Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

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
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************



                                   Before the

                       Federal Communications Commission

                             Washington, D.C. 20554


                                         )                               
                                                                         
                                         )                               
     In the Matter of                        File No. EB-10-TC-401       
                                         )                               
     Touch-Tel USA, LLC                      NAL/Acct. No. 201132170027  
                                         )                               
     Apparent Liability for Forfeiture       FRN: 0018234609             
                                         )                               
                                                                         
                                         )                               


                  NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

   Adopted: August 26, 2011 Released: September 1, 2011

   By the Commission:

   I. INTRODUCTION

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
       that Touch-Tel USA, LLC ("Touch-Tel" or "Company") has apparently
       willfully and repeatedly violated section 201(b) of the Communications
       Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or "Act"), by
       deceptively marketing prepaid calling cards. Based upon our review of
       the facts and surrounding circumstances, Touch-Tel appears to target
       its marketing to immigrants with claims that, for a card costing just
       a few dollars, buyers can make hundreds of minutes of calls to their
       native countries - when in fact, for that price, they will be able to
       use only a fraction of those minutes, due to Touch-Tel's assessment of
       multiple fees and surcharges that are not clearly and conspicuously
       disclosed to consumers. Accordingly, we find that Touch-Tel USA, LLC
       has apparently violated section 201(b) of the Act, and is apparently
       liable for a proposed forfeiture in the amount of five million dollars
       ($5,000,000).

   II. BACKGROUND

    2. A prepaid calling card is a retail product for which the consumer pays
       a specific dollar amount and which enables that customer to make
       domestic and/or international telephone calls. Such cards are
       frequently marketed to immigrant communities for calling a variety of
       international destinations and are especially popular with these
       communities, where many depend on prepaid calling cards to stay in
       touch with family and friends in their home countries. The cards are
       typically sold at retail in denominations of $2, $3, and $5 at
       newsstands and in grocery and convenience stores. Companies often
       market prepaid cards under a variety of brand names and advertise them
       to consumers primarily using posters displayed in retail locations,
       and in some cases, through radio and television advertising.

    3. The Enforcement Bureau began its investigation of Touch-Tel by
       directing a letter of inquiry to the Company requesting information
       and documents relating to its prepaid calling card services. According
       to its initial response, Touch-Tel buys minutes from various carriers
       for the purpose of creating prepaid calling cards and establishes the
       rates for its prepaid cards, including the rates, terms and conditions
       for which minutes are deducted from the cards. Touch-Tel's calling
       cards are distributed to retail vendors through wholesale
       distributors. The retail vendors sell the cards to consumers using
       marketing posters that Touch-Tel designs and distributes.

    4. As part of its LOI response, Touch-Tel provided samples of the posters
       and calling cards it sold in 2010 and 2011. A typical poster designed
       and distributed by Touch-Tel includes the name of the calling card
       (e.g., "Puro Central America," "Puro Mexico," "Ahora," and "La
       Pelota"), the name of the telecommunications provider whose network
       carries the calls, and representations about the number of minutes a
       consumer will receive when calling various countries and/or cities.
       The number of calling minutes listed on the sample of posters provided
       by Touch-Tel usually appears in large font size and/or bright colors.
       Additionally, the posters contain a large box listing various calling
       destinations, along with the number of calling minutes a consumer will
       receive to those destinations using the advertised calling card of a
       specified dollar value (e.g., "Mexico Mty: GDL, DF 660 Minutes $2").
       Appearing on the bottom of the posters is a disclosure in very small
       font size relating to certain fees and surcharges that may apply when
       using the cards including a per call service charge, and a biweekly
       maintenance charge and other fees assessed when using toll-free access
       numbers or calling from payphones.

    5. Touch-Tel's calling cards themselves generally come in two parts: a
       top portion (or "hang tag") and a bottom portion, the size of a credit
       card, that can be separated from the top. The front of the cards
       identifies the name and value of the card (e.g., $2 or $5). The back
       of the top portion of the cards includes a disclosure about fees - the
       same disclosure that typically appears on its posters. For example,
       the disclosure on Touch-Tel's $5 Puro Mexico calling card, as
       translated into English, reads as follows:

   The published minutes shall apply only to the first call from a private
   phone and are subject to change without notice. The charges made **after
   the first call include $1.09 bi-weekly maintenance fee and a service
   charge of up to $ 1.50 per call. All calls made **from a payphone will
   incur a $ .99 charge. All calls connected via an 800 number will be
   subject to a maximum charge of $.05 per minute. All call minutes are
   rounded up to the next minute. The card expires on the date indicated on
   the card or 180 days from first use.

   The back of the bottom portion of the card contains a series of local
   access numbers, a toll-free access number, and a customer service number.

   III. DISCUssION

          A. Apparent Violation of Section 201(b) of the Act

    6. Section 201(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that "[a]ll
       charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in
       connection with [interstate or foreign] communication service, shall
       be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification,
       or regulation that is unjust or unreasonable is declared to be
       unlawful." The Commission has found that unfair and deceptive
       marketing practices by interstate common carriers constitute unjust
       and unreasonable practices under section 201(b). A practice that
       "convey[s] insufficient information as to the company's identity,
       rates, practices, and range of services" may constitute a violation of
       section 201(b). Thus, a carrier that fails sufficiently to convey
       material information, such as rates, about its prepaid calling card
       services violates section 201(b) of the Act.

    7. We find that Touch-Tel apparently has violated section 201(b) of the
       Act because it deceptively represents that buyers of its cards can use
       hundreds of minutes to make calls to foreign countries for just a few
       dollars. In truth and in fact, buyers can use only a fraction of those
       minutes for calls because Touch-Tel applies a variety of fees and
       surcharges that quickly deplete the card. Touch-Tel purports to
       disclose these fees and surcharges, but the fine print "disclosures"
       contradict the express and much more prominent claims in the main
       portion of the marketing materials. Moreover, even if the disclosures
       of the various fees and surcharges were not contradictory, they are in
       small print and not clear or conspicuous in relation to the claim of
       total available minutes displayed in large type that the disclosure is
       intended to modify, and the disclosure otherwise "convey[s]
       insufficient information as to the company's identity, rates,
       practices, and range of services."

    8. Touch-Tel uses posters displayed in retail locations as its primary
       vehicle for marketing its prepaid calling card services to consumers.
       As indicated above, Touch-Tel represents on its posters that consumers
       who purchase its cards will receive a specified number of calling
       minutes to specific countries or cities for a set price (e.g., to
       "Mexico: Mty, GDL, DF 660 Minutes for $2; 1500 minutes for $5").
       Although Touch-Tel's prepaid cards are often marketed as providing
       hundreds of minutes, the total number of minutes actually received by
       the consumer is significantly less once the various fees are applied,
       and if the consumer attempts to use the card to make multiple calls.
       In fact, when applied after the first call, Touch-Tel's fees and
       surcharges wipe out all remaining minutes on its $2 calling cards.

    9. Touch-Tel's marketing materials and cards make certain disclosures
       about these fees, but they conflict with the express statements of how
       many calling minutes are available, and they are not adequate to
       counter the express and otherwise unqualified claim that consumers
       will be able to make hundreds of minutes of calls for the marketed
       rate. As a preliminary matter, the font size of the advertised minutes
       and rate information completely dwarfs the disclosure. As described
       above, Touch-Tel's posters typically advertise the number of calling
       minutes offered to certain countries in large, colorful, simple text,
       which is prominently displayed at the top or center of the poster.
       This information is not qualified in any way; i.e., there is no
       suggestion that the consumer will receive "up to" the specified number
       of minutes, and no indication that the consumer must read the small
       print at the bottom in order to determine what he or she is actually
       purchasing. The main part of the poster stands in stark contrast to
       the disclosure regarding additional fees and surcharges, which is at
       the bottom of the posters in significantly smaller type and easily
       overlooked. While this same language is usually printed on the top
       portion (or "hang tag") of Touch-Tel's cards, it is similarly printed
       in extremely small font and difficult to read. Further, because the
       calling card is meant to be torn away from the hang tag for ease of
       carrying the card in a wallet and customer use, the disclosures on the
       hang tag afford the consumer little information at the actual point of
       use. Disclosures in fine print and in materials that reasonable
       consumers may not read or use are ineffective to ensure that consumers
       have an accurate and informed understanding of an advertising claim.
       We therefore conclude that Touch-Tel's disclosures are not clear and
       conspicuous to the average consumer.

   10. Additionally, even if Touch-Tel's disclosures were more prominent, it
       is difficult to calculate how the fees and surcharges will affect the
       number of calling minutes offered. To illustrate this point, we use
       the disclosure example in paragraph 5 above for Touch-Tel's $2 Puro
       Mexico card, which is typical of the disclosures found in Touch-Tel's
       marketing materials. First, despite advertising on its posters a
       specific number of minutes for a set price, Touch-Tel includes a
       disclosure that refers to a possible range of per call fees-the
       maximum being $1.50 per call. There is no meaningful explanation of
       how this range relates to the initial advertised rate or how it is
       applied. The explanation of the amount of this fee is so vague that it
       is impossible for a consumer to know when purchasing the prepaid card
       what fee will actually apply to calls or how the fee will impact the
       number of calling minutes received. Thus, this disclosure is not in
       the "clear and unambiguous language" that the Commission has said is
       needed to ensure that they are effective.

   11. We also find Touch-Tel's description of fees associated with using 800
       access numbers unclear and misleading. Touch-Tel's disclosures state
       that "All calls connected via an 800 number will be subject to a
       maximum charge of $.05 per minute" The card does not specify how this
       range relates to the initial advertised rate or how it is applied. In
       addition, Touch-Tel highlights its 800 access number in bold,
       effectively encouraging the consumer to dial that number to access
       service, rather than dial the local access numbers provided. Given
       that a typical consumer would expect the 800 access number, like other
       800 numbers, to be toll-free, this lack of clarity is particularly
       misleading. We therefore find that Touch-Tel does not convey
       sufficient information about its rates for the use of its 800 access
       numbers.

   12. To give context to why these disclosures are inadequate and the extent
       of the gulf between a consumer's reasonable expectation (based on
       Touch-Tel's marketing materials) and the consumer's actual experience
       (based on application of Touch-Tel's fees), consider the card that one
       of Touch-Tel's posters advertises as offering 660 minutes of calling
       to three areas in Mexico for $2. If a consumer calls these areas in
       Mexico and speaks for 30 minutes, one would reasonably expect there to
       be 630 minutes remaining on the card. However, the card disclosure
       suggests that once the initial call is completed, a $1.09 bi-weekly
       maintenance fee and a service charge of up to $1.50 apply. Thus, after
       one 30-minute call, the potential post-call fees of $2.59 would
       exhaust a card that was advertised to provide 660 minutes. According
       to Touch-Tel, the "published minutes shall apply only to the first
       call." In other words, the only possible way a consumer could use all
       of the 660 advertised minutes would be to make a single 11-hour call
       from a local access number - a duration so lengthy as to make such
       calls highly improbable by the typical consumer. Even if the maximum
       post-call fees were not charged, because Touch-Tel's disclosure only
       contains a range of possible service charges, it would be impossible
       for the consumer to determine at the point of sale what amount will
       apply to each destination.

   13. Information regarding the existence, amount, and application of fees
       that affect the value of a calling card is material to consumers when
       deciding to purchase cards. The failure to provide such information
       clearly and conspicuously, because it deprives customers of material
       information needed to make a purchasing decision, is a deceptive
       marketing practice. As the Commission stated in NOS, if a consumer
       must take a series of complicated and confusing steps to try to
       calculate the charges and calling time based on the disclosure
       provided, such disclosure almost certainly would be misleading to
       consumers. Such a practice, then, would be unjust and unreasonable
       under section 201(b).

   14. We find that the marketing materials used by Touch-Tel to sell its
       prepaid calling cards are misleading and deceptive regarding the rates
       and charges applicable to its service offerings. In addition, we find
       that Touch-Tel failed to disclose, in any meaningful way, material
       information about its rates, charges and practices at the point of
       sale, resulting in substantial harm to consumers who purchased its
       prepaid calling cards. Accordingly, we find that Touch-Tel has
       apparently engaged in unjust or unreasonable marketing practices in
       violation of section 201(b) of the Act.

     A. Proposed Forfeiture Pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act

   15. Section 503(b)(1) of the Act states that any person who willfully or
       repeatedly fails to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule,
       regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the
       United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the
       Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $150,000
       for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a
       statutory maximum of $1,500,000 for a single act or failure to act by
       common carriers. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we
       consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
       including "the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
       violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
       culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such
       other matters as justice may require."  Although the forfeiture
       guidelines do not establish a forfeiture amount for unjust or
       unreasonable practices, such as deceptive marketing practices, the
       guidelines do state that, ". . . any omission of a specific rule
       violation from the. . . [forfeiture guidelines]. . . should not signal
       that the Commission considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or
       unimportant." The Commission retains the discretion to depart from the
       guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its
       general forfeiture authority contained in section 503 of the Act.

   16. In NOS, the Commission found that unfair and deceptive marketing
       practices by interstate common carriers constitute unjust and
       unreasonable practices within the meaning of section 201(b) of the
       Act," and concluded that each instance of such practices constituted a
       separate violation of section 201(b). The Commission noted that it had
       previously assessed a forfeiture amount of $40,000 for each instance
       in which a carrier engaged in an unjust and unreasonable telemarketing
       practice in violation of section 201(b). It explained, however, that
       "a straightforward application of a $40,000 base forfeiture amount
       would likely produce a proposed forfeiture in the millions of
       dollars." Rather, taking into account the number of violations
       attributed to the two companies involved in the case, the Commission
       determined that a $500,000 forfeiture amount per company was
       sufficient to protect the interests of consumers and to deter future
       violations of the Act.

   17. We find that each card that Touch-Tel marketed using deceptive
       advertising constitutes an independent unjust and unreasonable
       practice, and thus a separate and distinct apparent violation of
       section 201(b) of the Act.  Given the thousands of cards that
       Touch-Tel appears to have marketed, there appears to be an extensive
       number of apparent violations in this case for which the Commission is
       empowered to assess a penalty. While the proposed forfeiture is higher
       than the proposed forfeiture in NOS, weighing the facts before us, and
       taking into account the extent and gravity of Touch-Tel's egregious
       conduct, as well as its culpability and information in the current
       record about its revenues, we find that a total proposed forfeiture
       amount of $5,000,000 is appropriate under the specific circumstances
       of this case.  Touch-Tel appears to have marketed thousands of cards
       within one year of the instant NAL alone and charged millions of
       dollars to consumers over that time period through its deceptive
       marketing practices. The proposed forfeiture clearly must protect the
       interests of consumers and serve as an adequate deterrent. A lesser
       penalty would be inappropriate in light of Touch-Tel's failure to
       adequately provide material information about its rates to thousands
       of consumers who purchased the Company's prepaid cards. Moreover, in
       determining the amount of a proposed penalty, we seek to "guarantee
       that forfeitures issued against large or highly profitable entities
       are not considered merely an affordable cost of doing business." While
       we could propose a higher forfeiture based on Touch-Tel's reported
       2010 revenues, we believe the forfeiture we propose today is
       sufficient to protect the interests of consumers and serve as an
       adequate deterrent. In the event Touch-Tel continues to engage in
       conduct that apparently violates section 201(b)'s prohibition against
       unjust and unreasonable practices, such apparent violations could
       result in future NALs proposing substantially greater forfeitures and
       revocation of Touch-Tel's operating authority. Other prepaid calling
       card providers are also on notice that practices such as those engaged
       in by Touch-Tel are unjust and unreasonable, and that we may propose
       more significant forfeitures in the future as high as is necessary,
       within the range of our statutory authority, to ensure that such
       companies do not engage in deceptive marketing practices.

   IV. CONCLUSION

   18. We have determined that Touch-Tel USA, LLC apparently violated section
       201(b) of the Act. We have further determined that Touch-Tel USA, LLC
       is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of five million
       dollars ($5,000,000).

   V. ORDERING CLAUSES

   19. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b)(2)(B) of
       the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B),
       and section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80,
       Touch-Tel USA, LLC is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR
       FORFEITURE in the amount of $5,000,000, for willful and repeated
       violations of section 201(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 201(b).

   20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the
       Commission's rules, within thirty (30) days of the release date of
       this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Touch-Tel USA, LLC
       SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a
       written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed
       forfeiture.

   21. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument,
       payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The
       payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN referenced above.
       Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Federal
       Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.
       Payment by overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank - Government
       Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO
       63101. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 021030004,
       receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account number 27000001. For payment by
       credit card, an FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted.
        When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the NAL/Account number in
       block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters "FORF" in
       block number 24A (payment type code). Touch-Tel USA, LLC will also
       send electronic notification to Johnny.Drake@fcc.gov on the date said
       payment is made. Requests for full payment under an installment plan
       should be sent to: Chief Financial Officer -- Financial Operations,
       445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington, D.C.  20554.   Please
       contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201 or
       Email: ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions regarding payment
       procedures.

   22. The response, if any, must be mailed both to: Marlene H. Dortch,
       Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW,
       Washington, DC 20554, ATTN: Enforcement Bureau - Telecommunications
       Consumers Division; and to Richard A. Hindman, Division Chief,
       Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
       Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554,
       and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption.
       Documents sent by overnight mail (other than United States Postal
       Service Express Mail) must be addressed to: Marlene H. Dortch,
       Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary,
       9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. Hand or
       messenger-delivered mail should be directed, without envelopes, to:
       Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
       Office of the Secretary, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554
       (deliveries accepted Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
       only). See www.fcc.gov/osec/guidelines.html for further instructions
       on FCC filing addresses.

   23. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a proposed
       forfeiture in response to a claim of inability to pay unless the
       petitioner submits: (1) federal tax returns for the most recent
       three-year period; (2) financial statements prepared according to
       generally accepted accounting practices; or (3) some other reliable
       and objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's
       current financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must
       specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the
       financial documentation submitted.

   24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability
       for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt
       Requested and First Class mail to Touch-Tel USA, LLC, Attention:
       Amanuk Syed, President and Chief Executive Officer; Gary Gill, Chief
       Financial Officer; and William Stankos, Chief Operating Officer, 5444
       Westheimer Road, Suite 1535, Houston, TX 77056.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Marlene H. Dortch
   Secretary

   Touch-Tel is a Texas corporation, whose principal address is 5444
   Westheimer Road, Suite 1535, Houston, TX 77056. Amanuk Syed, President and
   Chief Executive Officer; Gary Gill, Chief Financial Officer; and William
   Stankos, Chief Operating Officer; are listed as contact persons for
   Touch-Tel. Accordingly, all references in this NAL to "Touch-Tel" also
   encompass the foregoing individuals, and all other principals and officers
   of Touch-Tel.

   47 U.S.C. S: 201(b).

   See Letter from Colleen Heitkamp, Chief, Telecommunications Consumers
   Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to
   Touch-Tel USA, LLC, April 2, 2010 ("LOI").

   See Touch-Tel's response received by the Commission on, May 3, 2010
   ("Response") at 1.

   See id.

   See id.

   See email from William Stankos to David Marks, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
   Communications Commission, April 1, 2011 ("Supplemental Response"). See
   also Response, compact disk attachment.

   See, e.g., Puro Mexico poster, Supplemental Response, attachment.

   See id.

   The disclosure is in Spanish and reads "Los minutos publicados se
   aplicaran solo en la primera llamada solamente desde un telefono privado y
   seran sujetos a cambiar sin previo aviso. Los cargos realizados despues de
   la primera llamada incluyen $1.09 quincenalmente por cargo de
   mantenimiento y, un cargo por el servicio de hasta $1.50 en cada llamada.
   Todas las llamadas realizadas desde un telefono publico seran sujetos a un
   cargo de $.99. Todas las llamadas conectadas por medio de un numero 800,
   seran sujetos a un cargo adicional maximo de $.05 por minuto. Todas las
   llamadas se redondean al proximo minuto inmediato. La tarjeta expira en la
   fecha indicada en la tarjeta o a los 180 dias del primer uso. See id.

   See, e.g., Puro Mexico card, Supplemental Response, attachment.

   Id.

   47 U.S.C. S: 201(b).

   See, e.g., NOS Communications, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 8133 (2001) ("NOS") (finding that the companies
   engaged in deceptive marketing of their interstate communication services
   by failing to disclose clearly and conspicuously material facts regarding
   their promotional plan offerings and pricing methodology, in violation of
   section 201(b)); Business Discount Plan, Inc., Order of Forfeiture, 15 FCC
   Rcd 14461 (2000) ("BDP"), recon. granted in part and denied in part, 15
   FCC Rcd 24396 (2000) (finding that the company violated section 201(b) by
   using unjust and unreasonable telemarketing practices such as
   misrepresenting the nature of its service offerings); Telecommunications
   Research & Action Center & Consumer Action, Memorandum Opinion and Order,
   4 FCC Rcd 2157 (Com.Car.Bur. 1989) ("TRAC") (recognizing that section
   201(b) provides a cause of action against carriers for failing to convey
   sufficient information about their rates, practices and range of
   services). See also Joint FCC/FTC Policy Statement For the Advertising of
   Dial-Around And Other Long Distance Services To Consumers, 15 FCC Rcd 8654
   (2000) ("Joint Advertising Statement").

   See TRAC, 4 FCC Rcd at 2159. The full Commission has approvingly cited
   this passage from TRAC as indicating that such conduct violates section
   201(b) of the Act. BDP, 15 FCC Rcd at 14469.

   TRAC, 4 FCC Rcd at 2159.

   While Touch-Tel's disclosure states that the "[t]he published minutes
   shall apply only to the first call," none of its cards or posters supply
   the rates after the first call making it impossible at the point of sale
   for the consumer to know how many minutes will remain on the card after
   the first call is completed.

   A card is exhausted when either its face value has been used up (e.g.,
   $2), or when all of the available minutes have been used. For a discussion
   of how the fees may impact the value of the card as it is used, see infra
   P: 12.

   See id.

   Both academic research and the Commission's experience with consumer
   issues have demonstrated that the manner in which providers display
   material information, including the charges, classifications, and terms of
   use, can have as much impact on a consumer's decision to make a purchase
   as the information itself. See generally Colin Camerer, Samuel
   Issacharoff, George Loewenstein, Ted O'Donoghue & Matthew Rabin,
   Regulation for Conservatives: Behavioral Economics and the Case for
   "Asymmetric Paternalism," 151 U. Penn. L. Rev. 1211 (2003) (surveying
   regulatory strategies to address problems arising from systematic errors
   in consumer decision-making); Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein,
   Nudge, Yale University Press 2008 (concluding that information buried deep
   in the "fine print" is far less useful to consumers than information
   displayed clearly and prominently). See also Joint Advertising Statement,
   15 FCC Rcd at 8654-55 (finding that if consumers are deceived by
   advertising claims, they cannot make informed purchasing decisions);
   Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format, First Report and Order and Further
   Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 7492 (1999) (noting that the
   proper functioning of competitive markets is predicated on consumers
   having access to accurate, meaningful information in a format that they
   can understand).

   See, e.g., Solo Latino poster, Puro Mexio poster, and Confia poster,
   Supplemental Response, attachment.

   See, e.g Puro Mexico calling card, Supplemental Response, attachment.

   Joint Advertising Statement, 15 FCC Rcd at 8663 (noting that prominence,
   proximity, and placement of disclosure in comparison to advertising
   representation affect effectiveness of disclosure); id. at 8659 (noting
   that disclosure about limitations on advertised long-distance rate likely
   ineffective when advertised rate appeared on peel-off stickers, without
   disclosure, that consumers were supposed to put on telephones).

   Because the fee for calling an 800 number is "up to $.05," the consumer
   has no way of knowing when the card will be exhausted when an 800 number
   is called.

   Joint Advertising Statement, 15 FCC Rcd at 8662.

   See, e.g. Puro Mexico prepaid card and poster, Supplemental Response,
   attachment.

   Dialing a local access number could result in charges to the consumer by
   the consumer's telephone company (if, for example, the number was a
   regional toll number), but would not reduce the available minutes on the
   card.

   See Puro Mexico prepaid card and poster, Supplemental Response,
   attachment.

   Id.

   See NOS, 16 FCC Rcd at 8138 (2001).

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B).  See also  47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(a)(2).

   47 U.S.C. S:503(b)(2)(B). See also  47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(2). In 2008, the
   Commission amended section 1.80(b)(2) of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S:
   1.80(b)(2), to increase the maximum forfeiture amounts in accordance with
   the inflation adjustment requirements contained in the Debt Collection
   Improvement Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. S: 2461. See Amendment of Section 1.80
   of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect
   Inflation, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 9845, 9847 (2008) (adjusting the maximum
   statutory amounts for common carriers from $130,000/$1,300,000 to
   $150,000/$1,500,000).

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E).

   See Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules
   to Incorporate Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17099, P:
   22 (1997) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"); recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303
   (1999).

   Id.

   See NOS, 16 FCC Rcd at 8133, 8142.

   See id. at 8141-8142 (citing Business Discount Plan, Inc., Apparent
   Liability for Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 14461 at 14471-72 (2000)).

   Id. at 8142.

   See id.

   In NOS, the Commission found that "each rate sheet sent to consumers
   constitutes a separate violation of section 201(b)." NOS, 16 FCC Rcd at
   8133. Consistent with NOS, we find that the marketing of each card to
   consumers constitutes a separate apparent violation of section 201(b). See
   also BDP, 15 FCC Rcd at 14471-72 (assessing a forfeiture amount of $40,000
   for each instance in which the carrier engaged in an unjust and
   unreasonable telemarketing practice in violation of section 201(b)).

   The $5 million penalty we propose is equivalent to applying a $40,000
   penalty to 125 apparent violations that occurred within one year of this
   NAL, but Touch-Tel's conduct involves a considerably higher number of
   violations during the actionable time period.

   See Forfeiture Policy Statement 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17099.

   See Touch-Tel 2011 FCC Form 499-A (Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet
   (Reporting Calendar 2010 Revenues)).

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.

   (Continued from previous page)

   (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-132

   3

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-132