Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************



                                   Before the

                       Federal Communications Commission

                             Washington, D.C. 20554


                                         )                               
                                                                         
                                         )                               
     In the Matter of                        File No.: EB-10-TC-398      
                                         )                               
     Simple Network, Inc.                    NAL/Acct. No.: 20113217029  
                                         )                               
     Apparent Liability for Forfeiture       FRN: 0007921224             
                                         )                               
                                                                         
                                         )                               


                  NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

   Adopted: November 29, 2011 Released: November 29, 2011

   By the Commission:

   I. INTRODUCTION

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
       that Simple Network, Inc. ("Simple Network" or "Company") has
       apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 201(b) of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or
       "Act"), by deceptively marketing prepaid calling cards. Based upon our
       review of the facts and surrounding circumstances, Simple Network
       appears to target its marketing to immigrants with claims that, for a
       card costing just a few dollars, buyers can make hundreds of minutes
       of calls to their native countries - when in fact, for that price,
       they will be able to use only a fraction of those minutes, due to
       Simple Network's assessment of multiple fees and surcharges that are
       not clearly and conspicuously disclosed to consumers. Accordingly, we
       find that Simple Network, Inc. has apparently violated section 201(b)
       of the Act, and is apparently liable for a proposed forfeiture in the
       amount of five million dollars ($5,000,000).

   II. BACKGROUND

    2. A prepaid calling card is a retail product for which the consumer pays
       a specific dollar amount and which enables that customer to make
       domestic and/or international telephone calls. Such cards are
       frequently marketed to immigrant communities for calling a variety of
       international destinations and are especially popular with these
       communities, where many depend on prepaid calling cards to stay in
       touch with family and friends in their home countries. The cards are
       typically sold at retail in denominations of $2, $3, and $5 at
       newsstands and in grocery and convenience stores. Companies often
       market prepaid cards under a variety of brand names and advertise them
       to consumers primarily using posters displayed in retail locations,
       and in some cases, through radio and television advertising.

    3. The Enforcement Bureau began its investigation of Simple Network by
       directing a letter of inquiry to the Company requesting information
       and documents relating to its prepaid calling card services. According
       to its initial response, Simple Network establishes the rates for its
       calling cards, including the rate at which minutes are deducted from
       the cards. Simple Network sells its calling cards both through third
       party distributors, retailers, and direct sales. The retail vendors
       sell the cards to consumers using marketing posters that Simple
       Network designs and distributes.

    4. As part of its response, Simple Network provided samples of the
       posters and calling cards it sold in 2010 and 2011. A typical poster
       designed and distributed by Simple Network includes the name of the
       calling card (e.g., "Amigos Latinos," "El Huevito," "El Regalo," and
       "Marque Mexico"), a statement that "[n]etwork services are provided by
       Simple Network," and representations about the number of minutes a
       consumer will receive when calling various countries and/or cities.
       The number of calling minutes listed on Simple Network's posters
       usually appears in large font size and bright colors. Additionally,
       some posters contain a large box listing various calling destinations,
       along with the number of calling minutes a consumer will receive to
       those destinations using the advertised calling card of a specified
       dollar value (e.g., Mexico City 300 Minutes $2; Brazil 500 Minutes $5,
       Monterrey 750 Minutes $5). Appearing on the bottom of the posters is a
       disclosure in very small font size relating to certain fees and
       surcharges that may apply when using the cards, including connection
       and disconnection fees, daily maintenance fees and other fees assessed
       when using toll-free access numbers or calling from payphones.

    5. Simple Network's calling cards themselves generally come in two parts:
       a top portion (or "hang tag") and a bottom portion, the size of a
       credit card, that can be separated from the top. The front of the card
       identifies the name of and value of the card (e.g., $2, $5). The back
       of the top portion of the cards includes a disclosure about fees-the
       same disclosure that typically appears on its posters. For example,
       the disclosure on Simple Network's $5 El Huevito calling card reads as
       follows:

   In using this card you agree to: Announced minutes are based on the first
   call using local access numbers. Toll-free access will be charged at a
   higher rate. Calls placed from payphones using toll-free access will incur
   a surcharge of $0.99 per call. Calls will be billed in 1 minute
   increments; partial minutes used are rounded up to the next full
   increment. Total charges for a call will be rounded up to the next full
   cent. Additional fees and/or surcharges will reduce minutes if all
   announced minutes are not used during the first call. A Maintenance fee of
   $0.20/0.79 will be deducted after the first call and each 2nd/7th day
   thereafter. A disconnect fee of $0.19-$1.49 may be charged per call
   depending on the destination dialed. Mobile rates within a country may
   vary. Rates, fees, and, surcharges are subject to change without notice
   ... card expires 30 days after first use.

   The back of the bottom portion of the card includes directions on how to
   use the card, and a series of local access numbers, a toll-free access
   number, and a customer service number.

   III. DISCUSSION

          A. Apparent Violation of Section 201(b) of the Act

    6. Section 201(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that "[a]ll
       charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in
       connection with [interstate or foreign] communication service, shall
       be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification,
       or regulation that is unjust or unreasonable is declared to be
       unlawful." The Commission has found that unfair and deceptive
       marketing practices by interstate common carriers constitute unjust
       and unreasonable practices under section 201(b). A practice that
       "convey[s] insufficient information as to the company's identity,
       rates, practices, and range of services" may constitute a violation of
       section 201(b). Thus, a carrier that fails sufficiently to convey
       material information, such as rates, about its prepaid calling card
       services violates section 201(b) of the Act.

    7. We find that Simple Network has apparently violated section 201(b) of
       the Act because it deceptively represents that buyers of its cards can
       use hundreds of minutes to make calls to foreign countries for just a
       few dollars. In truth and in fact, buyers can use only a fraction of
       those minutes for calls, because Simple Network applies a variety of
       fees and surcharges that quickly deplete the card. Simple Network
       purports to disclose these fees and surcharges, but the fine print
       "disclosures" contradict the express and much more prominent claims in
       the main portion of the marketing materials. Moreover, even if the
       disclosures of the various fees and surcharges were not contradictory,
       they are in small print and not clear or conspicuous in relation to
       the claim of total available minutes that the disclosure is intended
       to modify, and the disclosure otherwise "convey[s] insufficient
       information as to the company's identity, rates, practices, and range
       of services."

    8. Simple Network uses posters displayed in retail locations as its
       primary vehicle for marketing its prepaid calling card services to
       consumers at those locations. As indicated above, Simple Network
       represents on its posters that consumers who purchase its cards will
       receive a specified number of calling minutes to specific countries
       for a set price (e.g., to Mexico City 750 minutes for $5, 300 minutes
       for $2). Although Simple Network's prepaid cards are often marketed as
       providing hundreds of minutes, the total number of minutes actually
       received by the consumer is significantly less once the various fees
       are applied, and if the consumer attempts to use the card to make
       multiple calls.

    9. Simple Network's marketing materials and cards make certain
       disclosures about these fees, but they conflict with the express
       statements of how many calling minutes are available, and they are not
       adequate to counter the express and otherwise unqualified claim that
       consumers will be able to make hundreds of minutes of calls for the
       marketed rate. As a preliminary matter, the font size of the
       advertised minutes and rate information completely dwarfs the
       disclosure. As described above, Simple Network's posters typically
       advertise the number of calling minutes offered to certain countries
       in large, colorful, simple text, which is prominently displayed at the
       top or center of the poster. This information is not qualified in any
       way; i.e., there is no suggestion that the consumer will receive "up
       to" the specified number of minutes, and no indication that the
       consumer must read the small print at the bottom in order to determine
       what he or she is actually purchasing. The main part of the poster
       stands in stark contrast to the disclosures regarding additional fees
       and surcharges, which is at the bottom of the posters in significantly
       smaller type and easily overlooked. While this same language is
       usually printed on the top portion (or "hang tag") of Simple Network's
       cards, it is similarly printed in extremely small font and difficult
       to read. Further, because the calling card is meant to be torn away
       from the hang tag for ease of carrying the card in a wallet and
       customer use, the disclosures on the hang tag afford the consumer
       little information at the actual point of use. Disclosures in fine
       print and in materials that reasonable consumers may not read or use
       are ineffective to ensure that consumers have an accurate and informed
       understanding of an advertising claim. We therefore conclude that
       Simple Network's disclosures are not clear and conspicuous to the
       average consumer.

   10. Additionally, even if Simple Network's disclosures were more
       prominent, we find that they do not provide the information necessary
       for a consumer to determine what fees apply, the amounts of those
       fees, and when and how they will affect the number of calling minutes
       offered. To illustrate this point, we use the disclosure in paragraph
       5 above on the poster for Simple Network's $5 El Huevito prepaid
       calling card, which is typical of the disclosures found in Simple
       Network's marketing materials. First, despite advertising on its
       posters a specific number of minutes for a set price, Simple Network
       includes a disclosure that "A Maintenance fee of $0.20/0.79 will be
       deducted after the first call and each 2nd/7th day thereafter. A
       disconnect fee of $0.19-$1.49 may be charged per call depending on the
       destination dialed." There is no meaningful explanation of how the
       range of charges relates to the initial advertised rate or how it is
       applied. The explanation of the range of fees and variety of other
       terms, conditions, and charges is so vague that it is impossible for a
       consumer to know when purchasing the prepaid card what fees will
       actually apply or how the fees will impact the number of calling
       minutes received. Thus, the disclosures are not in the "clear and
       unambiguous language" that the Commission has said is needed to ensure
       that they are effective.

   11. Simple Network's disclosure states (in capital letters), "call
       customer service at 1-800-919-5355 for additional information and
       current rates." This statement, however, is inadequate to inform
       consumers at the point of sale about the possible reduction in the
       number of advertised minutes, the circumstances under which those
       minutes will not be received, or how to calculate the actual number of
       minutes provided. We, therefore, find that this statement is
       inadequate to inform consumers fully about the possible reduction in
       the number of advertised minutes, the circumstances under which those
       minutes will not be received, or how to calculate the actual number of
       minutes provided.

   12. To give context to why these disclosures are inadequate and the extent
       of the gulf between a consumer's reasonable expectation (based on
       Simple Network's marketing materials) and the consumer's actual
       experience (based on application of Simple Network's surcharges),
       consider the card that one of Simple Network's posters advertises as
       offering 300 minutes to Mexico City for $2. If a consumer makes a
       10-minute call to Mexico City, one would reasonably expect that there
       would be 290 minutes remaining on the card. However, the card
       disclosure suggests that once the initial call is completed, a maximum
       maintenance charge of $0.20/0.79 will be deducted after the first call
       and each 2nd/7th day thereafter and a disconnect fee of $0.19-$1.49
       may be charged per call. Thus, after an initial 10-minute call,
       potential post-call charges of $2.28 would exhaust a card that was
       advertised to provide 300 minutes. According to Simple Network,
       "[a]nnounced minutes are based on the first call using local access
       numbers." In other words, the only possible way a consumer could use
       all of the 300 advertised minutes would be to make a single 5-hour
       call - a duration that makes such calls improbable for the typical
       consumer. Even if the maximum post-call fees were not charged, because
       Simple Network's disclosure only contains a range of possible fees, it
       would be impossible for the consumer to determine at the point of sale
       what amount will apply to each destination.

   13. Information regarding the existence, amount, and application of fees
       that affect the value of a calling card is material to consumers when
       deciding to purchase cards. The failure to provide such information
       clearly and conspicuously, because it deprives customers of material
       information needed to make a purchasing decision, is a deceptive
       marketing practice. As the Commission stated in NOS, if a consumer
       must take a series of complicated and confusing steps to try to
       calculate the charges and calling time based on the disclosure
       provided, such disclosure almost certainly would be misleading to
       consumers. Such a practice, then, would be unjust and unreasonable
       under section 201(b).

   14. We find that the marketing materials used by Simple Network to sell
       its prepaid calling cards are misleading and deceptive regarding the
       rates and charges applicable to its service offerings. In addition, we
       find that Simple Network failed to disclose, in any meaningful way,
       material information about its rates, charges and practices at the
       point of sale, resulting in substantial harm to consumers who
       purchased its prepaid calling cards. Accordingly, we find that Simple
       Network has apparently engaged in unjust or unreasonable marketing
       practices in violation of section 201(b) of the Act.

   B. Proposed Forfeiture Pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act

   15. Section 503(b)(1) of the Act states that any person who willfully or
       repeatedly fails to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule,
       regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the
       United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the
       Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $150,000
       for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a
       statutory maximum of $1,500,000 for a single act or failure to act by
       common carriers. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we
       consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
       including "the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
       violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
       culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such
       other matters as justice may require."  Although the forfeiture
       guidelines do not establish a forfeiture amount for unjust or
       unreasonable practices, such as deceptive marketing practices, the
       guidelines do state that, ". . . any omission of a specific rule
       violation from the. . . [forfeiture guidelines]. . . should not signal
       that the Commission considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or
       unimportant." The Commission retains the discretion to depart from the
       guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its
       general forfeiture authority contained in section 503 of the Act.

   16. In NOS, the Commission found that unfair and deceptive marketing
       practices by interstate common carriers constitute unjust and
       unreasonable practices within the meaning of section 201(b) of the
       Act," and concluded that each instance of such practices constituted a
       separate violation of section 201(b). The Commission noted that it had
       previously assessed a forfeiture amount of $40,000 for each instance
       in which a carrier engaged in an unjust and unreasonable telemarketing
       practice in violation of section 201(b). It explained, however, that
       "a straightforward application of a $40,000 base forfeiture amount
       would likely produce a proposed forfeiture in the millions of
       dollars." Rather, taking into account the number of violations
       attributed to the two companies involved in the case, the Commission
       determined that a $500,000 forfeiture amount per company was
       sufficient to protect the interests of consumers and to deter future
       violations of the Act.

   17. We find that each card that Simple Network marketed using deceptive
       advertising constitutes an independent unjust and unreasonable
       practice, and thus a separate and distinct apparent violation of
       section 201(b) of the Act. Given the thousands of cards that Simple
       Network appears to have marketed, there is an extensive number of
       apparent violations in this case for which the Commission is empowered
       to propose a penalty. While the proposed forfeiture is higher than the
       proposed forfeiture in NOS, weighing the facts before us, and taking
       into account the extent and gravity of Simple Network's egregious
       conduct, as well as its culpability and information in the current
       record about its revenues, we find that a total proposed forfeiture
       amount of $5,000,000 is appropriate under the specific circumstances
       of this case.  The proposed forfeiture clearly must protect the
       interests of consumers and serve as an adequate deterrent. A lesser
       penalty would be inappropriate in light of Simple Network's failure to
       adequately provide material information about its rates to thousands
       of consumers who purchased the Company's prepaid cards. Moreover, in
       determining the amount of a proposed penalty, we seek to "guarantee
       that forfeitures issued against large or highly profitable entities
       are not considered merely an affordable cost of doing business. In the
       event Simple Network continues to engage in conduct that apparently
       violates section 201(b)'s prohibition against unjust and unreasonable
       practices, such apparent violations could result in future NALs
       proposing substantially greater forfeitures and revocation of Simple
       Network's operating authority. Other prepaid calling card providers
       are also on notice that practices such as those engaged in by Simple
       Network are unjust and unreasonable, and that we may propose more
       significant forfeitures in the future as high as is necessary, within
       the range of our statutory authority, to ensure that such companies do
       not engage in deceptive marketing practices.

   IV. CONCLUSION

   18. We have determined that Simple Network, Inc. apparently violated
       section 201(b) of the Act. We have further determined that Simple
       Network, Inc. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of
       five million dollars ($5,000,000).

   V. ORDERING CLAUSES

   19. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b)(2)(B) of
       the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B),
       and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, Simple
       Network, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR
       FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000,000, for willful and repeated
       violations of section 201(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 201(b).

   20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the
       Commission's rules, within thirty (30) days of the release date of
       this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Simple Network, Inc.
       SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a
       written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed
       forfeiture.

   21. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument,
       payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The
       payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN referenced above.
       Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Federal
       Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.
       Payment by overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank - Government
       Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO
       63101. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 021030004,
       receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account number 27000001. For payment by
       credit card, an FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted.
        When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the NAL/Account number in
       block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters "FORF" in
       block number 24A (payment type code). Simple Network, Inc. will also
       send electronic notification to Johnny.Drake@fcc.gov on the date said
       payment is made. Requests for full payment under an installment plan
       should be sent to: Chief Financial Officer -- Financial Operations,
       445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington, D.C.  20554.   Please
       contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201 or
       Email: ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions regarding payment
       procedures.

   22. The response, if any, must be mailed both to: Marlene H. Dortch,
       Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW,
       Washington, DC 20554, ATTN: Enforcement Bureau - Telecommunications
       Consumers Division; and to Richard A. Hindman, Division Chief,
       Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
       Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554,
       and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption.
       Documents sent by overnight mail (other than United States Postal
       Service Express Mail) must be addressed to: Marlene H. Dortch,
       Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary,
       9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. Hand or
       messenger-delivered mail should be directed, without envelopes, to:
       Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
       Office of the Secretary, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554
       (deliveries accepted Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
       only). See www.fcc.gov/osec/guidelines.html for further instructions
       on FCC filing addresses.

   23. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a proposed
       forfeiture in response to a claim of inability to pay unless the
       petitioner submits: (1) federal tax returns for the most recent
       three-year period; (2) financial statements prepared according to
       generally accepted accounting practices; or (3) some other reliable
       and objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's
       current financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must
       specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the
       financial documentation submitted.

   24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability
       for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt
       Requested and First Class mail to Simple Network, Inc., Attention:
       Hemant Patel, President, 25 Main Street, Edison, New Jersey 08837, and
       to Neil S. Ende, Counsel for Simple Network, Inc., 5335 Wisconsin
       Avenue, NW, Suite 440, Washington DC, 20015.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Marlene H. Dortch
   Secretary

   Simple Network is a New Jersey limited liability company, whose principal
   address is 25 Main Street, Edison, New Jersey 08837. Hemant Patel is the
   President of Simple Network, Inc. Accordingly, all references in this NAL
   to "Simple Network" also encompass the foregoing company, Mr. Patel, and
   all other principals and officers of Simple Network.

   47 U.S.C. S: 201(b).

   See Letter from Colleen Heitkamp, Chief, Telecommunications Consumers
   Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Simple
   Network, Inc., April 2, 2010 ("LOI").

   See email from Susan Coleman, Esq., Counsel for Simple Network, Inc., to
   Kimberly Wild and Erica McMahon, Federal Communications Commission,
   October 4, 2010 ("Response").

   See id. We note that Simple Network was granted an international 214
   certificate on December 12, 2002. See 17 FCC Rcd 24831 (2002) (granting
   Simple Network's Application for Authority to operate as a
   facilities-based carrier in accordance with the provisions of section
   63.18(e)(1) of the rules, and also to provide service in accordance with
   section 63.18(e)(2) of the rules).

   See Response.

   See id.

   See, e.g., emails from Silsa Menendez, administrative assistant to Counsel
   for Simple Network, Inc., to Richard Hindman, Kimberly Wild, Erica
   McMahon, and David Marks, Federal Communications Commission, June 9, 2011,
   attached posters ("Second Supplemental Response").

   See, e.g., Second Supplemental Response, attachment, Amigos Latinos
   poster, El Huevito poster, El Regalo poster, and Marque Mexico poster.

   See id.

   See id.

   See email from Silsa Menendez, administrative assistant to Counsel for
   Simple Network, Inc., to Richard Hindman, Kimberly Wild, Erica McMahon,
   and David Marks, Federal Communications Commission, June 3, 2011,
   attachment, El Huevito calling card. We note that while the El Huevito
   prepaid card states that calls will be billed in 1 minute increments, the
   El Huevito poster supplied by Simple Network states that calls will be
   billed in 1or 3 minute increments.

   47 U.S.C. S: 201(b).

   See, e.g., NOS Communications, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 8133 (2001) ("NOS") (finding that the companies
   engaged in deceptive marketing of their interstate communication services
   by failing to disclose clearly and conspicuously material facts regarding
   their promotional plan offerings and pricing methodology, in violation of
   section 201(b)); Business Discount Plan, Inc., Order of Forfeiture, 15 FCC
   Rcd 14461 (2000) ("BDP"), recon. granted in part and denied in part, 15
   FCC Rcd 24396 (2000) (finding that the company violated section 201(b) by
   using unjust and unreasonable telemarketing practices such as
   misrepresenting the nature of its service offerings); Telecommunications
   Research & Action Center & Consumer Action, Memorandum Opinion and Order,
   4 FCC Rcd 2157 (Com.Car.Bur. 1989) ("TRAC") (recognizing that section
   201(b) provides a cause of action against carriers for failing to convey
   sufficient information about their rates, practices and range of
   services). See also Joint FCC/FTC Policy Statement For the Advertising of
   Dial-Around And Other Long Distance Services To Consumers, 15 FCC Rcd 8654
   (2000) ("Joint Advertising Statement").

   See TRAC, 4 FCC Rcd at 2159. The full Commission has approvingly cited
   this passage from TRAC as indicating that such conduct violates section
   201(b) of the Act. BDP, 15 FCC Rcd at 14469.

   TRAC, 4 FCC Rcd at 2159.

   Simple Network also markets its services on its websites:
   www.simple2dial.com, www.simple2call.com, and www.motherindiacard.com.

   A card is exhausted when either its face value has been used up (e.g.,
   $2), or when all of the available minutes have been used. For a discussion
   of how the fees may impact the value of the card as it is used, see infra
   P: 12.

   Both academic research and the Commission's experience with consumer
   issues have demonstrated that the manner in which providers display
   material information, including the charges, classifications, and terms of
   use, can have as much impact on a consumer's decision to make a purchase
   as the information itself. See generally Colin Camerer, Samuel
   Issacharoff, George Loewenstein, Ted O'Donoghue & Matthew Rabin,
   Regulation for Conservatives: Behavioral Economics and the Case for
   "Asymmetric Paternalism," 151 U. Penn. L. Rev. 1211 (2003) (surveying
   regulatory strategies to address problems arising from systematic errors
   in consumer decision-making); Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein,
   Nudge, Yale University Press 2008 (concluding that information buried deep
   in the "fine print" is far less useful to consumers than information
   displayed clearly and prominently). See also Joint Advertising Statement,
   15 FCC Rcd at 8654-55 (finding that if consumers are deceived by
   advertising claims, they cannot make informed purchasing decisions);
   Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format, First Report and Order and Further
   Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 7492 (1999) (noting that the
   proper functioning of competitive markets is predicated on consumers
   having access to accurate, meaningful information in a format that they
   can understand).

   See supra note 9.

   See, e.g., El Huevito calling card, Supplemental Response, attachment.

   Joint Advertising Statement, 15 FCC Rcd at 8663 (noting that prominence,
   proximity, and placement of disclosure in comparison to advertising
   representation affect effectiveness of disclosure); id. at 8659 (noting
   that disclosure about limitations on advertised long-distance rate likely
   ineffective when advertised rate appeared on peel-off stickers, without
   disclosure, that consumers were supposed to put on telephones).

   See El Huevito calling card, Supplemental Response, attachment.

   Joint Advertising Statement, 15 FCC Rcd at 8662.

   See, e.g., El Huevito calling card, Supplemental Response, attachment.

   See id. See also El Huevito poster, Second Supplemental Response,
   attachment.

   The imputed cost of one 10-minute call at 2/3 cents per minute (200
   cents/300 minutes) would be $0.067.

   See, e.g., El Huevito calling card, Second Supplemental Response,
   attachment.

   The El Heuvito poster also advertises 750 minutes to Mexico City for $5.
   Because a charge applies upon completion of the first call, the only
   possible way a consumer could use all of the 750 advertised minutes would
   be to make a single 12.5-hour call. See El Heuvito poster, Second
   Supplemental Response, attachment.

   See NOS, 16 FCC Rcd at 8138 (2001).

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B). See also 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(a)(2).

   47 U.S.C. S:503(b)(2)(B). See also  47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(2). In 2008, the
   Commission amended section 1.80(b)(2) of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S:
   1.80(b)(2), to increase the maximum forfeiture amounts in accordance with
   the inflation adjustment requirements contained in the Debt Collection
   Improvement Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. S: 2461. See Amendment of Section 1.80
   of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect
   Inflation, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 9845, 9847 (2008) (adjusting the maximum
   statutory amounts for common carriers from $130,000/$1,300,000 to
   $150,000/$1,500,000).

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E).

   See Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules
   to Incorporate Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17099, P:
   22 (1997) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"); recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303
   (1999).

   Id.

   See NOS, 16 FCC Rcd at 8133, 8142.

   See id. at 8141-8142 (citing Business Discount Plan, Inc., Apparent
   Liability for Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 14461 at 14471-72 (2000)).

   Id. at 8142.

   See id.

   In NOS, the Commission found that "each rate sheet sent to consumers
   constitutes a separate violation of section 201(b)." NOS, 16 FCC Rcd at
   8133. Consistent with NOS, we find that the marketing of each card to
   consumers constitutes a separate apparent violation of section 201(b). See
   also BDP, 15 FCC Rcd at 14471-72 (assessing a forfeiture amount of $40,000
   for each instance in which the carrier engaged in an unjust and
   unreasonable telemarketing practice in violation of section 201(b)).

   See Second Supplemental Response at 1.

   The $5 million penalty we propose is equivalent to applying a $40,000
   penalty to only 125 apparent violations that occurred within one year of
   this NAL.

   See supra note 41. See also Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd 17087,
   17099.

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.

   (Continued from previous page)

   (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-178

   3

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-178