Lovejoy v. AT&T Corp

In Lovejoy v. AT&T Corp. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 85, the plaintiff sued for fraud, alleging that AT&T, his long distance carrier, had "slammed" his 800 number away from Pacific Bell, then concealed the fact that it had done so. When the plaintiff had a billing dispute with AT&T over his long distance bill, AT&T terminated both his long distance service and his 800 number. By the time that he found out that his 800 number had been disconnected, he had lost his business. (Id. at p. 91.) The Court of Appeal found that the plaintiff was not seeking rate preferences not accorded to other customers, and that an award of damages would not involve the court in tariff setting or in enforcing discrimination against other ATT customers. Instead, the case fell within a Federal Communications Act savings clause which permits state law actions which do not frustrate the Act's purposes of uniformity and agency ratemaking. (Id. at p. 101.) Lovejoy also notes that "The claim is that plaintiff would never have been a customer at all were it not for ATT's deceptive and fraudulent behavior." (Lovejoy v. AT&T Corp., supra, 92 Cal.App.4th at p. 101.)