Spielholz
Spielholz v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Cty.
Opinion
Opinion
Croskey, J.
Petitioners Marcia Spielholz, Debra Petcove, and Wireless Consumers’ Alliance, Inc. (collectively, Spielholz), sued Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Company and AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. (collectively, AT&T), alleging that AT&T falsely advertised a “seamless calling area” throughout Southern California and that it failed to disclose gaps or “dead zones” where wireless telephone users are unable to connect calls. AT&T moved to strike the allegations for monetary relief, based on title 47 United States Code section 332(c)(3)(A), which provides that a state may not “regulate the entry of or the rates charged” by a wireless telephone service provider. It argued that for the court to award damages or restitution based on false advertising it must determine the value of the services provided, and that that determination would constitute rate regulation within the meaning of section 332(c)(3)(A) and therefore is expressly preempted. The trial court agreed and granted the motion.
Spielholz contends section 332(c)(3)(A) does not preempt a state court from awarding monetary relief based on false advertising. We agree.