Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc., 554 U.S. 269 (2008)

In Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc., the underlying dispute arose from the compensation owed to payphone operators for "dial-around" calls made by customers using access codes or 1-800 numbers. When customers made such calls, they paid the long-distance carrier, but the payphone operators, who connected the calls, were not compensated directly. Under federal law, long-distance carriers are required to pay payphone operators for these calls. To facilitate the collection of these claims, many payphone operators assigned their rights to billing and collection firms known as "aggregators." These aggregators would then pursue the claims on behalf of the payphone operators, promising to remit any recovered compensation back to them. The procedural history of the case began when a group of aggregators, having taken assignments from approximately 1,400 payphone operators, filed lawsuits in federal court against Sprint, AT&T, and other long-distance carriers seeking the owed dial-around compensation. The aggregators had entered into Assignment and Power of Attorney Agreements with the payphone operators, which allowed them to act on the operators' behalf in pursuing these claims. The core legal question presented to the Supreme Court was whether these aggregators, as assignees of the claims, had the standing to sue in federal court, despite their obligation to remit any proceeds back to the payphone operators. The relevant background context includes the legal framework established by the Communications Act of 1934, which allows payphone operators to sue long-distance carriers for unpaid compensation. The practice of assigning claims to aggregators emerged due to the high costs and complexities associated with litigation, as well as the typically small monetary recoveries involved. This case was significant in clarifying the standing of assignees in federal court, reinforcing the notion that assignees can pursue claims even when they have a contractual obligation to remit proceeds to the original claim holders.

Whether an 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.

The judgment is reversed.