IV. AN OII IS NECESSARY TO ADDRESS LEGACY'S VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW
A. Justification for Use of the OII Process
The Commission has, in the past, utilized the OII process provided by Rule 5.1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure to conduct investigations into illegal telecommunications practices such as deceptive marketing, cramming, and other activities that violate the laws and regulations of this Commission. (See, e.g. Investigation on the Commission's Own Motion into the Operations, Practices, and Conduct of Pacific Bell Telephone Company (U-1001-C), Pacific Bell Internet Services, and SBC Advanced Solutions, Inc. (U 6346 C) to Determine Whether They Have Violated the Laws, Rules and Regulations Governing the Inclusion of Charges for Products or Service on Telephone Bills (Cal. P.U.C., Jan. 23, 2002) No. I. 02-01-024 [2002 WL 257402]; Investigation into TALK AMERICA, INC., formerly Talk.com Holding Corporation, formerly Tel-Save, Inc., (U-5289 and U-5535-C) to determine whether it has violated the laws, rules, and regulations governing the manner in which California subscribers are switched from one presubscribed carrier to another, [I. 01-08-003 2001 Cal. PUC LEXIS 740 (August 2, 2001) [OII opened to investigate charges of deceptive marketing, slamming, and cramming]; and Investigation into NOS COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (U-5251-C) dba International Plus...to determine whether they have violated the laws, rules, and regulations governing the manner in which California Subscribers are solicited, switched from one presubscribed carrier to another, and billed for telephone services, I.02-05-001, 2002 Cal. PUC LEXIS 212 (May 2, 2002) [OII opened to investigate charges of deceptive marketing, slamming, and cramming], as well as other decisions cited, infra, throughout this OII.)29
Moreover, when commencing an investigation pursuant to P.U. Code Sections 451 and 2896, as well as to consider ordering penalties or reparations under sections 701, 734, 1702, and 2107, the Commission need not first apply to a superior court prior to fashioning relief. (Investigation on the Commission's own motion into the operations, practices, and conduct of Pacific Bell Wireless LLC dba Cingular Wireless...[Decision 02-10-061; I. 02-06-003] at * 22 (October 24, 2002); National Communications Center Corp. v. Pacific Telephone [D.90997, 1979 Cal. PUC LEXIS 1178, mod and suppl'd by D.91784, 1980 Cal. PUC LEXIS 512; UCAN v. Pacific Bell, [D.01-09-058] 2001 Cal. PUC LEXIS 914, mod, and ltd. rhrg granted on other issues by D.02-02-027, 2002 Cal. PUC LEXIS 189.
As this Commission shall explain, in light of the nature of the CPSD allegations, as well as the evidence proffered, against Legacy, it is procedurally appropriate to proceed with this OII.
B. The CPSD Report Suggests that Legacy Violated PUC Section 2890(a) By Placing Unauthorized Charges on Consumers' Telephone Bills
According to P.U. Code Section 2890(a), "a telephone bill may only contain charges for products or services, the purchase of which the subscriber has authorized." As discussed, supra, at footnote 1, the Legislature adopted sections 2889.9 and 2890 specifically to combat the problem of cramming, an illegal practice that this Commission has defined in a number of decisions. (See, e.g. Interim Decision Issuing General Order 168, Rules Governing Telecommunications Consumer Protection, [Decision No. 04-05-057; R. 00-02-004], at p. 91, 2004 WL 1375707 (Cal P.U.C., May 27, 2004) ["Cramming, the submission or inclusion of unauthorized, misleading, or deceptive charges for products or services on subscribers' telephone bills, has become a serious problem in California in recent years."]; Decision Issuing Revised General Order 168, Market Rules to Empower Telecommunications Consumers and to Prevent Fraud, [Decision 06-03-013; R. 00-02-004], at p. 75 (March 2, 2006) ["Cramming is the placement of an unauthorized charge on a consumer's phone bill."]; Interim Opinion Adopting Interim Rules Governing The Inclusion of Noncommunications-Related Charges in Telephone Bills (Cal. P.U.C., July 12, 2001) [Decision No. 01-07-030; R.00-02-004], at p. 2, 2001 Cal. PUC LEXIS 542; 212 P.U.R. 4th 282].)30
It is beyond dispute that the Commission has been vested with the constitutional and statutory authority to regulate the practice of cramming,31 and this Commission has not shied away from exercising its authority in order to protect the public against this and other unlawful utility practices. In Rulemaking on the Commission's Own Motion to Consider Adoption of Rules Applicable to Interexchange Carriers for the Transfer of Customers Including Establishing Penalties for Unauthorized Transfer; Investigation on the Commission's Own Motion..., [Decision No. 00-03-020; R. No. 97-08-001; I. 97-08-002] at p. 2, 200 Cal. PUC LEXIS 215 (March 2, 2000), we addressed, in the Final Opinion on Rules Designed to Deter Slamming, Cramming, and Sliding, the importance of protecting the consumer against unauthorized charges:
The Commission's constitutional, statutory, and policy directives all accord consumer protection the highest priority. On the issues of unauthorized transfer and billing, attaining the objective of consumer protection requires an understanding of the impact that these unscrupulous practices have on consumers....Consumers have also presented the Commission with a well-harmonized chorus of complaints about the time and effort involved in detecting and correcting unauthorized bills...Consumers are deeply frustrated and annoyed by the time and aggravation necessary to correct unauthorized charges....Adequately protecting consumers requires that we address these issues. As discussed below, the legislature adopted new laws that imposed duties on parties to billing agreements and gave the Commission enhanced jurisdiction to impose further duties and sanctions, where necessary. We intend to use our extant jurisdiction and new authority to further protect consumers.32
Moreover, in Decision 06-03-013, supra, at p. 76, we addressed the expansive scope of our jurisdiction to combat violators of Section 2890, even if suspected violators are not normally subject to our jurisdiction:
"In enacting the laws, the Legislature stipulated that P.U. Code sections 2889.9 and 2890 apply not only to utilities, but also to non-utility billing agents and other persons or corporations responsible for generating a charge on a subscriber's phone bill. Thus the commission may impose penalties on persons or corporations that violate the cramming statutes, even if the violators typically are not subject to our jurisdiction.
Most recently, on February 12, 2010, the Assigned Commissioner in Order Instituting Rulemaking on the Commission's Own Motion to Establish Consumer Rights and Consumer Protection Rules Applicable to All Telecommunications Utilities issued a ruling requesting comment on the proposed California Telephone Corporation billing rules that are designed "to prevent unauthorized charges from appearing on subscribers bills; and, where prevention fails, to detect unauthorized charges and facilitate any needed refunds."33
We now apply the foregoing law and policy considerations to the allegations contained in the CPSD report regarding Legacy.
Based on the findings in the CPSD report, it appears that Legacy violated Section 2890(a) by systematically placing unauthorized charges on its customers' telephone bills.34 First, the evidence shows that in 60 instances, Legacy charged complainants for collect calls that did not occur, and that Legacy violated P.U. Code Section 2890(a) by placing unauthorized charges for non-existent calls on its customers' phone bills. Second, the evidence shows that Legacy billed consumers for third-party calls that the consumers did not authorize, in violation of P.U. Code Section 2890(a). Third, Legacy billed some customers for a useless service that was not authorized.
Furthermore, Legacy's conduct also appears to have violated federal law. The 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act, Section 226(b)(1)(B), requires that providers of operator services permit the consumer to terminate the telephone call at no charge before the call is connected. Legacy's own policy requires that a collect call must first be accepted by the recipient before billing can begin35. Yet, the evidence shows that Legacy placed unauthorized charges for rejected collect calls on consumers' phone bills, in violation of applicable law.
Finally, we note that placing charges on consumers' telephone bills for non-existent calls is not only "cramming;" but also suggests the commission of theft36 and/or fraud.37
C. The CPSD Report Suggests that Legacy Violated PUC Section 2896(a), Section 451, and the Federal Telecommunications Act Section 226 by Failing to Disclose Rate Information to its Consumers
Public Utilities Code Section 2896(a) states in relevant part as follows:
The commission shall require telephone corporations to provide customer service to telecommunication customers that includes, but is not limited to, all the following:
(a) Sufficient information upon which to make informed choices among telecommunications services and providers. This includes, but is not limited to, information regarding the provider's identity, service options, pricing, and terms and conditions of service. A provider need only provide information to its customers on the services which it offers.
In Opinion: Order Modifying Decision 08-08-017 and Denying Rehearing of Decision 08-080017as Modified herein in Utility Consumers' Action Network v. SBC Communications, Inc., (Decision 09-04-036; Case 05-11-011), at * 59, 200 Cal. PUC LEXIS 212 (April 16, 2009), we explained the importance of this section in promoting consumer protection:
Section 2896, subdivision (a) requires carriers to provide customers with information about their services, including `service options, pricing, and terms and conditions of service.' This statute requires information to be provided so customers can make informed choices between different types of service and between carriers. In UCAN v. Pacific Bell [D.01-09-058], supra, we found that section 2896 had enacted into law an already-established `minimum regulatory standard' requiring companies such as AT&T `to provide consumers with the information necessary to make informed choices among services and service providers.' Finally, we pointed out the importance of this requirement. `This minimum standard reflects traditional regulatory concerns for consumer protection and also emerging concerns about fair competition. (Id., at p. 17 (slip. Op.).38
P.U. Code Section 451 states:
Every public utility shall furnish and maintain such adequate, efficient, just, and reasonable service, instrumentalities, equipment, and facilities, including telephone facilities, as defined in Section 54.1 of the Civil Code, as are necessary to promote the safety, health, comfort, and convenience of its patrons, employees, and the public. All rules made by a public utility affecting or pertaining to its charges or service to the public shall be just and reasonable.39
In Decision 04-12-058, supra, at * 23, we explained that
this section requires that all public utilities not only charge just and reasonable rates, but also furnish and maintain adequate, efficient, just, and reasonable service necessary to promote the safety, health, comfort, and convenience of its patrons, employees, and the public. (D.04-09-062, p. 49.) Section 451 also requires that the rules pertaining to service to the public to be just and reasonable. (Id.) We noted that, in decisions spanning several decades, the Commission has interpreted section 451's reasonable service mandate to require, for example, that `utilities provide accurate consumer information by a readily accessible means, refrain from misleading or potentially misleading marketing practices, and ensure their representatives assist customers by providing meaningful information about products and services.'
Section 226 of the 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act provides, in relevant part as follows:
(1) In general beginning not later than 90 days after October 17, 1990, each provider of operator services shall, at a minimum - (A) identify itself, audibly and distinctly, to the consumer at the beginning of each telephone call and before the consumer incurs any charge for the call; (B) permit the consumer to terminate the telephone call at no charge before the call is connected; (C) disclose immediately to the consumer, upon request and at no charge to the consumer - (i) a quote of its rates or charges for the call.
Legacy's lack of disclosure of rates to consumers appears to violate P.U. Code Section 2896(a). Without the disclosure of collect call rates and fees prior to the connection of the collect call, the call recipient will not have sufficient information to make an informed choice as to whether or not to accept the collect call and the associated charges.
Additionally, this lack of disclosure renders the charges unjust and unreasonable, and therefore unlawful. Public Utilities Code Section 451 requires that all charges demanded or received by any public utility for any product or commodity or any service rendered or to be rendered shall be just and reasonable. Under Section 451, every unjust and unreasonable charged demanded or received for such product, commodity or service is unlawful. Price information is specifically identified as an element requiring disclosure under Section 2896(a); a consumer has the right to know the charges for a collect call before he or she decides whether to accept the call. Legacy's inability to provide this information at the point of sale, and subsequent placement of such charges on the uninformed consumers' phone bills, is therefore unjust and unreasonable.
Complainants have good cause to demand rate disclosure, especially since Legacy may be charging unreasonably high rates for the collect calls they carry. One consumer complained about being charged $66 for 2 collect calls, which together lasted 3 minutes.40 Many consumers complained about exorbitant undisclosed charges ranging from $20 to $40 for each collect call lasting less than 5 minutes. See Appendix 13 for a complete list of complaint descriptions.
Moreover, the lack of rate disclosure also appears to violate Section 226 of the Federal Telecommunications Act. Section 226 lists the requirements for Providers of Operator Services and specifically requires that providers "...disclose immediately to the consumer, upon request and at no charge to the consumer, a quotation of its rates or charges for the call."41 Legacy's practice of not disclosing collect call rates to consumers, if proven on the record in this case, would constitute a violation of Section 226.
D. The CPSD Report Suggests that Legacy Violated PUC Section 489(a) By Failing to File its Complete Tariff Timely
Public Utilities Code Section 489(a) empowers the Commission to require every public utility to file with the Commission schedules showing all rates, tolls, rentals, charges, and classifications collected or enforce:
The commission shall, by rule or order, require every public utility other than a common carrier to file with the commission within the time and in the form as the commission designates, and to print and keep open to public inspection, schedules showing all rates, tolls, rentals, charges, and classifications collected or enforced, or to be collected or enforced, together with all rules, contracts privileges, and facilities which in any manner affect or relate to rates, tolls, rentals, classifications, or service.42
The importance of complying with Section 489(a) is evidenced by the fact that "the tariff, with any limitation of liability specified therein, is the document that governs the rights and liabilities between a public utility...and its customers." (Pink Dot, Inc., v. Teleport Communications Group, 89 Cal.App.4th 407, 410, fn. 1 (2001).) Moreover, as "a condition imposed by a tariff binds a utility's customer's without regard to whether a contract is signed by the customer and without regard to the customer's actual knowledge of the tariff[,]" (Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. v. Superior Court, 65 Cal. App.4th 1013, 1017, fn. 6 (1998)), it is vital that utilities comply with the tariff-filing requirements.
Based on Staff's factual findings, Legacy appears to have violated PUC Section 489(a) by failing to file timely its complete tariffs with the Commission.
E. The CPSD Report Suggests that Legacy Violated PUC Section 532 by Charging Consumers Rates in Excess of its Filed Tariffs
Public Utilities Code Section 532 states:
Except as in this article otherwise provided, no public utility shall charge, or receive a different compensation for any product or commodity furnished or to be furnished, or for any service rendered or to be rendered, than the rates, tolls, rentals, and charges applicable thereto as specified in its schedules on file and in effect at the time....The commission may by rule or order establish such exceptions from the operation of this prohibition as it may consider just and reasonable as to each public utility.
We have interpreted Section 532 "to complement PU Code Section 489 by providing that the utilities shall not deviate from tariffs required by PU Code Section 489." (Toward Utility Rate Normalization v. Pacific Bell, [Decision No. 92-05-062; Case No. 91-03-006], at. *17, 1993 Cal. PUC LEXIS 394, 49 CPUC 2d 299 (1993).) If the rates and charges collected by a utility differ from those set forth in its tariffs, the utility is in violation of section. 532. (See Apex Smelting Co. v. So. Cal. Gas Co., 60 Cal. PUC 74, 80 (1962) ["The rates and charges collected by Southern from Apex were, and are, at variance from those applicable under its tariffs (Schedule G-53) in violation of Section 532 of the Public Utilities Code."].) While Section 532 "prevents utilities from deviating from their tariff," the Commission is allowed "to make exceptions in its discretion." (Pacific Bell (U 1001 C) v. MCI Telecommunications Corporation (U 5002 C), [Decision No. 99-04-030, Case No. 97-02-027], 1999 Cal. PUC LEXIS 250; 85 CPUC2d 694, 698 (1999).)
Of the total of 49 sampled complaints regarding unreasonably high collect call rates and the lack of disclosure, Staff verified and Legacy admitted43 that it charged 10 customers rates in excess of its filed tariffs, which would constitute a violation of PUC Section 532. For example, a complainant informed Staff that he talked to a Legacy representative who told him that "it made no difference how long each call lasted, the company bills for 5 minutes at a minimum."44 Legacy's filed tariffs and rate sheets do not include a $29.05 five-minute-minimum flat rate. As such, the five-minute minimum charge appears to violate Legacy's tariffs and PUC Section 532.45
F. The CPSD Report Suggests that Legacy Violated The Commission's Rule 1.1 By Failing To Disclose Numerous Regulatory Sanctions It Sustained In 16 Other States
Rule 1.1 requires that
Any person who signs a pleading or brief, enters an appearance, offers testimony at a hearing, or transacts business with the Commission, by such act represents that he or she is authorized to do so and agrees to comply with the laws of this State; to maintain the respect due to the Commission, members of the Commission and its Administrative Law Judges; and never to mislead the Commission or its staff by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.
A person can violate Rule 1.1 "even if the violation was inadvertent[.]" (In the Matter of the Application of Bigredwire.com, Inc. for Registration as an Interexchange Carrier Telephone Corporation pursuant to the provisions of Public Utilities Code Section 1013, [Decision 09-04-009; A. 07-10-003] at * 21 [2009 Cal. PUC LEXIS 197] (April 16, 2009); Order Instituting Rulemaking on the Commission's Own Motion into Competition for Local Exchange Service; Order Instituting Investigation on the Commission's Own Motion into Competition for Local Exchange Service, [Decision 01-08-019; R.95-04-043; I. 95-04-044], at p. 10 (August 6, 2001) ["In any event the question of intent to deceive merely goes to the question of how much weight to assign to any penalty that may be assessed. The lack of direct intent to deceive does not necessarily, however, avoid a Rule 1 violation."].)
Legacy appears to have repeatedly violated Rule 1.1 by misrepresenting to the Commission and Staff that it has never been sanctioned or investigated by any state regulatory agency. Table 6 in the CPSD Report shows the various actions against Legacy in 16 other states. Legacy President Curtis Brown, when confronted with the facts, admitted to and took responsibility for the errors and misstatements.46
29 Additionally, P.U. CODE Section 761 gives the Commission the authority to investigate and regulate utility practices: "Whenever the Commission, after a hearing finds that the rules, practices,...of any public utility,...are unjust, unreasonable, unsafe, improper, inadequate, or insufficient, the commission shall determine and by order or rule, fix the rules, practices,...or methods to be observed,...or employed. ..."
30 The problem of cramming is not unique to California. The Federal Government has both expressed its concerns over the practice and has tracked state efforts to protect the consumers. (See Czerwinski, Stanley. Overview of the Cramming Problem. TELECOMMUNICATIONS United States General Accounting Office. Testimony Before the Committee on Small Business, U.S. Senate. October 25, 1999 ["At the federal level, cramming complaints became the fourth most common type of written complaint received by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the second most common type of complaint received by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) during 1998."]; Update on State-Level Cramming Complaints and Enforcement Actions. TELECOMMUNICATIONS United States General Accounting Office. January 2000.) Moreover, the branches of the federal government charged with deterring the practice of cramming utilize definitions similar to those adopted by this Commission. For example, the Federal Trade Commission defines cramming as "the inclusion of charges on consumers' telephone bills for services which they had not requested." (United States v. Locascio, 357 F. Supp. 2d 536, 540 (E.D.N.Y. 2004).) The Federal Communications Commission defines cramming as "the practice of including, placing, or submitting unauthorized, misleading, or deceptive charges for products or services on an end-user consumer's telephone bill." (In the Matter of Long Distance Direct, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 14 FCC Rcd 314, 315 (1998).) The FCC went further and explained that "cramming can also occur if a local or long distance company or another type of service provider does not clearly or accurately describe all of the relevant charges to you when marketing a service. Although you may have authorized the service, you did not understand or were misled about how much it would really cost." (FCC Consumer Facts at www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cramming.html.)
31 The Historical and Statutory Notes to section 2890 provide that the purpose behind promulgating 2890 and 2889.9 was to "(a) reduce the inclusion of unauthorized charges on a telephone subscriber's bill, a practice known as `cramming';" "(b) clarify the rights and remedies available to California consumers with regard to telephone billing disputes;" and "(c) provide California consumers with a consistent, effective, and easily accessible means of resolving disputes over unauthorized, inadvertent, misleading, or fraudulent charges that appear on their telephone bills." (Section 2890; Stats. 1998, ch. 1041, section 1 (Sen. Bill No. 378).) Moreover, our constitutional and statutory authority is undoubtedly broad enough to regulate cramming. (See San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.4th 893, 914-915 (1996) ["The commission is a state agency of constitutional origin with far-reaching duties, functions and powers....The Constitution confers broad authority on the commission to regulate utilities, including the power to fix rates, establish rules, hold various types of hearings, award reparation, and establish its own procedures...."].)
32 See also Investigation of USP&C to determine whether it violated Public Utilities Code Section 2889.9 by failing to provide Commission staff with requested information and whether the Commission should order California telephone companies to cease providing billing and collection services to USP&C, [I.99-10-024], at * 5, 1999 Cal. PUC LEXIS 589 (October 21, 1999) ["Cramming is a serious problem within California and nationwide. Our enforcement staff must be able to obtain information from billing aggregators quickly to effectively investigate slamming and cramming."]
33 R. 00-02-004, page 1.
34 Under P.U. Code Section 2890 (d)(2) D, in the case of a dispute, there is a rebuttable presumption that an unverified charge for a product or service was not authorized by the subscriber, and that the subscriber is not responsible for the charge. Therefore, in the absence of any call records that could point to the contrary, Staff has to place substantial weight on the consumers' assertions that these calls did not occur and were not authorized.
35 Appendix 19, Legacy's Response to Data Request 3.3.
36 Penal Code Section 484(a) defines theft as: "Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry, lead, or drive away the personal property of another...is guilty of theft."
37 The elements of fraud, which give rise to deceit, are [1] misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); [2] knowledge of falsity; [3] intent to defraud; [4] justifiable reliance; and [5] resulting damage. (Civil Code Section 1709.)
38 See also Opinion: Order Modifying and Denying Rehearing of Decision (D.) 04-09-062 in Investigation on the Commission's own Motion into the Operations, Practices, and conduct of Pacific Bell Wireless LLC dba Cingular Wireless..., [Decision 04-12-058; I. 02-06-003], at *24, 2004 Cal. PUC LEXIS 577 (December 16, 2004) ["As to section 2896, we stated that this section `requires all telephone corporations (including wireless carriers and resellers) to provide customers with sufficient information upon which to make informed choices among telecommunications services and providers.' (D.04-09-062, p. 54, quoting section 2896(a).)
39 This Commission has interpreted Section 451 to prohibit the practice of cramming. (See, e.g. Investigation into Accutel Communications, Inc., d.b.a. Florida Accutel Communications, Inc. (U-585) [Decision 02-07-034; I. 99-04-023], at * 2, July 17, 2002. Indeed, statutes such as section 451 have been broadly written and have been upheld against charges of vagueness. (See Pacific Bell Wireless, LLC v. Public Utilities Commission, 140 Cal.App. 4th 718, 741 (2006) ["The statutes [451, 702, and 2896] and the Commission order that Cingular was found to have violated are broadly written."]; Opinion Ordering Reparations and Imposing Sanctions in Investigation on the Commission's Own Motion Into the Operations and Practices of Telmatch Telecommunications, Inc., (U 5715), to Determine Whether It Has Violated the Laws, Rules and Regulations Governing the Manner in which California Consumers are Billed for Telecommunication Services, [Decision 02-06-077; I. 99-09-001], at *20, 2002 Cal. PUC LEXIS 380 (June 27, 2002) ["Recently, we have seen many disputes in which a consumer alleges that a telecommunications service provider has charged the consumer for services the consumer has never ordered. From the standpoint of section 451, it is immaterial whether the service provided was wrong, inadequate, or unauthorized. In each instance, the charge for such services would be unjust and unreasonable, and we see no basis in policy or the plain language of the statute for holding otherwise. Thus, a utility violates section 451 by furnishing a product or service that consumers have not ordered or authorized."]; Carey v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, 85 Cal.P.U.C.2d 682, 689 (1999) ["it would be virtually impossible to draft Section 451 to specifically set forth every conceivable service, instrumentality and facility which might be defined as `reasonable' and necessary to promote the public safety. That the terms are incapable of precise definition given the variety of circumstances likewise does not make Section 451 void for vagueness, either on its face or in application to the instant case."].)
40 Appendix 29, Declaration of Complainant #7001839.
41 Appendix 28, Federal Telecommunications Act Section 226 (a)(3)(i).
42 See also Waters v. Pacific Telephone Co., 12 Cal.3d 1, 6 (1974) ["The commission is specifically empowered to require utilities to file tariff schedules containing rates, charges, and classifications[.]"
43 Appendix 30, Legacy Supplemental Responses to Data Request 3-2.
44 Appendix 29, Declaration of Complainant #7001839.
45 Appendix 30, Legacy Supplemental Responses to Data Request 3-2.
46 Appendix 8, Testimony of Curtis Brown, p. 1, lines 11-18.
