CCC   PPPPP   U    U    CCC       N    N  EEEEE  W  W  W   SSS
 C   C  P    p  U    U   C   C      NN   N  E      W  W  W  S   S
C       P    P  U    U  C           N N  N  E      W  W  W  S
C       PPPPP   U    U  C           N N  N  EEE    W W W W   SSS
C       P       U    U  C           N  N N  E      WW   WW      S
 C   C  P       U    U   C   C      N   NN  E      W     W  S   S
  CCC   P        UUUU     CCC       N    N  EEEEE  W     W   SSS
             California Public Utilities Commission
505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 5301            San Francisco, CA 94102
CONTACT:  Dianne Dienstein             April 1, 1996   CPUC - 30
          415-703-2423

     COURT UPHOLDS CPUC CONSUMER PROTECTION REGARDING ADADs

      The Ninth Circuit United States Court of Appeals today
upheld the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
requirement that telemarketers using automatic dialing and
announcing devices (ADADs) must use a live operator to obtain the
consent of a call recipient to hear a recorded message.
      In Bland v. Fessler, Ninth Cir. No. 95-55522, the Ninth
Circuit Court was unanimous in its opinion affirming the judgment
of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
and upholding California's regulations for use of automatic
dialing and announcing devices contained in Public Utilities Code
sections 2871-2876.
      An ADAD user and the National Association of Telecomputer
Operators had sued the Commission arguing that California's
regulations violate the First Amendment free speech rights of
telemarketers using ADADs because they require a live operator to
obtain the consent of the call recipient to hear prerecorded
messages.
      The Commission argued that the Public Utilities Code
requirements constitute legitimate consumer protection and are
not a violation of the free speech rights of telemarketers.  The
Commission provided extensive evidence showing the intrusiveness
of ADADs on the privacy of residential and business phone
customers, including evidence that many ADADs cannot be
                            - more -
disconnected from a phone line, thus tying up the ability of the
call recipient to make emergency or other calls while the
prerecorded message is playing.
      The Court ruled that the Commission's requirements are a
legitimate exercise of state authority to regulate ADADs and do
not violate the First Amendment, that they are permissible "time,
place or manner" regulations because they are content-neutral,
are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest
and leave open alternative channels of communication.       ###