STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298
May 4, 2001
TO: PARTIES OF RECORD IN INVESTIGATION 99-04-020 AND
APPLICATION 99-09-038
These proceedings were filed on September 20, 1999 and April 22, 1999, respectively, and is assigned to Commissioner Richard A. Bilas and Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Patricia A. Bennett. This is the decision of the Presiding Officer, ALJ Bennett.
Any party to these consolidated proceedings may file and serve an Appeal of the Presiding Officer's Decision within 30 days of the date of issuance (i.e., the date of mailing) of this decision. In addition, any Commissioner may request review of the Presiding Officer's Decision by filing and serving a Request for Review within 30 days of the date of issuance.
Appeals and Requests for Review must set forth specifically the grounds on which the appellant or requestor believes the Presiding Officer's Decision to be unlawful or erroneous. The purpose of an Appeal or Request for Review is to alert the Commission to a potential error, so that the error may be corrected expeditiously by the Commission. Vague assertions as to the record or the law, without citation, may be accorded little weight.
Appeals and Requests for Review must be served on all parties and accompanied by a certificate of service. Any party may file and serve a Response to an Appeal or Request for Review no later than 15 days after the date the Appeal or Request for Review was filed. In cases of multiple Appeals or Requests for Review, the Response may be to all such filings and may be filed 15 days after the last such Appeal or Request for Review was filed. Replies to Responses are not permitted. (See, generally, Rule 8.2 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.)
If no Appeal or Request for Review is filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of the Presiding Officer's Decision, the decision shall become the decision of the Commission. In this event, the Commission will designate a decision number and advise the parties by letter that the Presiding Officer's Decision has become the Commission's decision.
/s/ LYNN T. CAREW
Lynn T. Carew, Chief
Administrative Law Judge
LTC:eap
Attachment
ALJ/PAB/eap
Decision
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Investigation on the Commission's own Motion into the operations, practices, and conduct of Vista Group International, Inc., (U-5650), doing business as Vista Communications (Vista), Thomas Coughlin, Chief Executive Officer of Vista, and Philip Bethune, President of Vista, to determine whether they have violated the laws, rules, and regulations governing the manner in which California consumers are switched from one Long Distance carrier to another. |
Investigation 99-04-020 (Filed April 22, 1999) |
|
Application for Authority to transfer control of Communications Billing, Inc. (U-6020-C) from its current shareholders to Thomas M. Coughlin, Sr. and Philip A. Bethune. |
Application 99-09-038 (Filed September 20, 1999) |
Regina M. DeAngelis and James McTarnaghan for
Communications Billing, Inc., applicant.
David Crocker and Lawrence M. Brenton for Vista Group
International, Inc., respondent.
Stephanie Krapf for Pacific Bell, interested party.
Carol Dumond for Consumer Services Division.
OPINION FINDING VIOLATIONS AND ORDERING SANCTIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
OPINION FINDING VIOLATIONS AND ORDERING SANCTIONS 1
Summary 2
Procedural Background 2
Vista's Operations 4
Slamming Allegations 5
Vista's Response To Slamming Allegations 10
1. Lack of Jurisdiction 10
2. Customers Not Slammed 11
3. Vista Not Responsible For Acts Of Independent Contractor 12
4. PIC Reports Unreliable 13
Conclusions Regarding Slamming 13
Cramming Allegations 19
Fines 20
Restitution 22
Suspension 23
Cease And Desist Unlawful Operations 23
Application 99-09-038 24
Findings of Fact 25
Conclusions of Law 28
ORDER 29
Summary
Today's decision concludes two proceedings, an investigation and an application, concerning a telecommunications service reseller and the owners of that business. In the investigation, we find that the reseller, Vista Group International, Inc., doing business as Vista Communications (Vista or respondent), violated Public Utilities Code Sections 702 and 2889.5 in the course of its telemarketing activities, and that sanctions are warranted for these violations. Specifically, Vista failed to adequately supervise its telemarketers, so that thousands of customers switched long distance providers after receiving misleading solicitations and inadequate information about the rates and switching charges. For these unlawful acts, we conclude that a $3.5 million fine is warranted. We order reparations of $20 for each business line of each aggrieved customer, and certain other actions.
In the application, we grant Communications Billing, Inc.'s (CBI) request to withdraw the joint application to transfer a portion of its customer base to Thomas M. Coughlin, Sr. and Philip A. Bethune, owners of Vista.
