Cramming Allegations

After hearing the testimony of Vista's witness, Courtney Maroon, CSD believes the alleged violations of Section 2890, or "crams," were inadvertent, connected to the slams, and due to the lateness of information being provided to Vista. Thus, CSD did not pursue the allegations of cramming and does not recommend any penalty for them. However, CSD remains concerned that Vista did not acknowledge that unlawful billing connected with an unlawful switch in service provider is a violation of Section 2890, which has no requirement of unlawful intent, and simultaneously violates Section 451 by billing unauthorized charges.

Likewise, after Maroon's testimony, CSD did not pursue allegations of, or recommend penalties for, violations of Section 489 (charging subscribers rates or services that are not tariffed), or Section 451 (billing unauthorized charges). There is no evidence that Vista actually charged rates not tariffed. Even though several customers indicated they were promised unauthorized discount rates, they admitted they never received these rates.

CSD recommends no separate penalty for violation of Section 2889.9, which prohibits a person or corporation from misrepresenting its association or affiliation with a telephone carrier when soliciting a subscriber to purchase a product or service. The record is not clear whether this misrepresentation continued to occur after Vista alleges it ceased all telemarketing in California (November 1998). CSD interviewed a customer in December 1999 who indicated she was slammed by this method in August 1999. However, Vista had no opportunity to address this assertion since it was made in CSD's response to Vista's late submitted exhibits. We conclude this sole complaint is an anomaly, and the record still shows a marked reduction on slamming and/or cramming complaints after November 1998.