T-Mobile v. Bonet, 1100107 (Ala. 12-2-2011)
2011 Ala. LEXIS 230
| Ala. | 2011Background
- CMRS Board and Alabama CMRS Board members sue T-Mobile and PowerTel over 911 service charges for prepaid wireless customers.
- Legislation (1998 & 2007 amendments) imposes $0.70 monthly 911 charge on CMRS connections; defines CMRS connection broadly.
- 1998 amendment allowed charges on connections with a principal wireless service address or billing address if unknown; allowed collection by providers.
- 2007 amendment replaced that language with 'place of primary use' within Alabama and added a formal definition of place of primary use.
- T-Mobile stopped remitting charges for prepaid connections from 2005–2007; resumed in 2007 using ARPU-based estimates; no charges collected from prepaid customers themselves.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Board; held prepaid charges valid and ARPU method inappropriate; awarded damages; T-Mobile appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prepaid customers fall within the 1998 charge framework | T-Mobile—prepaid lacks principal wireless service address | Board—1998 amendment contemplates CMRS connections, not billing model | Yes; prepaid connections within scope; charge applicable |
| Whether 2007 place-of-primary-use language excludes prepaid | T-Mobile—place of primary use conflicts with prepaid | Board—2007 clarifies scope; prepaid included | Prepaid included; charge applies to all CMRS connections within Alabama |
| Whether ARPU method for prepaid undercharges violates the Act | ARPU fairly reflects charges owed | ARPU not authorized; violates monthly-charge structure | ARPU method invalid; Board entitled to damages for underpayment using improper method |
| Whether the charge violates the Commerce Clause (Goldberg analysis) | Charge is a tax violating interstate commerce limits | Charge fairly apportioned, nexus present, non-discriminatory | Charge does not violate Commerce Clause; sustained as within state authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Exxon Mobil Corp., 926 So.2d 303 (Ala. 2005) (statutory intent and unambiguous language control)
- Lambert v. Wilcox County Commission, 623 So.2d 727 (Ala. 1993) (look to entire statute; pari materia and plain meaning)
- Darks Dairy, Inc. v. Alabama Dairy Comm'n, 367 So.2d 1378 (Ala. 1979) (statutory construction; in pari materia)
- Lightwave Techs., L.L.C. v. Escambia County, 804 So.2d 176 (Ala. 2001) (fee versus tax; revenue-use earmarking indicates service fee)
- TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Washington Dept. of Revenue, 170 Wash.2d 273, 242 P.3d 810 (Wash. 2010) (prepaid services taxed under CMRS-like framework; uniformity concern)
- Commonwealth of Kentucky Commercial Mobile Radio Service Emergency Board v. TracFone Wireless, Inc., 735 F. Supp. 2d 713 (W.D. Ky. 2010) (broad CMRS-definition; duty to collect from all CMRS customers; ARPU critique not required)