California Consumer Protection Rules
In May 2004, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) adopted General Order 168 (GO 168) setting forth a broad new set of consumer protection rules for both wireline and wireless carriers (D.04-05-057).
The new rules would have governed many aspects of the carrier-customer relationship, including service initiation procedures and disclosures, contract modifications, format and content of bills and resolution of billing disputes.
In January 2005, CPUC Commissioner Susan Kennedy successfully pushed for a stay of the rules in order to assess their impact on carriers.
On Dec. 22, 2005, Commissioner Kennedy and CPUC President Michael Peevey released a proposed decision that would result in the adoption of much more light-handed provisions. These would include a statement of rights and freedom of choice principles applicable to all type of carriers, an aggressive consumer education campaign and the establishment of a new Telecommunications Consumer Fraud Unit at the CPUC. The decision would eliminate the more prescriptive elements of the original rules, including a repeal of the rules requiring prior customer authorization for inclusion of non-communications charges on telephone bills.
On Jan. 25, 2006, Commissioner Grueneich issued an alternate proposed decision which would reinstate many of the more prescriptive elements of the original rules. Among other things, the alternate would require disclosure of “key terms and conditions” at service initiation, provision of contracts and collateral in the same language in which the offer is made and would impose a mandatory 30-day rescission period. The decision also would retain the rules on billing for non-communications products and services.
The departure of Commissioner Kennedy to the Governor’s office, and her replacement with former FCC Commissioner Rachelle Chong, makes it difficult to predict the outcome in this case. The earliest opportunity for the CPUC to act on these decisions is its meeting on March 2, 2006.
