ALJ/MCK/sid DRAFT CA-6
11/21/2000
Decision DRAFT DECISION OF ALJ MCKENZIE (Mailed 10/20/2000)
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Investigation on the Commission's own motion into the operations, practices, and conduct of Coleman Enterprises, Inc. ("Coleman") U-5891-C, doing business as Local Long Distance; Daniel Coleman, an individual, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of Coleman; and QAI, Inc. U-5606-C, 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 99-12-001 (Filed December 2, 1999) |
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS WITH ALL RESPONDENTS
Summary
In this decision, we approve two settlement agreements that have been entered into between the Commission's Consumer Services Division (CSD) and the various respondents in this proceeding. Under the terms of the settlement agreements - one dated March 16, 2000, and the other dated June 30, 2000 - the respondents will provide $245,000 for restitution, resulting in a payment of approximately $25 to each of approximately 9,700 California customers covered by the investigation. In addition, respondent Coleman Enterprises, Inc. (CEI) will surrender the certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) authorizing it to do business in California, and neither CEI nor its principals will be able to apply for another CPCN in California for a period of at least five years. In order to avoid a repetition of the dubious marketing practices alleged in the Order Instituting Investigation (OII), respondent QAI, Inc. (QAI), a billing agent that provided verification and other services to CEI, will restructure its business relationships with the resellers to which it provides services. In addition, QAI will require all third-party verifiers with which it contracts to ask customers clearly whether they are authorizing a change in their long distance and/or local toll service provider.
Applying the standards of Rule 51.1(e) of our Rules of Practice and Procedure, we find that the two agreements are reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with law, and in the public interest. We will therefore approve them.
