Overview
Following more than a decade of contractual noncompliance and obstruction by the American Samoa Telecommunications Authority (ASTCA), legal action has now escalated to the federal level. The current complaint—filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana—seeks redress for ASTCA’s failure to fulfill its obligations under a directory publishing agreement. The suit alleges violations of federal telecommunications regulations under 47 CFR § 64.2313, as well as breach of contract, with total damages claimed at $700,000.

Background

In 2010, ASTCA’s Marketing Director requested assistance in producing future telephone directories. Given past difficulties securing usable listings from ASTCA, the complainant agreed to proceed only upon assurances that timely and complete directory data would be provided. ASTCA assigned this task to a newly hired employee, J.D. Hall, and affirmed that a formal agreement would be executed to memorialize the project.

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was drafted—at ASTCA’s own initiative—by its in-house legal counsel, Gwen Langkilde, and signed by ASTCA’s Executive Director. Despite its clear terms and over a decade of recognized operation, the agreement was later challenged by ASTCA as “unenforceable” only after the complainant sought legal recourse for breach.

The scope of ASTCA’s failure includes:

• Repeated delivery of incomplete or unusable listing data.
• Improper use of proprietary directory information by ASTCA personnel for private gain.
• ASTCA’s internal resistance to contract performance and refusal to distribute directories as agreed.
• Deliberate obstruction and delay by key officials, including Langkilde and Hall, over a multi-year period.

Litigation in American Samoa

The initial attempt to resolve the dispute through the High Court of American Samoa resulted in protracted litigation. Despite evidence of non-performance, the court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the MOU was “unenforceable”—a position inconsistent with the facts of the case:

• The contract was drafted by ASTCA’s legal counsel.
• It was signed by ASTCA’s Executive Director.
• It was acted upon by both parties for an extended period.
• No prior concerns about its enforceability were raised until litigation began.

Key procedural concerns emerged during the trial:

• ASTCA’s legal counsel, now a sitting judge, was barred from testifying in open court and instead deposed in private.
• The trial was abruptly shortened by the presiding judge, curtailing the complainant’s opportunity to testify fully.
• Critical requests for discovery and transcript access were ignored or only partially fulfilled, with documents provided in unscannable formats.

The combination of judicial irregularities and institutional non-responsiveness left the complainant with no meaningful remedy at the territorial level.

Upcoming Federal Complaint

With no viable avenue remaining in the territorial court system, a federal complaint will be filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. The case alleges:

1. Violation of 47 CFR § 64.2313
   This provision, issued under the authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), requires incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) to provide access to directory listing data on nondiscriminatory terms to entities engaged in directory publishing. As ASTCA functions as an ILEC in American Samoa, its failure to provide complete and timely listings constitutes a direct violation.
2. Breach of Contract
   Despite the contract’s origins in ASTCA’s legal office and its long-standing operational use, the agency ultimately failed to uphold its basic obligations: providing data, facilitating distribution, and cooperating in good faith. The breach was not technical or marginal, but structural and continuous.
3. Damages Sought
   The complaint seeks $700,000 in damages, representing the financial harm incurred due to ASTCA’s non-performance, lost business opportunities, and the significant costs associated with multi-year litigation.

Implications and Outlook

This federal filing marks a critical shift from local remedies to national-level enforcement. The case has broader implications for federal oversight of telecommunications practices in U.S. territories, particularly when local institutions are either incapable or unwilling to ensure accountability.

Key points of concern for the federal court will include:

• Whether ASTCA, as an ILEC, violated its obligations under federal law.
• Whether the court will accept the previously dismissed MOU as enforceable based on standard principles of contract law.
• The extent to which ASTCA’s internal conduct—particularly the misuse of proprietary data—should factor into the award of damages.

Next Steps

Pending court action in the Middle District of Louisiana may include:

• Motions by ASTCA to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or improper venue.
• Discovery proceedings, potentially including subpoenas for ASTCA records.
• A renewed examination of the original contract and its enforceability under both federal and common law standards.

Should the case proceed to trial, it will offer a critical opportunity to assess not only ASTCA’s conduct but also the extent to which federal regulatory protections extend to contractors operating in U.S. territories.