• (a) Price differences among retail telecommunications customers shall be strictly prohibited, to the extent that such differences are attributable to race, creed, color, religion, sex or national origin. All other differences in pricing among retail telecommunications customers, as of May 28, 2005, shall be presumed to be a function of the competitive market. This presumption may be rebutted by evidence of price discrimination as prohibited by state law.

  • Terms Used In Tennessee Code 65-37-102

    • Complaint: A written statement by the plaintiff stating the wrongs allegedly committed by the defendant.
    • Evidence: Information presented in testimony or in documents that is used to persuade the fact finder (judge or jury) to decide the case for one side or the other.
    • Jurisdiction: (1) The legal authority of a court to hear and decide a case. Concurrent jurisdiction exists when two courts have simultaneous responsibility for the same case. (2) The geographic area over which the court has authority to decide cases.
    • State: when applied to the different parts of the United States, includes the District of Columbia and the several territories of the United States. See Tennessee Code 1-3-105

    (b) Nothing in this section shall alter or expand the jurisdiction of the Tennessee public utility commission to hear complaints alleging price discrimination as prohibited by state law in retail telecommunications services within its jurisdiction, as its jurisdiction existed immediately prior to May 28, 2005, except to the extent that such jurisdiction is reduced pursuant to exemption by the commission subsequent to May 28, 2005. This chapter does not confer jurisdiction on the commission relating to services outside its jurisdiction as of May 28, 2005. In determining whether differences in pricing among retail telecommunications customers constitute price discrimination as prohibited by state law, the commission shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, whether:

    • (1) Customers have been or will be injured as a result of the alleged price differences;

    • (2) There is a legitimate business reason to distinguish between the customers who are being treated differently;

    • (3) Customers who are being treated differently are similarly situated;

    • (4) Customers may choose a functionally equivalent service from an alternative service provider at substantially the same price and terms; and

    • (5) The commission has determined previously that existing and potential competition is an effective regulator of the price of the service that is the subject of the complaint.