******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Consumer.Net, ) ) Complainant, ) ) v. ) File No. E-98-46 ) AT&T Corp., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: December 17, 1999 Released: December 28, 1999 I. INTRODUCTION By the Commission: 1. In this order we grant in part and deny in part a formal complaint filed by Consumer.Net, pro se, against AT&T Corporation (AT&T) pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act). Consumer.Net seeks a Commission order (1) declaring that AT&T's telemarketing practices at issue violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) and certain of the Commission's rules and orders implementing the TCPA; (2) enjoining AT&T from conducting further telephone solicitations; and (3) imposing fines of approximately $100 million against AT&T. For the reasons discussed below, we find that, on one occasion, AT&T violated the Commission's rules by failing to make a copy of its do- not-call policy available upon demand. We also find that, on one occasion, AT&T violated the Commission's rules by initiating a telephone solicitation despite a residential telephone subscriber's prior do-not-call request. We further find that, with respect to all of the other alleged violations of law, Consumer.Net has failed to satisfy its burden of proof. II. BACKGROUND A. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act 2. On December 20, 1991, Congress enacted the TCPA, which amended Title II of the Act by adding a new section, 47 U.S.C.  227. The TCPA, among other things, directed the Commission to establish regulations to protect the privacy rights of citizens by restricting the use of the telephone network for unsolicited advertising. In particular, the TCPA instructed the Commission to adopt rules "concerning the need to protect residential telephone subscribers' privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone solicitations to which they object." 3. As directed by Congress, the Commission established rules governing telephone solicitations that balanced the privacy concerns that the TCPA seeks to protect against the continued viability of the telemarketing industry. As part of this rulemaking, the Commission concluded that requiring the maintenance of company-specific do-not-call lists would be the most effective and efficient means for telephone subscribers to avoid unwanted telephone solicitations. Thus, the Commission adopted a rule requiring that no person or entity shall engage in any telephone solicitation unless such person or entity has instituted procedures for maintaining a list of residential subscribers who do not wish to be called by that person or entity (do-not-call list). 4. The Commission also adopted specific rules for establishing and maintaining such company-specific do-not-call lists. The Commission's rules require, among other things, that persons or entities making telephone solicitations to residential telephone subscribers must: (1) develop written policies for maintaining their do-not-call lists and make such written policies available upon demand; (2) inform and train their personnel engaged in any aspect of telephone solicitation about the existence and use of the do-not-call list; (3) place consumers that request not to receive further telephone solicitations on a do-not-call list; (4) identify themselves and the entity on whose behalf the telephone solicitation is made to called parties; and (5) honor each do- not-call request for 10 years from the time the request is made. The Commission further concluded that, in the absence of a specific request to the contrary, a residential telephone subscriber's do-not-call request generally applies only to the particular business entity making the call (or on whose behalf the call is being made), rather than to entities affiliated with the soliciting entity. Finally, our rules establish that the entity on whose behalf the solicitation is made ultimately will be liable for the maintenance of its do-not-call list and for any problems arising in the maintenance and accuracy of the list. B. Consumer.Net's Complaint 5. Consumer.Net alleges that AT&T violated the TCPA and Commission rules regarding telephone solicitations "in virtually every aspect of [its] telemarketing program." Consumer.Net bases these allegations on telephone solicitations from AT&T (or AT&T's agent) to Consumer.Net's director, Russell Smith (Smith), and two additional residential telephone subscribers, Robert Biggerstaff (Biggerstaff) and Richard Zelma (Zelma). In particular, Consumer.Net contends that AT&T violated the TCPA and Commission rules by failing: (1) to provide AT&T's written do-not-call policy to Biggerstaff and Zelma upon demand; (2) to properly record Biggerstaff and Zelma's do-not-call requests; (3) to apply Zelma's do-not-call request to AT&T's affiliated entities; and (4) to honor Zelma's do-not-call request for 10 years. III. DISCUSSION A. The Complainant Has the Burden of Proof in a Formal Complaint Proceeding. 6. It is well established that the complainant has the burden of proof in a formal complaint proceeding under section 208 of the Act. Thus, in order to prevail, the complainant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the alleged violation of the Act or the Commission's rules actually occurred. In other words, a complainant must provide facts, which if true, are sufficient to constitute a violation of the Act or of a Commission rule or orders, and such facts must be persuasively supported by affidavit or other relevant documentation. 7. Although Consumer.Net's complaint alleged violations of the Act and the Commission's rules and orders, it contained neither a complete statement of the facts on which the complaint was based nor documentation sufficient to substantiate its allegations. Nonetheless, because Consumer.Net pursued this action as a pro se complainant, the former Enforcement Division of the Common Carrier Bureau (Division) endeavored to ensure that Consumer.Net had adequate opportunity to explain its allegations and to provide the necessary evidence to support its claims. Towards that end, the Division held status conferences with the parties on August 11, 1998 and on August 12, 1998. During these status conferences, the Division explained what information would be necessary to support the claims and defenses. The Division then permitted the parties to submit briefs in order to elucidate and support their positions as completely as possible. B. Consumer.Net Largely Has Not Met Its Burden of Proving that AT&T Failed to Make AT&T's Written Do-Not-Call Policy Available on Demand. 8. Section 64.1200(e)(2)(i) of the Commission's rules requires, inter alia, that "[p]ersons or entities making telephone solicitations must have a written policy, available upon demand, for maintaining a do-not-call list." Consumer.Net contends that AT&T violated that rule in several ways. More specifically, Consumer.Net argues that: (1) AT&T's 30-day delay in sending its do-not-call policy to Zelma after one of his requests was unreasonable; (2) AT&T failed to provide either Biggerstaff or Zelma with a copy of AT&T's do-not-call policy upon certain of their requests; and (3) AT&T's provision of a letter to Biggerstaff and Zelma describing AT&T's do-not-call policy does not constitute the provision of a written copy of AT&T's do-not- call policy. AT&T denies these allegations and argues, inter alia, that the numerous copies of its do-not-call policy attached to the complaint refute Consumer.Net's allegations that AT&T failed to make its do-not-call policy available upon demand. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that, with regard to all but one claim, Consumer.Net has failed to establish that AT&T did not make its do-not-call policy available on demand. 1. Consumer.Net has not met its burden of proving that AT&T failed to make available to Zelma a copy of AT&T's do-not-call policy within a reasonable period after Zelma's request on or about July 7, 1997. 9. Consumer.Net argues that AT&T violated section 64.1200(e)(2)(i) of the Commission's rules by not making available to Zelma AT&T's written do-not-call policy within a reasonable period after Zelma's request on or about July 7, 1997. In support of its position, Consumer.Net contends that AT&T did not send a copy of AT&T's do-not-call policy to Zelma until August 11, 1997, nearly five weeks after Zelma's July 7, 1997 request. Consumer.Net relies on a decision by a California small claims court, which found that a bank violated section 64.1200(e)(2)(i) of the Commission's rules by sending a copy of the bank's do-not-call policy five weeks after request therefor. 10. Section 64.1200(e)(2)(i) of the Commission's rules requires "[p]ersons or entities making telephone solicitations [to] have a written policy, available upon demand, for maintaining a do-not-call list." Neither the Commission's rules nor the Commission's orders defines the term "available upon demand." Therefore, whether an entity has made a written copy of its do-not-call policy "available upon demand" requires an analysis of the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Based on the facts before us, we find that AT&T in this instance did make a copy of its do-not-call policy available to Zelma upon demand within the meaning of section 64.1200(e)(2)(i). 11. Consumer.Net states that Zelma requested a copy of AT&T's do-not-call policy on July 7, 1997, and that AT&T did not send its policy to Zelma until August 11, 1997. Consumer.Net's own documentation, however, refutes its claim that AT&T did not send the policy to Zelma until August 11, 1997. The record indicates that AT&T responded to Zelma's July 7, 1997 request by sending its do-not-call policy to Zelma on July 14, 1997. The record indicates that Zelma again contacted AT&T to request a copy of AT&T's do-not-call policy on July 30, 1997. On August 11, 1997, AT&T sent its do-not-call policy to Zelma in response to his July 30, 1997 request. In sum, the record illustrates that, contrary to Consumer.Net's contention, AT&T's August 11, 1997 letter was a timely response to Zelma's July 30, 1997 request, rather than an untimely response to Zelma's July 7, 1997 request. Moreover, we find that AT&T's response times of seven days and twelve days, respectively, are reasonable, given the facts and circumstances in this case. Indeed, Consumer.Net does not contend that such response times are unreasonable. Accordingly, we find that AT&T made a copy of its do-not-call policy available to Zelma upon demand in accordance with section 64.1200(e)(2)(i) of the Commission's rules. 2. Consumer.Net has met its burden of proving that AT&T failed to make AT&T's do-not-call policy available to Biggerstaff upon his May 8, 1997 demand. 12. Consumer.Net contends that AT&T violated the Commission's rules and orders by not making available to Biggerstaff AT&T's written do-not-call policy upon demand. In response, AT&T argues that Biggerstaff never requested AT&T's do-not-call policy. For the reasons discussed below, we find that AT&T failed to make a copy of its do-not-call policy available to Biggerstaff upon his demand, in violation of the Commission's rules. 13. Consumer.Net contends that (1) Biggerstaff requested a copy of AT&T's do-not- call policy during the course of a May 8, 1997 telephone solicitation, and (2) AT&T failed to honor Biggerstaff's request. In support of this contention, Consumer.Net submitted a cassette tape that contains a recording of a May 8, 1997 telephone solicitation from an AT&T representative to Biggerstaff. AT&T does not contest the accuracy or the authenticity of the Biggerstaff Tape. AT&T also does not contest that it failed to provide Biggerstaff with its do- not-call policy in response to the May 8, 1997 call. AT&T argues only that Biggerstaff did not make an unequivocal request for its do-not-call policy during the May 8, 1997 call. 14. We find that the Biggerstaff Tape demonstrates that Biggerstaff did request a copy of AT&T's do-not-call policy on May 8, 1997. Specifically, Biggerstaff stated to the AT&T telemarketer: "I would like you to send me a copy of your do-not-contact policy." In response, the AT&T telemarketer stated that she was unsure whether she had the authority to send the policy but offered to check with her supervisor. The telemarketer's authority to provide AT&T's do-not-call policy, however, should not have been a subject for discussion; AT&T should have had procedures in place to process such requests, and the telemarketer should have known of them. Thus, we find that AT&T violated section 64.1200(e)(2)(i) of the Commission's rules by not making a copy of AT&T's do-not-call policy available to Biggerstaff upon his May 8, 1997 demand. 3. Consumer.Net has not met its burden of proving that AT&T failed to make AT&T's do-not-call policy available to Zelma upon demand. 15. Consumer.Net also contends that AT&T failed to honor a February 24, 1998 request from Zelma for AT&T's do-not-call policy. In response, AT&T states that it provided Zelma a copy of its do-not-call policy on several occasions. Consumer.Net's only record evidence that Zelma requested AT&T's do-not-call policy in this instance is Zelma's written but unsworn assertion that he "received [a] solicitation for the AT&T Universal Card" on February 24, 1998, and "called the number provided to complain [and] asked for the written policy but never received one." 16. We conclude that Consumer.Net has not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy its burden of proving that Zelma indeed contacted AT&T on February 24, 1998 and requested a copy of AT&T's do-not-call policy. Although the Division met with Consumer.Net on several occasions to explain the evidence necessary to support a claim and allowed Consumer.Net to file additional supporting materials, Consumer.Net has failed to provide the information necessary to support its claim. First, Consumer.Net did not provide a sworn statement (or statement filed under penalty of perjury) from Zelma. In any event, Zelma's statement does not provide essential corroborative information such as the particular AT&T number contacted, the specific AT&T division called, or the name of the person with whom he allegedly spoke. Such information also is essential to providing the defendant with a reasonable opportunity to investigate, and thereby rebut, the allegations. Finally, the record indicates that AT&T on two previous occasions provided Zelma with copies of its do-not-call policy promptly upon Zelma's request. We find, therefore, that Zelma's unsworn statement, without any additional evidence substantiating that Zelma contacted AT&T to request a copy of AT&T's do-not-call policy on February 24, 1998, is insufficient to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Zelma actually made such a request. Accordingly, we conclude that Consumer.Net has failed to meet its burden of proof that AT&T violated section 64.1200(e)(2)(i) of the Commission's rules by not providing to Zelma AT&T's do-not-call policy upon a demand allegedly made on February 24, 1998. 4. Consumer.Net has failed to demonstrate that two of AT&T's letters to Zelma are insufficient to constitute AT&T's do-not-call policy. 17. Consumer.Net contends that AT&T violated section 64.1200(e)(2)(i) of the Commission's rules by sending Zelma two letters describing AT&T's do-not-call policy instead of sending AT&T's actual do-not-call policy. Consumer.Net argues that the AT&T letters are not "sufficient in scope to describe AT&T's do not call policy," or to inform consumers how they can be placed on AT&T's do-not-call list. 18. Based on our review of the two AT&T letters in question, we reject Consumer.Net's contentions in this regard. There is no evidence to suggest that AT&T's letters to Zelma do not contain its actual policy. In any event, the letters sufficiently detail AT&T's method and policy for maintaining a do-not-call list. In particular, the letters state how AT&T processes a do-not-call request. The letters also state that the consumer will receive a written confirmation of his or her do-not-call request and provide an address to which to direct any inquiries regarding its do-not-call list. We thus conclude that AT&T complied with the requirement to make a do-not- call policy available upon demand. C. Consumer.Net Has Not Met Its Burden of Proving that AT&T Failed to Properly Record Biggerstaff's Do-Not-Call Requests or that AT&T Failed to Honor Biggerstaff's Do-Not-Call Requests for a Period of 10 Years. 19. Section 64.1200(e)(2) of the Commission's rules requires that in response to a do- not-call request, the solicitor must, inter alia, record the solicitee's name and the telephone number called. Thus, the do-not-call request applies to a particular telephone number not all telephone numbers associated with the person's name absent a specific request to the contrary. The solicitor must then honor the do-not-call request for ten years from the time the request is made. Moreover, absent a specific request or reasonable expectation to the contrary, the do- not-call request applies only to the particular business entity making the call, and not ordinarily to affiliated entities. 20. Consumer.Net alleges that AT&T continued to place telephone solicitations to Biggerstaff after he requested to be placed on AT&T's long distance do-not-call list, in violation of section 64.1200(e)(2) of the Commission's rules. In particular, liberally construing Consumer.Net's pro se pleading, Consumer.Net apparently contends that AT&T: (1) failed to record Biggerstaff's do-not-call requests, in violation of section 64.1200(e)(2)(iii), and (2) failed to honor Biggerstaff's do-not-call requests for ten years from the time the requests were made, in violation of section 64.1200(e)(2)(vi). Consumer.Net bases its claims on evidence in the record regarding telephone calls to certain of Biggerstaff's telephone numbers on the following dates: May 8, 1997; May 6, 1998; and June 4, 1998. On each occasion, AT&T placed the telephone solicitation calls to offer the same product, AT&T long distance. Although the Division met with Consumer.Net on several occasions to explain the evidence necessary to support a claim and allowed Consumer.Net to file additional information to support its position, Consumer.Net submitted neither a sworn statement from the consumer nor any corroborating evidence. 21. Telephone Solicitation to (803) XXX-3805 on May 8, 1997. Consumer.Net contends that AT&T initiated a telephone solicitation to Biggerstaff on May 8, 1997, in violation of Biggerstaff's prior do-not-call requests. In response, AT&T states that Biggerstaff did not request that any of his telephone numbers be placed on any AT&T do-not-call list until July 28, 1998. 22. To support its claim that Biggerstaff requested that telephone number (803) XXX- 3805 be placed on AT&T's long distance services do-not-call list prior to May 8, 1997, Consumer.Net relies solely on Biggerstaff's June 18, 1998 affidavit. Biggerstaff's affidavit states, in pertinent part, "[p]rior to November 4, 1996, I received multiple telephone solicitations at my home by or on behalf of AT&T . . . . In each and every one of these calls . . . I requested the caller to not call me again." 23. We find that Biggerstaff's affidavit is insufficient to demonstrate that he requested that telephone number (803) XXX-3805 be placed on AT&T's long distance services do-not-call list prior to receiving the May 8, 1997 telephone solicitation. Biggerstaff does not state which of his several telephone numbers he requested be placed on AT&T's do-not-call list, nor does he provide any information as to when these requests were made, other than to state that they were made prior to November 4, 1996. In addition, Biggerstaff does not indicate which AT&T entity (e.g., AT&T long distance services, AT&T International Services) solicited him in the telephone solicitations prior to May 8, 1997, or which AT&T entity he requested not to contact him. We find that such vague assertions do not provide defendant with a reasonable basis to investigate or rebut the allegations. We therefore find that Consumer.Net has not met its burden of substantiating this claim. 24. Telephone Solicitation to (803) XXX-8524 on May 6, 1998. Consumer.Net also contends that AT&T's May 6, 1998 telephone solicitation to Biggerstaff's telephone number (803) XXX-8524 violated Biggerstaff's do-not-call request made on May 8, 1997. AT&T again argues that Biggerstaff did not request that telephone number (803) XXX-8524 be placed on AT&T's do-not-call list until July 28, 1998. 25. Consumer.Net relies solely on Biggerstaff's June 18, 1998 affidavit, which states, in pertinent part, that he requested to be placed on AT&T's do-not-call list during the course of the May 8, 1997 telephone solicitation. The record shows, however, that AT&T made the May 8, 1997 telephone solicitation to telephone number (803) XXX-3805, not the telephone number contacted during the May 6, 1998 telephone solicitation, which the record shows to have been made to (803) XXX-8524. As stated above, absent a particular request otherwise, a do-not-call request applies to a specific telephone number, not to all telephone numbers associated with the requestor. Consumer.Net has not demonstrated that Biggerstaff specifically requested that telephone number (803) XXX-8524 be placed on any AT&T do-not-call list prior to receiving the May 6, 1998 telephone solicitation. In fact, the Biggerstaff Tape indicates that he did not request that any particular number, or all of his telephone numbers, be placed on AT&T's do-not-call list. Therefore, Consumer.Net has not met its burden of demonstrating that Biggerstaff requested telephone number (803) XXX-8524 be placed on AT&T's do-not-call list prior to receiving the May 6, 1998 telephone solicitation. 26. Telephone Solicitation to (803) XXX-8524 on June 4, 1998. Consumer.Net also contends that AT&T initiated a telephone solicitation on June 4, 1998, to Biggerstaff's telephone number (803) XXX-8524, in violation of Biggerstaff's do-not-call request made on May 6, 1998. To support its contention that Biggerstaff received a telephone solicitation on June 4, 1998, Consumer.Net provides a tape recording of the June 4, 1998 telephone solicitation. The recording indicates that AT&T's telemarketer reached Biggerstaff's answering machine on May 6, 1998. Consumer.Net contends that Biggerstaff's answering machine greeting contained a request to any telemarketer to be placed on that telemarketer's do-not-call list. 27. We find that Consumer.Net has failed to demonstrate that Biggerstaff requested that telephone number (803) XXX-8524 be placed on AT&T's do-not-call list prior to receiving the June 4, 1998 telephone solicitation. Consumer.Net relies solely on the assumption that the caller listened to the following recorded message, in its entirety, which was conveyed by Biggerstaff's answering machine: Hello [brief pause] . . . excuse me, could you please state who is calling [brief pause]. I'm sorry, you've gotten the machine. If this is a solicitation call, please wait until the end of this message and leave all disclosures as required by the telemarketing statute, and place this number on your do-not-call list. 28. The record does not indicate that the AT&T telemarketer remained on the line long enough to hear Biggerstaff's entire recorded message. As the above quotation reveals, Biggerstaff does not request to be placed on the telemarketer's do-not-call list until the very end of the message, and after notifying the caller that s/he has received an answering machine. We cannot simply assume that the caller actually heard the do-not-call request. Accordingly, we conclude that Consumer.Net has not met its burden of proving that AT&T failed to honor Biggerstaff's alleged May 6, 1998 do-not-call request by making the June 4, 1998 telephone solicitation. D. Consumer.Net Has Met its Burden of Proving that AT&T Violated the Commission's Rules by Initiating a Telephone Solicitation to Zelma on October 29, 1997, in Violation of Zelma's Prior Company-Wide Do-Not-Call Request. 29. The Commission's rules mandate that, "in the absence of a specific request to the contrary, a residential subscriber's do-not-call request shall apply to the particular business entity making the call (or on whose behalf the call is being made), and will not apply to affiliated entities unless the consumer reasonably would expect them to be included given the identification of the caller and the product being advertised." Consumer.Net contends that Zelma made a specific request to be placed on a do-not-call list of all entities affiliated with AT&T (a company-wide do- not-call list) prior to receiving a telephone solicitation on October 29, 1997, from Universal Card Services Corporation (UCS), an AT&T affiliate. Consumer.Net contends that AT&T failed to coordinate Zelma's AT&T company-wide do-not-call request among affiliated entities, in violation of section 64.1200(e)(2)(v) of the Commission's rules, and failed to honor Zelma's do-not-call request for "10 years from the time the request is made," in violation of section 64.1200(e)(2)(vi) of the Commission's rules. 30. To support its claim, Consumer.Net provides an unsworn statement from Zelma stating that, prior to June 1997, he requested by mail and phone to be placed on an AT&T company-wide do-not-call list. Consumer.Net also relies on a letter from AT&T to Zelma dated August 11, 1997, stating that Zelma would be placed on AT&T's do-not-call list. Consumer.Net contends that the text and letterhead of this letter indicate that Zelma requested placement "on a[n] AT&T list, not a specific company [list] within AT&T." In response, AT&T states that Zelma never requested placement on an AT&T company-wide do-not-call list. AT&T also states that Zelma did not request placement on UCS's do-not-call list until September 7, 1997, which makes UCS's solicitation "only" seven weeks later lawful. AT&T further states that the "use of the AT&T name by an AT&T business entity does not automatically lead a consumer to reasonably expect that a do-not-call request would apply to all affiliated entities." 31. Zelma's statement that he requested placement on an AT&T company-wide do- not-call list, in conjunction with the August 11, 1997 letter from AT&T to Zelma, persuades us that Zelma requested placement on AT&T's company-wide do-not-call list prior to August 11, 1997. In this situation, unlike the situation involving Zelma's February 24, 1998 telephone call, Zelma's unsworn statement is corroborated by wholly independent and probative evidence: AT&T's own August 11, 1997 letter to Zelma. 32. The August 11, 1997 letter provides corroboration in several ways. First of all, the letter bears generic AT&T letterhead. Moreover, nowhere in the text of the letter does AT&T refer to a specific AT&T entity. In fact, the text of the letter refers generically to "AT&T Products and Services," not specifically to any particular AT&T product or service. Furthermore, this letter states that "[r]ecently you contacted AT&T and indicated that you do not wish to be contacted regarding any marketing communications. . . . We are taking the necessary steps to remove your account information from our future communications." We find that this letter both supports a conclusion that Zelma requested to be placed on all AT&T corporate do-not-call lists and that a reasonable consumer would understand that AT&T had done so. 33. Indeed, in contrast to these global, generic characteristics of the August 11, 1997 letter from AT&T to Zelma, evidence on the record indicates that AT&T does use entity-specific letterhead (e.g., AT&T long distance services, AT&T international consumer long distance) to respond to entity-specific do-not-call requests. For example, in response to an inquiry, Zelma received a letter specifically from AT&T International Consumer Long Distance. This letter contains letterhead specifically referencing "AT&T International Consumer Long Distance" and mentions the specific service within the letter. 34. The foregoing evidence satisfies Consumer.Net's burden of proving that Zelma requested to be placed on an AT&T company-wide do-not-call list prior to August 11, 1997. Therefore, we find that the October 29, 1997 telephone solicitation by UCS violated Zelma's request. We thus find that AT&T failed: (1) to apply Zelma's do-not-call request to affiliated entities, in violation of section 64.1200(e)(2)(v) of the Commission's rules; (2) to properly record Zelma's request, in violation of section 64.1200(e)(2)(iii) of the Commission's rules; and (3) to honor Zelma's request for 10 years from the time the request was made, in violation of section 64.1200(e)(2)(vi). E. Consumer.Net Has Met Its Burden of Proving that AT&T Violated the Commission's Rules by Initiating a Telephone Solicitation to Michele Zelma on February 24, 1998. 35. Consumer.Net also argues that AT&T (via its affiliate, UCS) initiated a telephone solicitation on February 24, 1998, in violation of Mr. Zelma's prior do-not-call request. In response, AT&T contends that the telephone solicitation did not violate Mr. Zelma's do-not-call request because the solicitation was specifically directed to Michele Zelma (not Richard Zelma). 36. Because we find that the Commission's rules require do-not-call lists to be maintained on a telephone number basis (rather than requiring requests from every individual at a particular residence), we conclude that AT&T's February 24, 1998 telephone solicitation violated the Commission's rules and orders. Both section 227 and the Commission's rules mandate certain obligations to protect the rights of residential telephone subscribers. Specifically, section 64.1200(e)(2)(iii) of the Commission's rules requires telemarketers to "place the subscriber's name and telephone number on the do-not-call list at the time the request is made." Additionally, in the TCPA Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission recognized that some consumers wishing to be placed on a do-not-call list will not want to provide telemarketers with their name. The Commission emphasized that such consumers must still be placed on the do-not-call list based on their telephone number and explained that "interpreting the rule more narrowly would defeat the objective of protecting consumer privacy." For the same reason, we find that when a telemarketer receives a request that a particular telephone number be placed on its do-not-call list, our rules require the telemarketer to comply with that request by placing the "subscriber's name and telephone number on the do-not-call list." The placement of the number on the do-not-call list may not be circumscribed by the telemarketer's claim that it was trying to reach someone else at that same number. 37. AT&T acknowledges that some of its do-not-call lists such as those for long distance services are maintained by number (and name if given), because AT&T markets those services to households, not individuals. In contrast, AT&T states that the do-not-call list for AT&T's affiliate UCS is maintained by name and number, because AT&T markets this particular service to individuals, not households. AT&T argues that such a distinction is consistent with our rules. We disagree. There is nothing in either section 227 of the Act or the Commission's rules that varies a telemarketer's do-not-call list obligations depending upon the service being marketed. Both section 227 of the Act and the Commission's rules grant rights to consumers that only can be effectuated if a single request from someone in a particular household suffices to stop future calls to the same number. Indeed, the distinction proffered by AT&T potentially would eviscerate the policy goals of the statute in protecting telephone subscribers from unwanted telemarketing calls by creating a virtually irrefutable defense that the telemarketer was trying to reach "someone else" at that number. 38. We add that our interpretation of section 64.1200(e)(2)(iii) is consistent with our holding above that a do-not-call request applies to a particular telephone number, not all numbers associated with that person's name, absent a specific request to the contrary. In contrast, we find AT&T's position in this instance to be inconsistent with its position on certain other counts in this complaint. On certain counts in this complaint, such as Consumer.Net's allegations that AT&T failed to honor Biggerstaff's do-not-call requests, we found in favor of AT&T, because Consumer.Net had not demonstrated that the telephone numbers to which AT&T made the allegedly violative telephone solicitations had been requested to be placed on a particular AT&T do-not-call list. We reached this conclusion, in part, even though it was conceded that multiple telephone lines belonged to the same subscriber, because we found that absent a specific request to the contrary a do-not-call request applies to a particular telephone number. Our conclusion in this instance that a do-not-call request applies by number is based upon the same premise, and consistent with our overall policy goals of the statute and the rules, to protect individuals from unwanted telephone solicitations. 39. AT&T admits that it placed Mr. Zelma's telephone number on the UCS do-not-call list on September 7, 1997, and we have found that Mr. Zelma requested to be placed on all AT&T do-not-call lists prior to August 11, 1997. Accordingly, we find that AT&T violated section 64.1200(e)(2)(vi) by placing a telephone solicitation to Michele Zelma on February 24, 1998. F. Miscellaneous Claims 40. In its complaint, Consumer.Net also appears to allege that AT&T (1) initiated telephone solicitations to Smith in violation of his do-not-call request; (2) failed to provide a copy of AT&T's do-not-call policy to Smith; and (3) improperly trained its telemarketers. Consumer.Net has not provided any factual information, either in the complaint itself or anywhere else in the record, to support any of these claims. Therefore, even though we liberally construe pro se pleadings, we cannot construe Consumer.Net's pleadings to have met the burden of proof applicable to the foregoing claims. Accordingly, we hereby deny all of these claims. IV. REQUESTS FOR RELIEF 41. Consumer.Net requests that the Commission assess forfeitures against AT&T for violation of the Commission's rules and orders, issue a cease and desist order to prevent AT&T from conducting further telephone solicitations in the United States, and order AT&T to pay damages in the amount of $1,500 per violation. For the following reasons, we deny all of Consumer.Net's requests for relief. 42. Sections 206-208 of the Act establish private remedies for parties aggrieved by carriers, while section 503(b) of the Act gives the Commission the discretion to assess forfeitures payable to the United States. Accordingly, a formal complaint proceeding under sections 206- 208 of the Act is not an appropriate venue for the Commission's imposition of a forfeiture. If the Commission determines that AT&T's telephone solicitation practices warrant the issuance of a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture under section 503 of the Act, the Commission will do so in a separate proceeding. Consumer.Net's request that we prohibit AT&T from telephone solicitations is denied, because Consumer.Net has not shown widespread violations or the potential for future misconduct or harm necessary to warrant such relief. 43. We also deny Complainant's claim for damages. As explained above, although Consumer.Net has shown that AT&T violated the Commission's rules in relation to Biggerstaff and Zelma, Consumer.Net has not shown that AT&T violated the Commission's rules in its dealings with Consumer.Net itself. Consumer.Net has standing to recover damages only for harm to itself, not for harm suffered by others. This conclusion is premised on a determination that Biggerstaff and Zelma are not parties to this proceeding. It follows from such a conclusion, of course, that nothing in this order affects their rights to seek damages directly either by filing a complaint with the Commission or with a court of proper jurisdiction. V. CONCLUSION 44. For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that (1) AT&T violated section 64.1200(e)(2)(i) by failing to make its do-not-call policy available to Biggerstaff upon his May 8, 1997 demand; (2) AT&T violated section 64.1200(e)(2)(iii) by failing to properly record Zelma's do-not-call request on or about February 24, 1998; (3) AT&T violated section 64.1200(e)(2)(v) by failing to apply Zelma's AT&T company-wide do-not-call request to affiliated entities; (4) AT&T violated section 64.1200(e)(2)(vi) by failing to honor Zelma's do-not-call request for a period of 10 years from the time the request was made; and (5) Consumer.Net has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that AT&T violated the Act or the Commission's rules or orders in any other respects. VI. ORDERING CLAUSES 45. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 208, and 227 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 154(j), 208, and 227 that the complaint filed by Consumer.Net IS GRANTED IN PART to the extent described herein and otherwise DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and this proceeding is TERMINATED. 46. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 154(j), and 208, that AT&T's Motion to Dismiss filed on July 13, 1998 IS DENIED. 47. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 154(j), and 208, that AT&T's Motion to Strike filed on July 31, 1998 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary