In its investigation, CPED found that 2016 Service Guide stated that PLD’s bills would contain the following complaints subscribers’ statement: “The CPUC handles of both interstate and intrastate unauthorized carrier changes The (“slamming”). California consumer protection rules are available online, at www.cpuc.ca.gov.” However, none of the PLD bills received by CPED or CAB in connection with consumer complaints contain this phrase or similar information about slamming. As such, given additional failures to refer slamming complainants to CAB, it is unlikely that PLD PLD’s subscribers were provided any information by PLD about how they may resolve their slamming complaints. Furthermore, 2016 Service Guide stated that PLD assesses PLD’s a per month; however, CPED identified $0.63 “Regulatory Assessment Fee” per account, bills in which subscribers were actually charged fees of $1.89, triple the listed fee of $0.63, during the time the 2016 Service Guide was in effect. Moreover, 2016 Service Guide, although not a tariff itself, contained PLD’s references to the document as a and also referred consumers to various erroneous “tariff” that are not actually explained anywhere in 2016 Service Guide related to “rules” PLD’s notices for overdue payments, notices required for voluntary discontinuation of service, and liability for non-recoverable costs of special arrangements and services. Given the possibility of collections, penalties related to potentially non-compliant service termination, and liability for certain actions, the inaccuracy of Service Guides PLD’s present considerable consumer protection concerns and may constitute a violation of P.U. Code Section 2896. Misrepresentations Made to Commission Staff in Violation of Rule 1.1 CPED alleges that PLD provided fraudulent TPV recordings to CAB and CPED and false statements in response to CPED data requests in violation of Rule 1.1 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Rule 1.1 provides that, Commission’s Any person who . . . transacts business with the Commission, by such act . . . agrees to comply with the laws of this State; to maintain the respect due to the Commission, members of the Commission and its Administrative
In its investigation, CPED found that PLD’s 2016 Service Guide stated that subscribers’ bills would contain the following statement: “The CPUC handles complaints of both interstate and intrastate unauthorized carrier changes (“slamming”). The California consumer protection rules are available online, at www.cpuc.ca.gov.” However, none of the PLD bills received by CPED or CAB in connection with consumer complaints contain this phrase or similar information about slamming. As such, given PLD’s additional failures to refer slamming complainants to CAB, it is unlikely that PLD subscribers were provided any information by PLD about how they may resolve their slamming complaints. Furthermore, PLD’s 2016 Service Guide stated that PLD assesses a $0.63 “Regulatory Assessment Fee” per account, per month; however, CPED identified bills in which subscribers were actually charged fees of $1.89, triple the listed fee of $0.63, during the time the 2016 Service Guide was in effect. Moreover, PLD’s 2016 Service Guide, although not a tariff itself, contained references to the document as a “tariff” and also referred consumers to various erroneous “rules” that are not actually explained anywhere in PLD’s 2016 Service Guide related to notices for overdue payments, notices required for voluntary discontinuation of service, and liability for non-recoverable costs of special arrangements and services. Given the possibility of collections, penalties related to potentially non-compliant service termination, and liability for certain actions, the inaccuracy of PLD’s Service Guides present considerable consumer protection concerns and may constitute a violation of P.U. Code Section 2896. Misrepresentations Made to Commission Staff in Violation of Rule 1.1 CPED alleges that PLD provided fraudulent TPV recordings to CAB and CPED and false statements in response to CPED data requests in violation of Rule 1.1 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Rule 1.1 provides that, Any person who . . . transacts business with the Commission, by such act . . . agrees to comply with the laws of this State; to maintain the respect due to the Commission, members of the Commission and its Administrative
213673105.docx