Plaintiffs brought suit against CenturyTel for deceptive billing practices under the Federal Communications Act, the FCC’s Truth-in-Billing Act, and State Law. The district court certified Plaintiffs claims and granted judgment on the pleadings as to the Federal claims. Affirming, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected defendant’s challenge to typicality. “Whether the customer authorized her enrollment in WireWatch or benefitted from the plan’s service, despite being billed for the service under a misleading description, goes only to the issue of damages and does not preclude a finding that the typicality requirement is satisfied.” In a related challenge to predominance, the court noted that plaintiffs could establish that each class member was injured by CenturyTel’s violation by showing that each class member paid for WireWatch during the period when the service was billed under the misleading description. “CenturyTel admitted that it did send some bills to customers that contained this language, and an inventory of CenturyTel’s billing records could disclose which customers paid their bills in full, which would include a payment for fees associated with WireWatch. On appeal, CenturyTel argues that ‘only those customers who can establish that they did not want or request the WireWatch service can establish CenturyTel’s liability.'” The court disagreed. “True, each class member will have to show that she did not enroll in WireWatch, but that is relevant, as the district court concluded, to the issue of damages and not liability. Thus, Plaintiffs should be able to establish liability for the class as a whole because the misleading description used by CenturyTel violated the Act, and class members were injured by that violation when they paid their telephone bill, which included a charge for WireWatch under a misleading description.” See Beattie v. CenturyTel, Inc., 511 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2007).