Elder

Elder v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co.

Bad Law
141 Cal. Rptr. 3d 48·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 514·205 Cal. App. 4th 841·2012 WL 1484104·12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4785
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 30, 2012No. A130718California6,884 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Jenkins, J.

*845 Opinion

Plaintiff Rex Elder, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, filed this lawsuit seeking relief against defendants Pacific Bell Telephone Company (hereafter Pacific Bell) and ACI Billing Services, Inc., doing business as OAN (hereafter OAN) 1 for the inclusion of allegedly unauthorized charges on a subscriber’s telephone bill, a practice known as “cramming,” in violation of Public Utilities Code section 2890, subdivision (a). We agree with plaintiff that the superior court erred in sustaining defendants’ demurrers without leave to amend. Accordingly, the judgment of dismissal is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Law Relating to Cramming

In 1998, the Legislature added sections 2889.9 and 2890 to the Public Utilities Code 2 to address “cramming,” which is the practice of including unauthorized charges on a subscriber’s telephone bill. (See Stats. 1998, ch. 1036, § 2, p. 7795; Stats. 1998, ch. 1041, § 3, p. 7971, amended by Stats. 1999, ch. 1005, § 65.7, p. 7711, and by Stats. 2000, ch. 931, § 4, p. 6959.) In pertinent part, section 2889.9 reads; “(a) No person or…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.