AT&T vs. Core Finger-Pointing Persists Over Unpaid Access Services Charges

AT&T and Core Communications continued finger-pointing Friday in the latter’s legal fight to recover $11.4 million in unpaid access services charges from AT&T. The two sides disagree on who bears the burden of proof in showing the calls at issue were legitimate and not improper robocalls (see 2212280001). Defendant AT&T refused to pay plaintiff Core for its access services, claiming nearly all the calls that CoreTel affiliates in Delaware, New Jersey, Virginia and West Virginia connected were fraudulent. Core’s arguments it provided access services on “actual calls originated by genuine end users -- and did not bill for improper robocalls -- misstate the law” by failing to acknowledge “the default rule that plaintiffs ordinarily bear the burden of proof,” said AT&T’s opposition brief (docket 2:21-cv-02771) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Core’s argument “is also premised on absurd and unreasonably narrow views of its common carrier obligations,” views that the FCC already said are “unlawful,” it said. Core is also wrong in claiming its access services tariffs, which Core unilaterally drafted, “somehow excuse it from proving that it provided genuine access services, and did not route or enable improper robocalls,” said AT&T. “Simply because Core elected not to include detailed tariff provisions that bar access charges on improper robocalls does not mean that such charges are authorized by the tariffs.” Core’s opposition brief argued AT&T is trying to convince the court “to create new telecommunications law to use not only as a shield against CoreTel’s claims, but also as a sword to use against other carriers in other compensation disputes.” AT&T is asking for the court’s blessing “to do what it has done here on a larger scale: withhold all monies it owes to a carrier (even when AT&T was paid for the same traffic by its own customers),” said Core. AT&T’s arguments are “better suited for a rulemaking proceeding at the FCC advocating for the imposition of new and additional burdens on wholesalers or intermediate carriers,” said Core. “This, however, is a collection action, not a rulemaking proceeding,” it said. CoreTel “has a burden to prove a breach of contract, and a breach of contract only,” it said.