15. Business and Professions Code

In its comments on the Proposed Decision on Appeal of Commissioner Neeper, Greenlining contends that the decision should address Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 and 17500.

Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code is part of the statutory scheme prohibiting "unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent" business activities. The statute "borrows" violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices independently actionable under this section. Peters v. Saunders, 58 Cal. Rptr. 2d 690, 702 (1996). The statute also makes clear that "unfair" practices are

actionable" even if not proscribed by some other law." Cal-Tech Communications v. LA Cellular, 20 Cal.4^th 163, 180 (1999). Business and Professions Code § 17203 authorizes a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin any further violations of the statute. In addition, the Attorney General, district attorneys, and certain city and county attorneys may bring actions for injunctive relief and civil penalties. (Business and Professions Code, §§ 17204, 17206.)

Remedies for violations of Business and Professions Code § 17200 are in addition to any other remedies. Business and Professions Code

35. UCAN has failed to adequately state a claim under either 47 U.S.C. § 222 or § 2891.

36. Complainants have presented us with no sound rationale for prohibiting Pacific Bell from using incentive-based compensation mechanism for their service representatives in the increasingly competitive telephone market.

37. The statutory standards applicable to Pacific Bell's marketing to ethnic minority customers are the same standards applicable to its other customers.

38. ULTS is designed to promote the use of affordable, statewide, basic telephone service among low income households by providing a subsidy to low income customers funded by a surcharge on all end-users' bills.

39. ULTS customers should have the opportunity to purchase optional services.

40. As with all customers, ULTS customers are best able to make their own purchasing decisions when presented with complete information.

41. The public interest requires that Pacific Bell pay a fine of $10,039,000 to the General Fund of the State of California.

42. The public interest requires that one half of Pacific Bell's fine or $5,019,500 be suspended pending Pacific Bell's compliance with this decision.

43. The public interest requires this decision should be made effective immediately.

FINAL ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. No later than 120 days after the effective date of this order, Pacific Bell shall file and serve an advice letter proposing modifications to Tariff Rule 12 consistent with this decision.

2. No later than 60 days after the effective date of this order, Pacific Bell shall begin including on every bill the Caller ID blocking status of each telephone line. The bill shall also contain (either on the front or back) a brief description of the two options and code required to block or unblock the number.

3. Pacific shall contact all customers that have switched from Complete Blocking to Selective Blocking since January 1, 1998. Pacific Bell shall follow the same process that it followed when contacting the customers contacted by Business Response, Inc.

4. Pacific Bell shall confirm that all customers who have switched from Complete Caller ID Blocking to Selective Blocking since January 1, 1998, understood the privacy consequences of the switch and intended to make the change.

5. Complainant's challenge to Pacific Bell's offer on every call policy is denied.

6. Greenlining's request that Anonymous Call Rejection be prohibited is denied.

7. Greenlining's request for special disclosure requirements for ethnic minorities, recent immigrants, and customers that prefer to use a language other than English is denied.

8. Complainants have failed to meet the burden of proof that Pacific Bell has violated state or federal laws covering the use of Customer Proprietary Network Information.

9. Pacific Bell shall resume disclosing to its customers who are tenants that the landlord is legally responsible for inside wire maintenance and usable jack.

10. Pacific Bell shall pay a fine of $10,039,000 to the General Fund of the State of California, except that one half of the fine, or $5,019,500, is suspended pending Pacific Bell's compliance with this decision. Should Pacific Bell fail to comply with this decision, we may impose the full amount of the fine. Within 120 days from the effective date of this decision Pacific Bell shall pay a fine of $5,019,500 million to the General Fund of the State of California.

11. Case (C.) 98-04-004, C.98-06-003, C.98-06-027, and C.98-06-049 are closed.

This order is effective today.

Dated , at San Francisco, California.