lead astray his or her victim. These definitions provide insight into which related meaning of false the Legislature intended. The definition of false that has a related meaning to the other descriptive statutory terms is the fourth definition cited by the Court of Appeals: tending to deceive or mislead; deceptive. Thus, a mere mistaken communication would be insufficient to make a false statement penalized under this statute. The fact that the SBC's technician's statement was simply untrue or that a bill mistakenly sent in reliance on the technician's incorrect diagnosis constitute insufficient proof to establish falsity required by the statute. [71] Thus, we conclude that only statements that are intentionally false qualify as violations of the statute, and the Court of Appeals statutory construction determination and the PSC's conclusion that a statutory violation occurred must be reversed.