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, DC 20554
In the Matter of
GPSPS, Inc.
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
)
)
)
)
)
File No.: EB-TCD-14-00016988
NAL/Acct. No.: 201532170011
FRN: 0022128334
notice of apparent liability for forfeiture
Adopted: February 26, 2015 Released: February 27, 2015
By the Commission:
introduction
We propose a penalty of $9,065,000 against GPSPS, Inc., (GPSPS or Company) for switching consumers' preferred long distance carriers without their authorization (commonly known as "slamming") and placing unauthorized or "crammed" charges for its long distance service on consumers' telephone bills. Consumers insist that GPSPS's charges were unauthorized because they had no contact with GPSPS before the Company changed their long distance service provider and began charging them for its service. Instead, GPSPS relied on fabricated audio recordings as purported proof that consumers had authorized the Company to switch their long distance carriers, and then provided those fabricated recordings to the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) and state regulatory officials as proof that the consumers had authorized its service. In addition, we find that GPSPS violated a Commission order to produce certain information and documents in response to an Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) letter of inquiry related to its investigation of GPSPS.
Slamming and cramming are deceptive business practices. Companies that engage in these practices prey on consumers who fail to notice unauthorized charges on their multi-page telephone bills. Here, the harm GPSPS caused was even more egregious because the Company used apparently falsified evidence of consumers' authorizations for a carrier change and caused consumers to expend significant time and effort to attempt to return to their preferred carriers, to get the charges removed from their bills, and to file complaints with law enforcement agencies. The Commission is committed to protecting consumers against slamming and cramming and will take aggressive action against carriers that perpetrate such unjust, unreasonable, and deceptive acts. Based on the evidence before us, including more than 150 consumer complaints that demonstrate that GPSPS's misconduct was widespread and intentional, we propose a $9,065,000 forfeiture.
BACKGROUND
GPSPS is an interexchange carrier that is authorized to provide domestic and international long distance telecommunications service. The Bureau reviewed over 150 complaints against GPSPS that consumers filed with the Commission, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Public Utility Commission of Texas (Texas PUC), and the Better Business Bureau (BBB). All complainants contend that GPSPS switched their preferred long distance service provider without their authorization. No complainant indicated that he or she had contact with GPSPS or a Company agent before being charged for GPSPS's service. Most complainants affirmatively assert that they had never heard of or spoken to the Company before discovering GPSPS's charges on their telephone bills. Many complainants also state that GPSPS agreed to refund only a portion of the fees it had charged them. Still others claim that when they contacted GPSPS, they were told that they or someone in their household had authorized GPSPS's service, and that GPSPS possessed an audio recording evidencing the authorization. Complainants who heard these recordings contend that they were fabricated.
Based on complaints from consumers alleging that GPSPS had fraudulently charged them for long distance service, the Bureau initiated an investigation of GPSPS and issued a letter of inquiry (LOI) to the Company on August 29, 2014. The LOI sought information about GPSPS's practices and instructed the Company to produce various documents and records, including evidence that it had complied with the Commission's verification procedures prior to switching consumers' long distance service providers. GPSPS's response to the LOI was late and incomplete. In particular, GPSPS failed to provide the Bureau with any consumer complaints and third party verification (TPV) recordings or any other proof that consumers authorized GPSPS to switch their long distance service. As a result, the Bureau obtained from the Texas PUC consumer complaints and TPV recordings that GPSPS had submitted to the Texas PUC.
DISCUSSION
We find that GPSPS apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 201(b) and 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act or Act), and Sections 1.17 and 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. Specifically, as discussed more fully below, we charge GPSPS with apparently violating (1) Section 201(b) of the Act for submitting fabricated audio "verification" recordings to the Commission and state regulatory authorities as purported proof of consumers' authorization to switch their carriers and to be charged for service when, in fact, consumers had never spoken to GPSPS or its third party verifiers; (2) Section 1.17 of the Commission's rules for providing to the Commission during the course of its adjudication of slamming complaints, misleading material information without a reasonable basis for believing the information was truthful; (3) Section 258 of the Act and Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules for submitting requests to switch consumers' preferred long distance carriers without authorization verified in compliance with the Commission's verification procedures; (4) Section 201(b) of the Act for placing unauthorized charges on consumers' local telephone bills; and (5) a Commission order to produce certain information and documents related to GPSPS's business practices. Accordingly, we propose a forfeiture of $9,065,000 for the apparent violations that occurred within the 12 months prior to the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (GPSPS NAL or NAL).
GPSPS Provided Fabricated Audio Recordings to the Commission and State Regulatory Authorities in Apparent Violation of Section 201(b)
We find that GPSPS apparently violated Section 201(b) of the Act when enrolling and charging consumers for its service. Section 201(b) prohibits carriers from engaging in unjust and unreasonable practices, and the Commission has found that deceptive, fraudulent practices, including fabricating TPV recordings, are such unlawful practices.
Many consumers who filed slamming complaints with the Texas PUC, which then shared these complaints with the Bureau, told the PUC that the voice on the recording was not theirs, and that they did not otherwise have any conversation with GPSPS, its telemarketer, or its third-party verifier. Other consumers said that when they asked GPSPS to hear the recordings purporting to evidence their authorization, they were told that the Company would "investigate" and that such investigation would take seven to 10 business days. GPSPS, however, never provided the recordings or followed up with these complainants.
For example, after GPSPS switched her carrier, Complainant McFall called the Company to complain. "They told me we signed up via telemarketer. I know that's a lie because I never deal with telemarketers, i[n] fact I don't answer the phone when they call and I put us on the do not call list." Complaint Moreno similarly called GPSPS to complain about unauthorized charges on his telephone bill:
* They told me their "Verification Dept." has a recording of me requesting the change and will be calling me in 7-10 business days to play it. When they did not call me I called them again (3 more times) and was again told I would receive a call in 7-10 business days. They keep telling me I missed their call, but of course they haven't called because there is no recording of me authorizing the switch.
After GPSPS switched her long distance carrier, Complainant Vega said that a GPSPS representative told her that "a J[] Vega made the change. . . . I told her that J[] Vega does not live in this country. He is my father and he lives in another continent. . . . I have a cellular phone and I do not need nor do I want [a] long distance provider for my land line." The representative said that she could provide Ms. Vega with the recording, but "I have yet to hear back from her." Complainant Salinas also attempted to obtain information from GPSPS about how the Company changed her long distance service provider. "They are very vague when asked who authorized the change and only give you the name of the person who is listed in the phone directory. I certainly did not authorize any change and my 6-month old certainly didn't either." Complainant Duenas also stated that she did not authorize GPSPS's service. She wrote:
* I called the number listed on my bill . . . to find out why they were billing me. I was told my husband M[] Duenas authorized the phone service. My husband has been dead for seven years and I didn't sign up or authorize [ILD] or GPSPS for any phone service . . . I am on a fixed income and can't afford to pay this phone bill.
After reviewing numerous consumer complaints, Bureau staff contacted 10 additional complainants about the recordings GPSPS had provided to the Texas PUC. Each complainant listened to the recordings, and each one adamantly denied that the voice on the recording was theirs or anyone else in his or her household. In fact, none of the complainants even recognized the voice on the recording or indicated that he or she had authorized any other person to switch his or her long distance carrier. Instead, the complainants insisted that GPSPS's recordings had been falsified, and that they had never spoken with GPSPS or its third-party verifier. They also stated that the birth date or maiden name supplied by the person on the recording was neither theirs nor, in some cases, their spouse's. Given the assertions from these ten complainants that the verification recordings were fabricated, coupled with claims from numerous other complainants that they had neither heard of GPSPS nor spoken to a Company representative, we find it credible that the other TPV recordings GPSPS relied on to show that consumers authorized its service were fabricated as well. The fact that GPSPS repeatedly failed to provide the recordings to consumers who contacted the Company to dispute the charges is further evidence that GPSPS was engaged in conduct designed to deceive consumers and regulatory officials. The evidence shows that these were not mere errors by GPSPS, whereby the Company mistakenly verified the carrier switch with someone who was not authorized to make the switch, but intentional misconduct. Here, there is simply no evidence that GPSPS ever contacted complainants or anyone else in the complainants' households and recorded their authorizations to switch the complainants' carriers. Nevertheless, GPSPS presented these fabricated audio recordings to the FCC and Texas PUC as a defense to charges that the Company violated Section 258 of the Act.
Accordingly, we find GPSPS in apparent violation of Section 201(b) of the Act for engaging in deceptive and fraudulent practices by using false audio "verification" recordings that were apparently designed to mislead (i) consumers in an effort to convince them that they had authorized services that they had not; and (ii) the Commission and the Texas PUC in the course of official investigations.
GPSPS Provided False and Misleading Material Information to the Commission in Apparent Violation of Section 1.17 of the Commission's Rules
Based on the evidence discussed above, we find that GPSPS also apparently violated Section 1.17 of the Commission's rules when it submitted fabricated TPVs to the Commission. Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules provides that no person may provide to the Commission, in any written statement of fact, "material factual information that is incorrect or omit material information . . . without a reasonable basis for believing that any such material factual statement is correct and not misleading." This requirement is intended in part to enhance the effectiveness of the Commission's enforcement efforts. Thus, even absent an intent to deceive, a false statement may constitute a violation of Section 1.17 if provided without a reasonable basis for believing that the information is truthful and not misleading. In response to slamming complaints CGB forwarded to GPSPS, GPSPS repeatedly submitted fabricated TPV recordings to the Commission, despite receiving numerous complaints from consumers who said they had never heard of GPSPS and did not authorize GPSPS's service. As we have previously stated, parties must "use due diligence in providing information that is correct and not misleading to the Commission." This includes taking appropriate steps to determine the truthfulness of what is being submitted. GPSPS failed to do so. Accordingly, we find that GPSPS lacked a reasonable basis for believing that the TPVs were authentic, and that in providing them to the Commission, GPSPS apparently violated Section 1.17 (a)(2) of the rules.
GPSPS Switched Consumers' Long Distance Carriers Unlawfully in Apparent Violation of Section 258 of the Act and Section 64.1120 of the Commission's Rules (Slamming)
GPSPS apparently violated Section 258 of the Act and Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules by submitting requests to change consumers' long distance carriers without authorization. Section 258 of the Act makes it unlawful for any telecommunications carrier to "submit or execute a change in a subscriber's selection of a provider of telephone exchange service or telephone toll service except in accordance with such verification procedures as the Commission shall prescribe." Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules prohibits carriers from submitting a request to change a consumer's preferred provider of telecommunications services before obtaining authorization from the consumer; carriers can verify that authorization in one of three specified ways, including TPV. If a carrier relies on TPV, as GPSPS does, the independent verifiers must, among other things, confirm that the consumers with whom they are speaking: (i) have the authority to change the carrier associated with their telephone number; (ii) in fact wish to change carriers; and (iii) understand that they are authorizing a carrier change.
The Bureau's LOI directed GPSPS to provide the TPV recordings the Company used to submit the requests to switch the long distance carriers of certain identified consumers who had filed complaints with the Commission. GPSPS failed to provide any such proof. Under Section 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, once the Commission notifies a carrier of an unauthorized carrier change complaint, "[f]ailure by the carrier to respond or provide proof of verification will be presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation." In the absence of any form of verified authorization and for this reason alone, we find that GPSPS apparently violated Section 258 and Section 64.1120 with respect to 17 complainants. The LOI also directed GPSPS to provide all consumer complaints and inquiries the Company received since September 1, 2013, whether submitted directly to the Company, the Company's billing aggregator, state commissions, the FCC, the Better Business Bureau, state attorneys general offices, courts of law, or any other source, and to provide any TPV recordings pertaining to each complaint or inquiry. GPSPS provided no such complaints or any TPV recordings to the Bureau to show that it had verified the complainants' authorization to switch their long distance carriers.
As noted above, however, GPSPS did submit TPV recordings to the Texas PUC and a few TPV recordings to CGB in response to CGB's notification to the Company of consumer complaints. As discussed in detail above, the record shows that these TPV recordings were fabricated to apparently mislead regulatory officials into believing that GPSPS had verified the consumers' authorization, when in fact it had not followed any of the Commission's verification procedures set forth in Section 64.1120(c). Put simply, GPSPS has failed to produce any proof in some cases -- or any clear and convincing evidence in other cases -- that it complied with the Commission's verification procedures prior to submitting or executing a carrier change to switch the Complainants' long distance carriers. Based on the evidence in the record, including evidence that GPSPS fabricated recordings to make it appear that it had verified consumers' authorizations in compliance with Section 64.1120(c) when it did not, we find that GPSPS apparently violated Section 258 of the Act and Section 64.1120 of the rules when it submitted requests to switch the preferred carriers of 65 consumers without proper authorization verified in accordance with the Commission's rules.
GPSPS Placed Unauthorized Charges on Consumers' Telephone Bills in Apparent Violation of Section 201(b) (Cramming)
Section 201(b) of the Act makes it unlawful for a carrier such as GPSPS to engage in any practice in connection with its provision of a telecommunications service that is unjust and unreasonable. The Commission has found that the inclusion of unauthorized charges and fees on consumers' telephone bills -- known as "cramming" -- is an "unjust and unreasonable" practice under Section 201(b). Cramming can occur either when third parties place unauthorized charges on consumers' local telephone bills or when carriers place unauthorized charges on the telephone bills of their own customers. In either case, any assessment of an unauthorized charge on a telephone bill or for a telecommunications service is an "unjust and unreasonable" practice under Section 201(b) of the Act.
As a result of GPSPS's apparent slamming of consumers, discussed above, the charges it caused to be placed on consumers' telephone bills were unauthorized in apparent violation of Section 201(b) of the Act. All of the complainants maintain that they neither requested nor agreed to GPSPS's service. As we have said on several occasions in prior cases, a carrier that engages in an initial slam that leads to a subsequent cram violates both Sections 258 and 201(b) of the Act for slamming and cramming. In such cases we can exercise our authority to assess forfeitures for both types of violations. Accordingly, we find that GPSPS apparently violated Section 201(b) for the unauthorized charges it placed on 41 consumers' telephone bills after it switched their long distance carriers without authorization verified in compliance with the Commission's rules.
GPSPS Violated a Commission Order to Respond Timely and Fully to a Bureau LOI
Sections 4(i), 218, and 403 of the Act give the Commission broad power to compel carriers such as GPSPS to provide the information and documents sought by the Bureau's LOI. It is well established that a failure to respond to a letter of inquiry from the Bureau constitutes a violation of a Commission order.
The LOI directed GPSPS to provide certain information related to its compliance with Sections 201(b) and 258 of the Act and the Commission's anti-slamming rules. This information is necessary to enable the Bureau to perform its investigatory function. GPSPS did not respond to the LOI until October 1, 2014, after the September 18, 2014 due date. Even then, GPSPS failed to answer all of the LOI's questions. Specifically, GPSPS failed to provide the Bureau any consumer complaints or inquiries as required by the LOI. Further, it failed to provide the Bureau any third party verification recordings GPSPS used to submit requests to switch consumers' long distance service providers.
Accordingly, in light of well-established Commission precedent, we find that GPSPS's failure to provide the information and documents required by the Bureau's LOI constitutes an apparent willful violation of a Commission order.
Proposed Forfeiture
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 empowers the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $160,000 for any violations occurring on or after September 13, 2013. In exercising our forfeiture authority, we are required to take into account "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." In addition, the Commission has established forfeiture guidelines, which set forth base penalties for certain violations and identify criteria that we consider in exercising our discretion in determining the penalties to apply in any given case. Under the guidelines, we may adjust a forfeiture upward for violations that are egregious, intentional, or repeated, or that cause substantial harm or generate substantial economic gain for the violator.
The Commission's forfeiture guidelines currently establish a base forfeiture amount of $40,000 for violations of our slamming rules and orders. Although the guidelines provide no base forfeiture for cramming, the Commission has established through case law a base forfeiture of $40,000 for cramming violations. As discussed above, the Commission can assess separate forfeitures for a slam and for any unauthorized charges that result from the unlawful carrier switch. Under the circumstances here, we believe assessing a forfeiture for each slamming violation that occurred within the last 12 months is sufficient to protect consumers and deter future violations of the Act and does not necessitate our assessing an additional forfeiture for the subsequent cram. In those cases, however, where GPSPS submitted the unlawful carrier change request more than a year prior to the date of this NAL, we assess a forfeiture not for the slam, but for the unauthorized charges GPSPS placed on the consumers' telephone bills after the Company slammed them. Applying the $40,000 base forfeiture to each of the 65 slamming violations and each of the 41 cramming violations that occurred within one year of the release date of this NAL results in a forfeiture of $4,240,000.
GPSPS engaged in slamming and cramming repeatedly. We have reviewed more than 150 complaints, including the 106 identified in the Appendix, by consumers alleging that GPSPS charged them for its service without authorization, and in many cases did so over several months. Moreover, the record shows that GPSPS's conduct was egregious. The evidence shows that the Company routinely submitted a carrier change request without any authorization from consumers and then provided fabricated verification recordings to the Commission and the Texas PUC in response to complaints from consumers alleging that GPSPS had either slammed or crammed them. Complainant Milian, whose 90-year old mother was fraudulently charged for service by GPSPS, expressed the egregiousness of GPSPS's actions:
I believe this is a serious transgression against consumer trust in an industry that a senior citizen relies upon for safety and communication, not only with loved ones, but with health care professionals, and therefore, of serious concern for the social wellbeing of a country.
Indeed, there is no evidence in the record to show that GPSPS completed a single authentic verification recording for any of the complainants. GPSPS also caused substantial and continuing harm to consumers. In some cases, for example, GPSPS's misconduct cost consumers hundreds of dollars in charges and fees. Further, GPSPS was on notice that the Commission takes the specific issue of fabricated TPVs seriously. In 2012, the Commission released a Notice of Apparent Liability against another toll reseller for fabricating TPVs in order to show that it had consumer authorization for carrier changes. Notwithstanding the release of the United NAL, GPSPS has disregarded the Commission's rules and the Communications Act by submitting unauthorized carrier change requests using fabricated TPVs.
Under Section 503 and our forfeiture guidelines, we must take into account the egregious and repeated nature of GPSPS's actions, as well as the substantial harm that the Company caused consumers. Given the circumstances here and the extent of GPSPS's improper conduct, all in the face of the repeated warnings of the Commission that slamming and cramming would not be tolerated, an additional upward adjustment of $4,000,000 is appropriate.
The Commission's forfeiture guidelines provide that the base forfeiture amount for misrepresentation or lack of candor is the statutory maximum, or, in this case, $160,000. Considering the circumstances of this case, we find that the base forfeiture is warranted for GPSPS's willful violations of Section 1.17. The Commission has stated that it relies heavily on the truthfulness and accuracy of the information provided to it. "If information submitted to us is incorrect, we cannot properly carry out our statutory responsibilities." Here, GPSPS repeatedly provided to the Commission TPV recordings that were apparently fabricated, thus hampering our ability to properly enforce the carrier change rules. Therefore, applying the base forfeiture of $160,000 to the five instances when GPSPS provided false material information to the Commission within the last 12 months results in a proposed forfeiture of $800,000.
Pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules and the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement, the base forfeiture amount for failure to respond to Commission communications is $4,000. However, we have issued penalties for failure to respond that far exceeded the $4,000 base forfeiture, including cases in which the targets answered some of the LOI questions, but failed to answer them completely or provide all of the required information.
Consistent with prior cases involving carriers that failed to comply fully with Bureau LOIs, we find that GPSPS's failure to respond completely to all of the questions in the Bureau's LOI in the circumstances presented here warrants a forfeiture of $25,000. This forfeiture is appropriate given the extent and willfulness of the violation, and the insufficiency of the LOI Response.
We thus propose a total forfeiture of $9,065,000.
CONCLUSION
Based on the facts and record before us, we find that GPSPS, Inc., has apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 201(b) and 258 of the Act and Sections 1.17 and 64.1120 of the Commission's rules and apparently willfully violated a Commission Order to respond to a Bureau letter of inquiry.
ORDERING CLAUSES
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.80, that GPSPS, Inc., is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of nine million sixty five thousand dollars ($9,065,000), for willfully and repeatedly violating Sections 201(b) and 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 1.17 and 64.1120 of the Commission's rules, as well as willfully violating a Commission order issued pursuant to delegated authority by the Enforcement Bureau to respond to a letter of inquiry.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.80, within thirty (30) days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, GPSPS, Inc., SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, wire transfer, or credit card, and must include the NAL/Account number and FRN referenced above. GPSPS shall send electronic notification of payment to Johnny Drake at johnny.drake@fcc.gov on the date said payment is made. Regardless of the form of payment, a completed FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted. When completing the FCC Form 159, GPSPS must enter the Account Number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID) and enter the letters "FORF" in block number 24A (payment type code). Below are additional instructions GPSPS should follow based on the form of payment it selects:
Payment by check or money order must be made payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. Such payments (along with the completed Form 159) must be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank - Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.
Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004, receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001. To complete the wire transfer and ensure appropriate crediting of the wired funds, a completed Form 159 must be faxed to U.S. Bank at (314) 418-4232 on the same business day the wire transfer is initiated.
Payment by credit card must be made by providing the required credit card information on FCC Form 159 and signing and dating the Form 159 to authorize the credit card payment. The completed Form 159 must then be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank - Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.
* Any request for making full payment over time under an installment plan should be sent to: Chief Financial Officer - Financial Operations, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12[th] Street, SW, Room 1-A625, Washington, DC 20554. If GPSPS, Inc., has questions regarding payment procedures, it should contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by phone, 1-877-480-3201, or by e-mail, ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.
The response, if any, must be mailed both to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12[th] Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, ATTN: Enforcement Bureau - Telecommunications Consumers Division, and to Richard A. Hindman, Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12[th] Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption.
The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a 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.
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 Clint R. Parry, GPSPS, Inc., 3355 Lenox Road, Suite 750, Atlanta, GA 30326, and to Michael S. Welsh, Esquire, 3212 Northlake Parkway, P.O. Box 450586, Atlanta, GA 31145.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
APPENDIX
Apparent Violations of Sections 258 and 201(b) of the Act
Complainant
Date of Carrier Switch and/or Date Charge Placed on Consumer's Bill
Violation(s)
1.
M. Milian
3/2/14
Section 258 slam
2.
R. Cano
3/9/14
Section 201(b) cram
3.
E. Ricardez
3/9/14
Section 201(b) cram
4.
B. Cunningham
3/10/14
Section 201(b) cram
5.
L. Medina
3/10/14
Section 201(b) cram
6.
P. Canalichio
3/13/14
Section 201(b) cram
7.
E. Moreno
3/13/14
Section 201(b) cram
8.
M. Sanchez
3/15/14
Section 201(b) cram
9.
S. Reyes
3/17/14
Section 201(b) cram
10.
R. Bunnell
3/18/14
Section 258 slam
11.
A. Perez
3/18/14
Section 258 slam
12.
R. Lynch
3/18/14
Section 258 slam
13.
J. Cavazos
3/18/14
Section 258 slam
14.
J. Fernandez
3/19/14
Section 258 slam
15.
L. Anton
3/19/14
Section 258 slam
16.
Bayside Community Hospital
3/28/14
Section 201(b) cram
17.
M. Luna
3/29/14
Section 201(b) cram
18.
Animal Crossing Vet
4/1/14
Section 201(b) cram
19.
Calvert Collision Center
4/1/14
Section 201(b) cram
20.
M. Stanfield
4/7/14
Section 201(b) cram
21.
S. Vega
4/13/14
Section 201(b) cram
22.
C. Raldiris
4/19/14
Section 201(b) cram
23.
G. Bellino
4/21/14
Section 258 slam
24.
D. Moseley
4/21/14
Section 258 slam
25.
J. Monrroy
4/22/14
Section 258 slam
26.
K. Bitter
4/22/14
Section 258 slam
27.
R. Guerrero
4/22/14
Section 258 slam
28.
M. Robledo
4/22/14
Section 258 slam
29.
M. Jaso
4/22/14
Section 258 slam
30.
A. Acosta
4/22/14
Section 258 slam
31.
M. Garcia
4/22/14
Section 258 slam
32.
M. Chavarria
4/22/14
Section 258 slam
33.
G. Cuellar
4/22/14
Section 258 slam
34.
V. Castro
4/22/14
Section 258 slam
35.
A. Casares
4/22/14
Section 258 slam
36.
D. Martinez
5/5/14
Section 201(b) cram
37.
A. Olivares
5/7/14
Section 258 slam
38.
R. Rodriguez
5/7/14
Section 258 slam
39.
P. Olguin
5/7/14
Section 258 slam
40.
S. Estraca
5/7/14
Section 258 slam
41.
R. Cantu
5/7/14
Section 258 slam
42.
J. Oines
5/7/14
Section 258 slam
43.
N. Silva
5/7/14
Section 258 slam
44.
N. Santoro
5/7/14
Section 258 slam
45.
Lakes Auto Parts
5/7/14
Section 258 slam
46.
F. Lopez
5/7/14
Section 258 slam
47.
F. Petraglia
5/7/14
Section 258 slam
48.
J. Pena
5/7/14
Section 258 slam
49.
M. Delgado
5/7/14
Section 258 slam
50.
N. Lopez
5/7/14
Section 201(b) cram
51.
G. Garcia
5/7/14
Section 258 slam
52.
J. Soto
5/7/14
Section 258 slam
53.
G. Sepulveda
5/7/14
Section 258 slam
54.
C. Mijares
5/7/14
Section 258 slam
55.
M. Sierra
5/7/14
Section 258 slam
56.
A. Barrera
5/7/14
Section 258 slam
57.
M. Purtee
5/7/14
Section 258 slam
58.
R. Romero
5/9/14
Section 201(b) cram
59.
V. Salinas
5/15/14
Section 201(b) cram
60.
H. Rosales
5/19/14
Section 201(b) cram
61.
M. Betancourt
5/22/14
Section 201(b) cram
62.
J. Herrera
6/1/14
Section 201(b) cram
63.
Fig-Co Steel Buildings
6/7/14
Section 201(b) cram
64.
R. Tovar
6/9/14
Section 258 slam
65.
G. Saxon
6/9/14
Section 258 slam
66.
S. Contreras
6/9/14
Section 258 slam
67.
M. Rodriguez
6/9/14
Section 258 slam
68.
A. Potter
6/9/14
Section 258 slam
69.
M. Saenz
6/9/14
Section 258 slam
70.
D. Nino
6/9/14
Section 258 slam
71.
V. Salazar
6/9/14
Section 258 slam
72.
D. De La Fuente
6/9/14
Section 258 slam
73.
R. Martin
6/9/14
Section 258 slam
74.
A. Diaz
6/9/14
Section 258 slam
75.
M. Duenas
6/9/14
Section 258 slam
76.
S. Amyett
6/9/14
Section 258 slam
77.
E. Cano
6/9/14
Section 258 slam
78.
American Cotton Growers
6/9/14
Section 258 slam
79.
R. Casas
6/9/14
Section 258 slam
80.
N. Lozano
6/9/14
Section 258 slam
81.
T. Ramirez
6/9/14
Section 258 slam
82.
P. Pradilla
6/9/14
Section 258 slam
83.
L. Lopez
6/9/14
Section 258 slam
84.
S. Burma
6/9/14
Section 258 slam
85.
I. Campesi
6/9/14
Section 258 slam
86.
C. Rubin
6/9/14
Section 258 slam
87.
J. Marina
6/13/14
Section 201(b) cram
88.
R. Bermea
6/14/14
Section 258 slam
89.
C. Rodriguez
6/21/14
Section 201(b) cram
90.
E. Madrid
6/23/14
Section 201(b) cram
91.
S. Martinez
6/28/14
Section 201(b) cram
92.
L. Cordoba
7/1/14
Section 201(b) cram
93.
A. Perez
7/1/14
Section 201(b) cram
94.
F. Galletta
7/14/14
Section 201(b) cram
95.
Kantack Alcantara Law Office
8/3/14
Section 201(b) cram
96.
Heartland Funeral Home
8/10/14
Section 201(b) cram
97.
V. Gil
8/11/14
Section 201(b) cram
98.
A. Quinones
8/15/14
Section 201(b) cram
99.
A. Garcia
8/16/14
Section 201(b) cram
100.
B. Rojas
8/22/14
Section 201(b) cram
101.
C. Cook
8/23/14
Section 201(b) cram
102.
K. McFall
8/25/14
Section 258 slam
103.
J. Gutierrez
8/29/14
Section 201(b) cram
104.
E. Alonso
9/23/14
Section 201(b) cram
105.
A. Alvarez
10/15/14
Section 201(b) cram
106.
H. Collins
10/19/14
Section 201(b) cram
Apparent Violations of Section 1.17 of the Rules
Complainant
Date GPSPS provided TPV to the Commission
Violation
1.
M. Betancourt
7/3/14
Section 1.17
2.
Lake Auto Parts
7/15/14
Section 1.17
3.
F. Lopez
8/19/14
Section 1.17
4.
F. Galletta
9/4/14
Section 1.17
5.
E. Alonso
12/16/14
Section 1.17