V. Discussion

We find the proposed settlement to be reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with the law, and in the public interest and approve it.

We have recently stated that in reviewing settlements in telecommunications enforcement proceedings, the Commission is primarily concerned with protecting the public from unscrupulous practices by telecommunications carriers, obtaining refunds for customers where customers have suffered harm as a result of violations, and encouraging a robust telecommunications market free from unfair competition. (See Coleman Enterprises, Inc., (Coleman) D.00-12-050, 2000 Cal.PUC LEXIS 1008 *16.) The settlement meets these objectives.

First, the settlement will achieve customer refunds, or restitution, because approximately 14,492 customers will receive restitution of $25 each, for a total of $374,800. The individual restitution payment is in line with other restitution payments we have approved in recent years. (See Coleman, 2000 Cal. PUC LEXIS 1008 **18-20; Investigation of Brittan Communications International Corp., D.98-04-024, 79 CPUC2d 533, 536; Investigation of L.D. Services, Inc., D.97-11-079, 77 CPUC2d 12, 13; Investigation of Heartline Communications, Inc., D.96-12-031, 69 CPUC2d 584, 591.) While it is true that customers with larger restitution claims will not be able to pursue them under the settlement, Talk appears to be in the same situation as respondents in Coleman, i.e., it has been the subject of disciplinary proceedings in so many other jurisdictions that the total amount available for California appears to be limited.

Moreover, according to the settling parties, failing to reach a settlement could adversely affect Talk's restructuring of its debt burdens, and without this restructuring, Talk could have gone into bankruptcy or dissolution. Thus, achieving actual restitution for affected Californians sometime in 2002, as opposed to possible restitution at a later date had this case proceeded to a hearing, is beneficial for these customers. The settlement agreement also affords additional benefits for these customers because Talk has already paid in escrow the funds earmarked for restitution. Delaying restitution until after a hearing and Commission decision, as well as possible administrative appeals, would make it more difficult to locate some of the customers, because some of the complaints date from 1998, and locating customers grows more difficult as time passes.

In the settlement, Talk admits to failing to verify certain customers' consent, and the parties state in their motion that Talk has ceased to use solicitation checks, which is a major source for complaints of unauthorized switching and abusive marketing. Eliminating these activities from the marketplace will protect the public and free the telecommunications market from a source of unfair competition.

Talk has also agreed to a $625,200 fine in compromise of the allegations against it. Given Talk's financial situation, and the fact that Talk states it would have pursued all administrative appeals of any adverse decision, this compromise is reasonable.

In light of the above considerations, and the lack of opposition to the settlement agreement, we conclude the settlement is reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with the law, and in the public interest and approve it.