Gary Winnick, founder and controlling partner of WCO Spectrum, the company that T-Mobile is suing for educational broadband service (EBS) wireless spectrum fraud (see 2306030002), died Nov. 4, said a suggestion of death notice Thursday (docket 2:23-cv-04347) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles, filed and signed by Buchalter’s Joshua Robbins, Winnick’s counsel. Robbins believes that Winnick’s estate is his “likely successor in interest,” said the notice. But Robbins doesn’t yet know the identities of the estate’s executor or of the person authorized to act on the estate’s behalf with respect to the case, it said. He also doesn’t yet know the identity of the person authorized to act on WCO’s behalf as the case moves forward, it said. The filing of the suggestion of death starts the six-month clock running for T-Mobile to substitute another defendant for Winnick. If T-Mobile fails to do so, the claims against Winnick are subject to dismissal. WCO, Winnick and CEO Carl Katerndahl moved Sept. 18 for dismissal of T-Mobile’s complaint, arguing the lawsuit is T-Mobile’s “Hail Mary pass” to stave off competition in the EBS space (see 2309190046

Four individuals are prohibited from engaging in unfair mobile billing practices, the FTC announced in non-monetary settlements with the defendants Wednesday. The agency linked Darcy Wedd, Fraser Thompson, Erdolo Eromo, Michael Pajaczkowski and MMJX Consulting to a mobile “cramming scheme” led by MDK Media. Consumers paid more than $100 million in bogus charges related to the scheme. The FTC in 2015 reached settlements with six other defendants and affiliated companies. The violators engaged in deceptive practices, including fake websites and phony offers designed to trick consumers into sharing their mobile numbers, the FTC said. The defendants then “placed monthly subscription fees for a variety of ‘services’ on consumers’ mobile phone bills without their authorization," the FTC said. Some consumers were billed for unauthorized services for months and didn’t receive full refunds. The defendants are “prohibited from placing any charges on any telephone bills, from making any misrepresentations about any product or service, and from engaging in any unfair billing practices,” the FTC said. Attorneys for the defendants didn’t comment.

Core Communications is appealing to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals the Oct. 13 order of U.S. District Judge Joshua Wolson for Eastern Pennsylvania in Philadelphia granting AT&T summary judgment in its access service charges dispute with the company (see 2310160018), said Core’s Nov. 10 notice of appeal, posted Monday (docket 2:21-cv-02771). Wolson’s order held that Core can’t collect the millions in unpaid switched access service charges it seeks from AT&T, because Core’s tariffs didn’t authorize it to bill for those services in the first place (see 2212280001), making AT&T entitled to summary judgment on all of Core’s claims.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly for the District of Columbia Thursday denied a motion by Dish Network designated entities Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless for judgment based on the pleadings in a case examining Vermont National Telephone and DOJ allegations of fraud in the 2015 AWS-3 auction. “These allegations were exhaustively litigated before the FCC in an antecedent administrative proceeding and in the court of public opinion,” the court said. "As a result, Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss this case pursuant to the False Claim Act’s ‘public-disclosure’ provision, which requires a Court to dismiss a qui tam action where the fraud allegations were known to the federal government in advance of a relator’s commencement of suit in federal court.” But that provision “is subject to a crucial and dispositive exception: where the United States opposes dismissal,” Kollar-Kotelly said. In this the government “opposes dismissal of all claims, vitiating Defendants’ reliance on the FCA’s ‘public-disclosure’ provision,” she said. Qui tam actions allow private individuals to sue on behalf of the government to recover money that was fraudulently obtained by a person or corporation.

The clerk of the U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles, honoring T-Mobile’s Oct. 20 request, entered a default against defendants Ashok Vasudevan and his company, SCH, for failing to answer or otherwise respond to T-Mobile’s complaint by the Oct. 19 deadline, said a signed clerk’s notice Tuesday (docket 2:23-cv-04347). T-Mobile and seven of its subsidiaries allege Vasudevan and SCH helped finance a “nationwide criminal scheme” to defraud T-Mobile and the subsidiaries out of more than $10 million for the educational broadband service wireless spectrum licenses in the 2.5-GHz band that T-Mobile leases from schools to build its nationwide cellular and data network (see 2306030002).

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly for the District of Columbia agreed to give Dish Network additional time to buy 800 MHz licenses from T-Mobile, accepting a motion filed last week by the two companies and the DOJ (see 2310190010). Kelly granted the consent motion, “with no party to this action opposing the requested relief," said his signed order Monday (docket 1:19-cv-02232). The option to buy the licenses was part of a series of agreements tied to T-Mobile’s buy of Sprint, aimed at helping Dish emerge as fourth national wireless provider essentially replacing Sprint (see 2308170065). Dish missed an August deadline to buy the licenses and asked for an extension until June 30. The new deadline is April 1. Dish also agreed to pay T-Mobile a $100 million extension fee.

Dish Network, T-Mobile and the DOJ filed a motion Wednesday (docket 1:19-cv-02232) with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia agreeing to give Dish extra time to buy 800 MHz licenses from T-Mobile. DOJ previously filed in support of giving Dish until April 1 to buy the spectrum, or pay a $72 million fee for walking away from the deal (see 2309190061). As part of the agreement, Dish will pay a $100 million extension fee to T-Mobile, the companies said. Dish had asked for an extension through June 30. When DOJ filed “we thought the Judge was very likely to agree with the DOJ position,” said a New Street note to investors: “We think this filing increases the odds even higher, as there are now no parties in opposition to the extension.” The option to buy the licenses was part of a series of agreements tied to T-Mobile’s buy of Sprint, aimed at helping Dish emerge as fourth national wireless provider (see 2308170065). “Acquiring Defendant and Divesting Defendant will make reasonable efforts to secure timely approval by the FCC of the transfer of the spectrum,” the filing said. “Notwithstanding any other provision in this Amended Final Judgment, there shall be no extension of the Closing Deadline for any reason, whether foreseeable or not, except at the sole discretion of Divesting Defendants and with the consent of the United States.” The court “has jurisdiction to modify the Final Judgment pursuant to Section XVII of the Final Judgment, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5), and the Court’s inherent authority to enforce its lawful orders, including the ‘power to construe and interpret the language of the judgment’ and to modify a decree of injunctive relief,” the filing said: “Where all parties to the agreement consent to the modification, a court need only review the modification to ensure that it is in the ‘public interest.’” The proposed modified final judgment is in the public interest, the parties said. “The Final Judgment was designed from the outset to provide DISH the first opportunity to purchase the spectrum, and as such is consistent with this Court’s original public interest determination regarding T-Mobile’s spectrum divestiture,” they said.

Core Communications can’t collect the millions in unpaid switched access service charges it seeks from AT&T, because Core’s tariffs didn’t authorize it to bill for those services in the first place (see 2212280001), making AT&T entitled to summary judgment on all of Core’s claims, said a signed memorandum Friday (docket 2:21-cv-02771) from U.S. District Judge Joshua Wolson for Eastern Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. He denied as moot Core’s motion for summary judgment against AT&T. In a game of telephone, “the problems don’t come from the people at either end of the call, but from “the jumble in the middle,” said Wolson’s memorandum. “This case is about a game of telephone in real life, if you had to pay everyone along the chain,” it said. Core and its affiliates in Delaware, New Jersey, Virginia and West Virginia have had tariffs in place since 2011 to provide switched access services. Core bills AT&T for those services, but AT&T stopped paying Core in 2018, contending nearly all Core’s call traffic was spoofed or fraudulent. Core can’t collect the originating access charges it seeks from AT&T because Core didn’t provide switched access services under its tariff when it routed those calls to AT&T, said the memorandum. All the charges Core seeks AT&T payment on “stem from the origination of 8YY calls,” and there’s no dispute that the 8YY traffic was toll-free, meaning the callers didn’t pay a fee to make the calls, it said. Core acknowledged it charged AT&T for the 8YY traffic it routed to AT&T between July 2017 and June 2021, and no upstream providers paid any fees for the service, it said. This means none of the 8YY callers, nor any of the originating providers, “can be a Company End User” because they didn’t pay Core a fee to use its local exchange or other telecommunications services, said the memorandum. In fact, Core paid the originating providers to acquire the 8YY traffic, it said. In addition, AT&T’s customers who received these calls didn’t pay a fee to Core, it said. Instead, they paid AT&T for toll-free service.

DOD's fretting about GPS interference from Ligado was a ruse to hide that the agency had undisclosed systems using or depending on Ligado spectrum, while not compensating the company for that use, Ligado said Thursday in a complaint filed with U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Named as defendants were the U.S., DOD, Commerce Department and NTIA. Commerce and Defense didn't comment Friday. Calling it "the largest uncompensated taking of private property by our nation’s government in modern times," Ligado said in the 69-page complaint its spectrum rights had an assessed value of $39 billion -- "all of which value has been destroyed by the United States’ unconstitutional taking of Ligado’s property." The litigation doesn't specify what the supposed systems are and indicates they could involve transmitters, receivers or both. Ligado said DOD has indicated it needs exclusive, permanent use of the company's spectrum authorized for wireless terrestrial 5G services. That Defense use "has prevented, and will continue to prevent, Ligado from using its duly and exclusively licensed spectrum for terrestrial services," Ligado said. It alleged uncompensated physical, categorical, regulatory and legislative takings. "If left unchecked, such uncompensated and unfettered appropriation of a company’s FCC license by other government agencies will detrimentally undermine the authority of the FCC to exclusively regulate commercial spectrum, cast doubt on the finality of FCC decision-making and regulatory processes, and create a dangerous precedent of governmental seizure of private property," it said. In its suit, Ligado cites an unnamed DOD whistleblower who allegedly shared internal emails and conversations, plus the company's own talks with current and former government officials. The whistleblower and those talks "lay bare how [Defense and Commerce] fabricated arguments, misled Congress in testimony supporting anti-Ligado legislation, and orchestrated a public smear campaign, which included repeating those false claims to the public and threatening Ligado’s business partners with canceling their own government contracts if they worked with Ligado," the company said.

Dish Network fired back Friday at T-Mobile in their dispute (see 2308280055) over whether the emerging carrier should have until June 30 to exercise an option to buy 800 MHz licenses from T-Mobile. Dish asked for an extension from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The option to buy the licenses was part of a web of agreements in T-Mobile’s buy of Sprint (see 2308170065). Dish noted T-Mobile’s dominance among U.S. wireless carriers, with the largest market cap of the big three. “T-Mobile wants the Court to view DISH’s Motion as nothing more than an ordinary commercial dispute,” Dish said: “The Opposition reads as if the Court’s evaluation of this Motion were just an exercise in contract interpretation. But the Opposition’s rhetoric about how contracts ought to be read obfuscates the key principle relevant to the Court’s analysis of the Final Judgment: preserving Competition.” Dish noted that two weeks ago, in agreeing to the spectrum transfer, T-Mobile told the FCC, “The terms of the Final Judgment are designed to facilitate DISH’s entry into the wireless market as a facilities-based provider and ... [t]he 800 MHz spectrum licenses contemplated by this transaction will substantially enhance DISH’s ability to do so.” That admission undermines T-Mobile’s opposition to an extension, Dish said: T-Mobile’s objection “should be seen for what it is: an attempt by the market leader to hinder a nascent competitor, one that has taken on the Herculean task of building a modern nationwide facilities-based wireless network in a period of unprecedented economic turmoil.”