Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc., 550 U.S. 45 (2007)
Primary Holding
The Federal Communications Commission's interpretation of §201(b) of the Communications Act, which requires long-distance carriers to compensate payphone operators for calls made from payphones, is a lawful application of the statute, and §207 authorizes payphone operators to bring federal lawsuits against carriers that refuse to pay such compensation.
In the case of Global Crossing Telecommunications v. Metrophones, the Supreme Court decided that payphone operators have the right to be paid by long-distance phone companies when people make calls from their payphones. This is important because it ensures that payphone operators can earn money for their services, which helps keep payphones available for consumers who might not have other ways to make calls. If you ever use a payphone and a long-distance carrier refuses to pay the operator, this ruling means that the operator can take legal action to get compensated, ultimately supporting the availability of payphones for everyone.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
In the case of Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc., the underlying dispute arose from a regulatory requirement established by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC mandated that long-distance communications carriers must compensate payphone operators when callers use payphones to access the carriers' lines, such as by dialing a toll-free number. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc., a payphone operator, sought compensation from Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc., a long-distance carrier, for calls made from its payphones that accessed Global Crossing's services. Global Crossing refused to pay, leading Metrophones to claim that this refusal constituted an "unjust or unreasonable" practice under the Communications Act of 1934. The procedural history of the case involved Metrophones filing a lawsuit in federal court to recover damages based on the FCC's interpretation of the Communications Act, specifically sections 201(b) and 207. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Metrophones, affirming that the payphone operator had the right to sue for compensation under the linked provisions of the Act. Global Crossing subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to challenge this ruling. The relevant background context includes the FCC's historical role in regulating interstate telephone communications, which was established by the Communications Act of 1934. This Act granted the FCC broad authority to oversee the telecommunications industry, including the establishment of rules regarding compensation for services rendered by payphone operators. The case highlighted the ongoing regulatory challenges and interpretations surrounding the obligations of telecommunications carriers to compensate payphone operators, as well as the legal avenues available for operators to seek redress for non-payment.
Whether §207 of the Communications Act of 1934 authorizes a payphone operator to bring a federal-court lawsuit against a telecommunications carrier that refuses to pay compensation mandated by the Federal Communications Commission.
The judgment is reversed.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- October 10, 2006
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Breyer
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc., 554 U.S. 269 (2008)
Consumer WonAn assignee of a legal claim for money owed has standing to pursue that claim in federal court, even when the assignee has promised to remit the proceeds of the litigation to the assignor.
National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005)
Consumer LostThe Federal Communications Commission's determination that cable companies providing broadband Internet service do not qualify as "telecommunications services" under Title II of the Communications Act, and thus are exempt from mandatory common-carrier regulation, is a lawful construction of the Act under the Chevron deference standard.
Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish Cty., 554 U.S. 527 (2008)
Consumer LostUnder the Mobile-Sierra doctrine, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) must presume that a rate set in a freely negotiated wholesale-energy contract is just and reasonable, and this presumption can only be overcome if FERC finds that the contract seriously harms the public interest.
Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345 (2006)
Consumer LostThe refusal to apply the judgment bar of the Federal Tort Claims Act is not subject to collateral appeal, as it does not constitute a final decision under 28 U.S.C. §1291.