2. Procedural and Factual Background

UCAN's complaint, filed on June 29, 1999, alleges that Pacific deceptively marketed its "Saver 60" intraLATA toll calling plan to residential customers during the late spring of 1999 using direct mail and customer service representatives. The marketing effort targeted customers based upon a calling profile. This calling profile was compiled by averaging a customer's toll charges for three consecutive months (December 1998 through February 1999) and comparing the average to the monthly cost of the plan. The answer, filed August 19, 1999, denies Pacific's activities were deceptive but admits that Pacific used these marketing methods and that the marketing effort targeted residential customers based on the three-month average. The answer also admits that for some customers, while comparison of the three-month average against the monthly cost of the plan indicated savings would have been realized under the plan, comparison of the same charges for the same period - but on a month-by-month basis - yields the opposite result.

Discussion at the September 21, 1999 prehearing conference confirmed that very few material facts were in dispute at that time. The Assigned Commissioner's Scoping Memo, issued September 24, directed the parties to meet and confer to explore the possibility of submitting a joint stipulation of fact. The Scoping Memo also scheduled limited evidentiary hearing, on January 10, 2000, on the issue of whether customers were deceived by Pacific's marketing campaign.

On November 1, 1999, the parties filed a comprehensive document entitled `Stipulated Facts" and in December, distributed prepared testimony. Thereafter, at the parties' request, the Commission reset evidentiary hearing several times to accommodate unforeseen scheduling conflicts, including a witness' illness. In Decision (D.) 00-05-039, the Commission extended the 12-month deadline for resolution of this adjudicatory proceeding, as Pub. Util. Code §1701.2(d) requires.¹

Subsequently, the parties negotiated settlement of this complaint and by motion filed June 22, 2000 now request adoption of the Settlement which is Attachment 1 to the motion. The Settlement is appended to this decision as well.