Prison Phone Justice

Zuraya Wright
721 North "L" Street
Lake Worth, FL 33460
561-588-6353
February 21, 2013

Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
Office of the Secretary
445 12th Street, SW
Room TW-B204
Washington, DC 20554

Re: FCC Proceeding No. 12-375
Dear Secretary Dortch,
On January 21, 2013, a historic settlement was announced in a class-action lawsuit:
AT&T agreed to pay $45 million to at least 70,000 Washington state consumers because it failed
to disclose the exorbitant rates for collect phone calls made from Washington State correctional
facilities between 1996 and 2000. While many people will benefit from the resolution of the
class-action suit, I will not receive any justice from the settlement even though I was one ofthe
original lead plaintiffs in the case.
My son Paul Wright was incarcerated in Washington prisons from 1987 to 2003. During
that time, my husband Rollin and I received weekly calls from Paul at our home in Florida. The
cost of those calls was astronomical, and between 1996 and 2000 we were never informed of the
rates or advised how to determine the rates for the calls we accepted from Paul. I have since
learned that we were being charged $3.95 just to accept a call from our son plus $.90 per minute.
The fees to keep in touch were extremely high, but we needed to stay connected as a family.
In 2000, Sandy Judd and I, and attorney Tara Herivel, filed a class-action suit, Judd, et a'.
v. AT&T, et 01., over the failure of AT&T and other telecommunications companies to disclose
the rates of collect calls from certain Washington State prisons. Sandy, my former daughter in
law, also received collect calls from Paul during that time and was also charged enormous fees
without disclosure of the rates by AT&T and other phone companies. The class members in our
suit were all people who had received collect calls from Washington state prisoners between
1996 and 2000. Columbia Legal Services was later added as a plaintiff.
The issue ofintrastate (in-state) collect calls was referred to the Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission while the issue of interstate (long distance) calls from Washington
State prisons was completely discarded, leaving out-of-state families such as ours without
recourse. As you are aware, only the FCC has jurisdiction over interstate phone rates.

Although Washington state's consumer protection laws ultimately offered relief for many
Washington residents who accepted collect phone calls from prisoners, as demonstrated by the
$45 million settlement, they offered no relief to people like my husband and me, who stayed in
touch with our incarcerated son in spite of thousands of miles between us and thousands of
dollars in phone charges. Paul was released from prison in 2003 and is now the director of the
Human Rights Defense Center.

It is because people like me are still without justice after being price-gouged by prison
phone companies that I am asking the FCC to take meaningful action on the Proposed Notice of
Rulemaking in Proceeding No. 12-375, by capping the rates of interstate calls from prisons, jails
and detention centers. Even if it does not directly serve those of us who have been wronged by
prison phone companies in the past, it will protect consumers in the future. Please take action on
the Wright Petition and cap interstate prison phone rates so that prisoners' mothers will not have
to choose between paying exorbitant phone bills or losing touch with the most important people
in their lives - their children.
I did what I could to change the system, as a lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit that
challenged violations by prison phone companies. My claims were dismissed because they
related to interstate phone calls, which fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the FCC. Thus, it is
now up to you, and the FCC Commissioners, to change the system for the better.
I urge you to do so.

2
3
4

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY

5
6
7
~
!

SANDY JUDD, and ZURAYA WRIGHT,
for themselves, and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons,

NO.

CO-;t - 1"1 S("S - 5

5EA

8

Plaintiffs,

I

: 9

10
11
12
13
14
15

COMPLAINT -CLASS ACTION

v.
AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND
TELEGRAPH COMPANY; GTE
NORTHWEST INC.; CENTURYTEL
TELEPHONE UTILmES, INC.; NORTHWEST TELECOMMUNICAnONS, INC.,
d/b/ a PI1 COMMUNICATIONS, INC.;
U.S. WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.;
T-NETIX, INC.,

16

Defendants.

17
~.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24

:-

1.

-- .. PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE .

Plaintiff Sandy Judd is a resident of Snohomish County,

Washington. She has received and paid for intrastate long-distance collect calls from
Washington State prison inmates.
2.

Plaintiff Zuraya Wright is a resident of Lake Worth, Florida. She

received and paid for interstate long-distance collect calls from a Washington State
prison inmate before rate disclosure was first offered to her in November of 1999.

25
26
SIRIANNI & YOUTZ

COMPLAINT -CLASS AcrION -1

701 FImi AVENUE. SUrrE 3410
SEATI1.E. WASHINGTON 98104-7032
(206) 223-0303

3.
2

3
4

Jurisdiction is appropriate in this court because the defendants do

business in the state of Washington, and because the amount in controversy exceeds
$300.00. Venue is proper because the non-resident defendants have been served in

King County, Washington.

5
6
7

II. NATURE OF CASE

4.

Since at least 1992, the Washington State Department of

Corrections has contracted with private operator service providers," also known as
II

18

!•

"alternate operator services companies," to provide "0+" operator services on the

r

I
: 9

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

17
~.

18
19
20

payphones used by prison inmates incarcerated in the State of Washington. Prison
inma!es are required to use the "0+" operator service provider assigned by contract to
the prison from which the call is placed, and may place only collect calls.
5.

contracting with operator service providers have been required by state law to assure
appropriate disclosure of rates charged to consumers for services provided while
connecting both intrastate and interstate long-distance telephone calls. However, the
defendants, all telecommunications companies and operator service providers, have
failed to assure appropriate disclosure of rates to the plaintiffs and others similarly
situated, and con1h"tue'"to fail to do so for intrastate long-distance telephone calls. The
defendants have provided disclosure of rates for at least some interstate calls from
Washington prison inmates only since November of 1999.

21
22
23
24
25

Since at least 1988, telecommunications companies acting as or

..t'

III. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

6.

Definition of Class. The clasS' consists of all individuals who have

received one or more long-distance intrastate or interstate collect calls from one or
more Washington State prison inmates since June 20, 1996, except for those
individuals who have received only interstate collect calls from Washington State

26
SIRIANNI & YOUTZ

COMPLAINT -CLASS ACrION - 2

701 FlF11i AVENUE. SUITE 3410
SEAl"IU, WASHINGTON 98104-7032
(206) 223-0303

prison inmates after November of 1999, and to whom timely disclosure of rates was
2

offered.

3
4

5
6

7.

and paid for intrastate long-distance collect calls from Washington State prison
inmates. Named plaintiff Zuraya Wright received and paid for interstate collect calls
from ~ Washington State prison inmate between June 20, 1996 and November of 1999.

7
18

•

i

Class Representatives. Named plaintiff Sandy Judd has received

8.

Size of Class. There are approximately 14,000 prison inmates

currently incarcerated in the State of Washington.

Each inmate is permitted to

I

.; 9
10

11
12

13

maintain a calling list of multiple family members and acquaintances. Every person
who is or has been on any incarcerated person's calling list since 1996 is a potential
class member, including family, friends, attorneys and news organizations. The class
is expected to number in the tens or hundreds of thousands and is so large that joinder
of all members is impracticable.

14

15
16
17

9.

20
21

22

23
24
25

This action requires a

determination of whether the defendants assured appropriate rate disclosure to the
class member recipients of inmate-initiated intrastate and interstate long-distance
collect telephone calls as required by RCW §80.36.S20 and RCW §80.36.S30.

18
19

Common Questions of Law and Fact.

10. :- Defendants Have Acted On Grounds

Class.

Gener~lly

Applicable to the

The defendants complete inmate-initiated collect telephone calls to call

recipients, and have consistently failed to make proper disclosures. The defendants
have acted on grounds generally applicable to the class. Certification is therefore
proper under CR 23(b)(2).

11.

Questions of Law and Fact Common to the Class Predominate

Over Individual Issues. The claims of many individual class members are too small to
justify filing and prosecuting the claims separately. Thus, any interest that individual

26

SIRIANNI & YOUTZ
701 FIFTH AVENUE. SUITE 3410

COMPLAIN:r -CLASS ACTION - 3

SEA1TLE. WASHINGrON 98104-7032
(206) 223-0303

members of the class may have in individually controlling the prosecution of separate
2
3
4

5
6

7

actions is outweighed by the efficiency of the class action mechanism. This action can
be most efficiently prosecuted as a class action in King County Superior Court, where
the defendants do business. Issues as to the defendants' conduct towards members of
the class predominate over questions, if any, unique to members of the class.
Certification is therefore additionally proper under CR 23(b)(3).
12.

Class CounseL

Plaintiffs have retained experienced and

competent class counsel.
IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
10

11
12

13
14

15
16
17
18
19

20
21

22
23
24

25

13.

The defendants are telecommunications companies. On March 16,

1992, all of the defendants except for T-Netix, Inc. contracted with the Washington
Department of Corrections to provide operator services for inmate payphones. The
parties have extended this contract through four amendments.

The fourth

amendment, which went into effect in March of 1999, adds T-Netix, Inc. as an operator
service provider at some facilities.
14.

Throughout the Class period, family members, attorneys and

other persons have been unable to speak to Washington State prison inmates by
telephone, exceprru; recipients of operator-assisted collect calls.. Recipients are billed
for these calls by the operator service provider assigned by contract to the prison from
which the call originates.
15.

Rates for intrastate long-dGtance collect calls are not made

available to recipients over the phone prior to the receipt of an inmate-initiated call,
nor are recipients given a separate number to call in order to learn the rates charged.
16.

Rates for at least some interstate calls have been made available

over the phone starting sometime in November of 1999. Prior to that time, recipients

26

SIRIANNI &: YOUTZ
COMP~-C~AcnON-4

701 FIFni AVENUE. SUlTE 3410
SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98104-7032
(206) 223-0003

of inmate-initiated interstate calls could not access rates prior to receipt of the call, and
2

also were not provided with any information on how to obtain the applicable rates.

3

V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

4

5

FIRST CLAIM-VIOLATION OF THE WASHINGTON CONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT, RCW 19.86 et seq.

6

17.

Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1 through 16, above.

7

18.

The defendants' repeated violations of RCW §80.36.S20 constitute

,,8

per se violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW §19.86 et seq.,

f

; 9

pursuant to RCW §80.36.S30.

The defendants have engaged in, and continue to

10

engage in, unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce in violation of the

11

Wasliington State Consumer Protection Act. Such conduct affects the public interest,

12

and has caused injury to the named plaintiffs and the plaintiffs' class.

13

Plaintiffs and the plaintiff class are entitled to damages as defined

19.

14

in RCW §80.36.S30, and treble damages under RCW §19.86.090, along with costs of

15

suit and attorney fees.
SECOND CLAIM-INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

16
17

20.

18

21.

Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1 through 19, above.
~

Plaintiffs
and the plaintiff
class are entitled to an injunction under
..

19

RCW §19.86.090," under the common law, and under any othe'r applicable laws, to

20

enjoin further violations of RCW §80.36.S20.
VI. DEMAND FOR RELIEF

21

22

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs request tha~ this Court:

23

1.

Enter judgment in favor of

~laintiffs

and the plaintiff class for

24

damages in an amount to be proven at trial due to the defendants' failure to assure

25

appropriate disclosure of rates charged under RCW §80.36 et seq. and RCW §19.86 et

26
SIRIANNI & YOUTZ
COMP~-C~ACTION-5

701 FIFTH AVENUE. SUITE 3410
SEATl1.E. WASHINGTON 98104-7032
(206) 223-0303

.'

.

seq., including presumed damages under RCW §80.36.S30 for each violation, and
2
3
.' 4
5
6
7
;8

1

.~

treble damages up to $10,000 to each class member for each violation;
Enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs and the plaintiff class, and

2.

against the defendants, enjoining the defendants from further violations of
RCW §80.36.S20;
3.

Award plaintiffs and the plaintiff class their attorney fees; and

4.

Award such other relief as is just and proper.

DATED: June 29, 2000.

9

SIRIANNI & YOUTZ

10
11

Chris R. Youtz (WSBA #7786)
Jonathan P. Meier (WSBA #19991)
Marie E. Gryphon (WSBA #29242)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs .

12
13
14
15
16
17

."

18

-

.-

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SIRIANNI & YOUTZ
701 FIFTH AVENUE. SUITE 3410

COMPLAINT -CLASS ACTION - 6

SEAlTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-7032

(206) 223-0303

RECEIVED

NOV 1 3 2000

HONORABLE J. KATHLEEN LEARNED
nL'-~I'P-D
'
v,· . .
t':~r·T. 18'-

RECEIVE 0 LAW OFFICE OF
.H1DGf.S Mt\11. HOl!~,~SIRIANNI & YOUTZ

2
3

2000 ~UG 25 PH 4: 27

4

KING COUNTY

SUPERI(¥Ufit~lsUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON

5

FOR KING COUNTY

6

7

SANDY JUDD, TARA HERIVEL and
ZURAY A WRIGHT, for themselves, and on
behalf of all similarly situated persons,

8

Plaintiffs,
9

Case No.: 00-2-17565-5 SEA
[Ii ; P08ED] ORDER GRANTING AT&T
CORP.'S MOTION TO DISMISS

v.

10

11
12
13
14
15

AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND
TELEGRAPH COMPANY; GTE
NORTHWEST INC.; CENTURYTEL
TELEPHONE UTILITIES, INC;
NORTHWEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS,
INC., d/b/a PTI COMMUNICATIONS, INC.;
U.S. WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; TNETIX, INC.,
Defendants.

16
17

THIS MATTER came on for hearing before the Court on October 6, 2000. Having heard

18

argument of counsel and having considered the written submissions of the parties and all other

19

documents on file in this matter, NOW THEREFORE:

20

IT IS ORDERED, ADJlIDGED AND DE6REED t:i:rat.m.f~~4"f~~ffi'ffil!Ct1Lor~mrt-

21

22
23

Furthermore, Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant AT&T Corp. ("AT&T") for damages

24

premised on nondisclosure of interstate long distance rates are hereby dismissed with prejudice under

25

the filed tariff doctrine.

26
27

28

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING AT&T CORP.'S MOTION TO
DISMISS - 1
01000·006 \ 30564.doc

ORIGINAL

STOKES LAWRENCE, P.S.
8<Xl FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4(XX)
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104·3179
(206) 621i-60<Xl

1
2

Furthermore, Plaintiffs' claims against AT&T premised on nondisclosure of intrastate long
distance rates

Iii:"

Ii)!

tJ:i&mistJe6 h ilhest f31ejl:uiiii aRe are referred to the Washington Utilities and

3
4
5
6

7

8
Presented by:
9
STOKES LAWRENCE, P.S.
10
11

12
13

//" Ii ( '~
By:

7\j)y ~ /.

,r-'

/

Kelly Twiss oonan (
09
Laura J. Buckland (WSBA #16141)
Attorneys for Defendant AT&T Corp.

14
15
16
17

18
19
20
21
22

23
24

25
26

27

28

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING AT&T CORP,'S MOTION TO
DISMISS - 2
01000-006 \ 30564.doc

STOKES LAWRENCE, P.S.
R(X) FIFfH AVENUE. SUITE 4(XX)
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 9R]().l·3179
(206) 626-6000