On October 14, 2009, Millicorp, a Florida corporation, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., and various state Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Acts, ...
read more >
On October 14, 2009, Millicorp, a Florida corporation, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., and various state Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Acts, against four corporations providing telecommunications services to correctional facilities in Florida. The plaintiff, represented by private counsel, asked the Court for punitive and compensatory damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that defendants engaged in unlawful conduct to prevent competition by blocking the telephone calls of plaintiff's customers.
Millicorp is a nationwide voice over Internet protocol ("VOIP") provider. VOIP is used to transmit voice communications over an Internet connection rather than a landline. Millicorp provides its services to correctional facility inmates in many states. The defendants provide phone services to correctional facilities via pay phones. Millicorp alleged that defendants programmed their pay phones to block Millicorp's services. As a result, Millicorp claimed it lost revenue and a significant percentage of its customer base.
On April 14, 2010, the District Court (Judge Donald Graham) granted defendants' motion to dismiss. Pursuant to the Communications Act, any person claiming damage under the Act may either make a complaint to the FCC or bring suit in a federal district court, but may not pursue both remedies. The Court found that Millicorp's previous informal request that the FCC investigate the unlawful call blocking practices of the defendants barred it from bringing its claims in federal district court. The Court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's remaining state law claims. Nate West - 09/28/2014