Discussion

Based on the estimate given by Cox and Pacific of how many additional directories might be retrieved through a second telephone contact, we agree that it does not make sense to order such a contact. As Pacific and Cox pointed out in their September 8 Response, awareness of the tainted directories appears to have faded as an issue for San Diego residents. Thus, any additional retrieval measures that we ordered might serve only to reawaken the issue, and to compromise the privacy of Cox customers whose listings were erroneously included in the tainted directories. In view of the meager number of additional directories that are likely to be retrieved through a second telephone contact, we agree that it is not worth running this risk.

Moreover, as to other possible retrieval measures discussed in the September 8 Response-door-to-door solicitation, making direct payments to those who return directories, and sending out a prepaid return envelope to all those who received tainted directories-we agree that none of these measures are justified, either. There can be little doubt, for example, that door-to-door solicitation would be highly invasive of customers' privacy, and might provoke a hostile response in some cases. In view of these disadvantages, we agree that it is very doubtful whether door-to-door solicitation would yield a significant number of additional directories, and thus we agree with Cox and Pacific that this measure should not be undertaken.

We also agree that a program of making payments to customers who return their tainted directories should not be adopted. As the September 8 Response points out, making such payments would raise serious issues of equity, since payments would "only serve to reward customers who chose not to act [earlier] out of a sense of civic responsibility." (Id. at 12.) In addition, it is questionable whether a payment program would lead to the retrieval of significantly more directories, since the public was told during the reclamation efforts in the summer of 2000 that a charitable contribution would be made for each directory that was returned. (Id.)

Finally, we agree with Cox and Pacific that it would not be efficacious to send an explanatory letter and prepaid envelope for return of the directory to all customers who had received tainted directories. As the September 8 Response puts it, "if users had not been motivated to return the tainted directories after two or three pick-up bags were hand-delivered in previous reclamation efforts, it is doubtful they would find it any more appealing to take the time to return the directory by mail." (Id. at 13.)

Our comfort level with these conclusions is increased by the fact that-although a significant number of tainted directories remain in circulation-Cox has been extremely successful in contacting its affected customers and resolving the concerns of most of them. In the November 20, 2000 cover letter that accompanied the survey results, Cox noted that it has been able to contact 10,778 (or about 94%) of the 11,478 customers whose listing information was improperly published. According to Cox, 71% of these customers have selected one of the offerings that we approved in Resolution T-16432, while most of the remaining customers "have chosen to voluntarily turn down Cox's offers as unnecessary." (November 20 cover letter, p. 3.)¹⁰