Inside Towers recently wrote about a case in which the FCC cleared Troy, MI-based telecom provider Clear Rate of a slamming allegation. But this week, the Commission says Clear Rate did commit slamming in another situation.
A Verizon customer complained to the FCC that Clear Rate changed the individual’s business’s telecom provider without permission. Slamming is prohibited under the Communications Act. Commission rules require a carrier to receive individual subscriber consent before a carrier change may occur. Not doing so is called “slamming.”
The individual told the agency she received a call from someone claiming to be from Verizon, her business’s current carrier, offering her better rates. “They asked a couple of questions and then were able to take our number and we had no service for a day,” she stated in the complaint. She further said her business received a bill from Clear Rate, although the business “always wanted to stay with Verizon,” the individual told the FCC.
Clear Rate said the person agreed to and authorized the carrier switch, and that the terms and conditions were explained to her “in detail,” according to the FCC. The carrier provided two audio recordings, but not of the actual sales call or any other evidence related to that call, noted the agency.
The Commission described the call that Clear Rate provided this way: “The Clear Rate representative states that ‘you will not have any interruptions in your service. This is through a contract agreement between Verizon and Clear Rate. Clear Rate just provides the billing at a wholesale rate and manages your customer service needs in a more timely manner.’” The Clear Rate representative also states that ‘Clear Rate is one of the many rate carriers contracted by Verizon to finally give small businesses like yours a wholesale rate.’”
“Based on the record, we find Complainant’s allegation of a sales call misrepresentation to be credible,” said the FCC in its order signed by Kristi Thornton, Acting Chief, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau. It also found Clear Rate failed to provide persuasive evidence to rebut the individual’s claim of misrepresentation. That’s why the agency decided her authorization to change carriers was invalid. As the Commission stated in the 2018 Slamming Order, “[w]hen a consumer’s decision to switch carriers is predicated on false information provided in a sales call, that consumer’s authorization to switch carriers can no longer be considered binding.”
The Commission said Clear Rate’s actions resulted in an unauthorized change in the woman’s business carrier. As a result, Clear Rate must remove all the charges incurred for the service provided to the person who complained for the first 30 days after the change occurred. Neither the complainant’s authorized carrier nor Clear Rate may pursue any collection against her for those charges, noted the agency. Any charges after 30 days shall be paid by her to Verizon at her previous rates.
By Leslie Stimson, Inside Towers Washington Bureau Chief
Reader Interactions