Grayson v. AT&T Corporation, et al.

Case Updates

The DC Court of Appeals rejected the claims that phone companies were illegally holding onto unused balances from pre-paid phone cards, rather than handing the money over to the District of Columbia. However, the court disagreed with NCLC that the plaintiff lacked standing to pursue the claims in the first place.

NCLC urged the DC Court of Appeals to hold that the DC Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) incorporates a basic standing requirement. In this case, revisions to the CPPA excluded language that would have clarified the standing requirement for bringing claims under the law. NCLC argued that, unless a legislature explicitly abolishes a prudential standing requirement, courts should not presume legislative intent to alter the requirement. Removing the standing requirement for claims under the CPPA will invite abusive, frivolous lawsuits to the District of Columbia.