In its investigation, CPED found that PLD’s 2016 Service Guide stated that subscribers’ bills would contain the following statement: “The CPUC handles complaints of both interstate and intrastate unauthorized carrier changes (“slamming”). The California consumer protection rules are available online, at www.cpuc.ca.gov.” However, none of the PLD bills received by CPED or CAB in connection with consumer complaints contain this phrase or similar information about slamming. As such, given PLD’s additional failures to refer slamming complainants to CAB, it is unlikely that PLD subscribers were provided any information by PLD about how they may resolve their slamming complaints. Furthermore, PLD’s 2016 Service Guide stated that PLD assesses a $0.63 “Regulatory Assessment Fee” per account, per month; however, CPED identified bills in which subscribers were actually charged fees of $1.89, triple the listed fee of $0.63, during the time the 2016 Service Guide was in effect. Moreover, PLD’s 2016 Service Guide, although not a tariff itself, contained references to the document as a “tariff” and also referred consumers to various erroneous “rules” that are not actually explained anywhere in PLD’s 2016 Service Guide related to notices for overdue payments, notices required for voluntary discontinuation of service, and liability for non-recoverable costs of special arrangements and services. Given the possibility of collections, penalties related to potentially non-compliant service termination, and liability for certain actions, the inaccuracy of PLD’s Service Guides present considerable consumer protection concerns and may constitute a violation of P.U. Code Section 2896. Misrepresentations Made to Commission Staff in Violation of Rule 1.1 CPED alleges that PLD provided fraudulent TPV recordings to CAB and CPED and false statements in response to CPED data requests in violation of Rule 1.1 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Rule 1.1 provides that, Any person who . . . transacts business with the Commission, by such act . . . agrees to comply with the laws of this State; to maintain the respect due to the Commission, members of the Commission and its Administrative
agents, and employees.” Thus, it may be reasonable for the Commission to conclude that PLD violated P.U. Code Section 702. PRELIMINARY SCOPING MEMO The preliminary scope of issues and schedule are set forth below, and may be changed by the assigned Commissioner’s scoping memo. (See Rule 7.1(c)) A. Issues Presented The Commission bears a responsibility to protect consumers, to enforce laws utilities may have violated, and to investigate the practices of public utilities. Therefore, the proceeding shall determine: Whether PLD violated G.O. 168; Whether PLD violated Rule 1.1 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure; Whether PLD violated California P.U. Code Sections 451, 702, 2889, 2889.9, 2890, and 2896; Whether PLD violated any other Commission rule or order or California statute in which the Commission has jurisdiction to enforce; and, Whether penalties and/or remedies pursuant to G.O. 168 and P.U. Code Sections 734, 2107, 2108, 2889.5 are warranted and, if so, the amount appropriate to the facts and the law; and, Whether any other remedies available to the Commission are warranted. P.U. Code Section 2889.5(e) explicitly provides that, “[a]ny telephone corporation that violates the verification procedures described in this section shall be liable to the telephone corporation previously selected by the subscriber in an amount equal to all charges paid by the subscriber after the violation.” Moreover, P.U. Code Section 2889.5(f) further provides, “[i]n addition to the liability described in subdivision (e), any telephone corporation that violates the verification procedures described in this section shall credit to a subscriber any charges paid by the subscriber in excess of the amount that the subscriber would have been obligated to pay had the subscriber’s telephone service not been changed,” as detailed in G.O. 168, Part 3.