discussion supra Part III.B.l, pp. 12770-72. In those circumstances, state contract law, not the federal regulations, would govern the resolution of contract-related questions, such as whether a contract was formed, what terms the parties agreed to, and whether the contract was breached. See, e.g., Fair, 148 F.Supp.2d at 626 (“While federal regulations authorize the existence of payphone compensation contracts, whether the specific agreements at issue in the present case are illegal will be determined by state law.”). As in the context of ratemaking, where private contracts have replaced rigid rate prescriptions, state contract laws provide a background that is not only consistent with, but is integral to, the market-based mechanism of the federal regulations. See Ting, 319 F.3d at 1146(<HOLDING>). The state law claim is even stronger when the
holding that in interpreting a contract we look to the conflict of laws rules of  the forum state  to determine which states laws will be controlling recognizing the conflict recognizing conflict holding that common questions predominated with respect to plaintiffs claims under state consumer protection laws because the merits of the claims did not overlap with the predominance inquiry holding that state consumer protection laws do not conflict with 47 usc  201 and 202