natural gas sales to proceed at market prices. See id. at 1041-42. Second, the FERC reviewed the natural gas market and determined it was competitive. See id. at 1042. Third, although the FERC did not impose individualized reporting requirements on sellers of natural gas, it maintained ongoing oversight of the market and took corrective responses to evidence of market manipulation. See id. We thus concluded that, "[bjecause FERC has not abdicated its responsibilities but has acted, albeit with a light hand, to authorize just and reasonable rates in the natural gas arena, the Filed Rate Doctrine continues to preempt any rate-setting activities by the courts F.Supp.2d 148, 163 n. 16 (D.Mass.2003); In re Pharm. Indus. Average Wholesale Price Litig., 263 F.Supp.2d 172, 192 (D.Mass.2003) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, none of these cases address the
holding that filed rate doctrine did not apply because pharmaceutical companies do not file rates with any agency holding that suits against longdistance companies for unreasonable rates were barred if the defendant had filed a rate tariff with the fcc holding that the filed rate doctrine barred private right of action for consumer fraud holding that under the filed rate doctrine a question regarding reasonable rates should be addressed to the department of insurance and that the rate plaintiff was charged is conclusively presumed reasonable under the filed rate doctrine holding that once a rate is filed with the appropriate agency except for review of the agencys orders the courts can assume no right to a different rate on that ground that in its opinion it is the only or the more reasonable rate