After a jury verdict in the Superior Court in favor of the plaintiff against the defendants, AT&T Communications and American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T), a judge limited the plaintiff’s damages pursuant to Federal Communications Commission Tariffs No. 259 and No. 2 (Tariff F.C.C. No. 259). See note 5, infra. The plain*887tiff appealed. We transferred the case here on our own motion, and we now affirm.

We summarize the relevant facts.2 The plaintiff sold computer software by “telemarketing.” It advertised and promoted its business by using a toll-free “800” telephone number obtained in 1983 from New England Telephone and Telegraph Company, where the receiver pays the charges on incoming telephone calls. In 1983, an 800 telephone number was assigned to American Transtech, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T, to provide information to AT&T shareholders. The AT&T telephone number differed from the plaintiff’s telephone number by one digit.

The plaintiff received approximately 21,000 telephone calls intended for AT&T shareholder services between 1983 until July, 1985.

In March, 1984, AT&T offered to change the plaintiff’s 800 number and to “sift”3 telephone calls to the existing number for two to three months. The plaintiff rejected the offer at first, but in July, 1985, agreed to change its 800 telephone number and accepted a sift of calls for a period of one year. The plaintiff subsequently filed this action alleging breach of contract, tort liability, and unfair and deceptive business practices to recover lost profits, income, and consequential damages.4

*888The plaintiff concedes the defendants’ liability for damages may be limited by properly filed and approved tariffs. Tariffs which limit a common carrier’s liability have the “force and effect of law.” Video Educ. Career Inst. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., C.A. No. 88-1721-N (D. Mass. 1990). Stand Buys, Ltd. Corp. v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 646 F. Supp. 36, 37 (E.D. Mich. 1986). Peacock’s, Inc. v. South Cent. Bell, 455 So. 2d 694, 698 (La. Ct. App. 1984). Carter v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 365 F.2d 486, 496 (5th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 1008 (1967).

Tariff F.C.C. No. 259 (tariff)5 limited AT&T’s liability for damages except in cases of wilful misconduct. Since the jury found no wilful misconduct on the part of the defendants, the principal issue in this case is whether the applicable tariff, properly applied to the facts of this case, limits the defendants’ liability. The tariff limits liability for any claim or suit “for damages associated with the installation, provision, termination, maintenance, repair or restoration” of 800 service. The basis of the plaintiffs claim was that AT&T personnel erroneously distributed its toll-free number as that of AT&T shareholder services, thus causing a large number of unwanted calls to the plaintiffs 800 number. See note 4, supra. The judge’s ruling relied on the tariffs limiting liability “associated with the . . . provision” of 800 service, and *889that the tariff therefore limited the plaintiff’s recovery. We agree. The tariff at issue has been applied to limit liability in similar circumstances. See Video Educ. Career Inst. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., supra (AT&T’s liability for misdirection of telephone calls caused by faulty software device limited by tariff); Stand Buys, Ltd. Corp. v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., supra (tariff limited AT&T’s liability for delays and disconections of service in absence of wilful misconduct). It is apparent that the negligent conduct that formed the basis of the claim caused a disruption and interference with the plaintiff’s 800 service. As such, it fell within the specific provisions of the tariff.

The plaintiff’s reliance on Lebowitz Jewelers Ltd. v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 24 Mass. App. Ct. 268 (1987), is misplaced. There the Appeals Court applied a more narrowly drafted tariff to limit the liability of the defendant where the damages arose from an interruption in service. Lebowitz Jewelers Ltd. does not stand for the proposition that a broader limit on liability in an applicable tariff would be improper.

The plaintiff argues that public policy militates against our applying the tariff to limit liability in these circumstances. The provision of interstate communication service, however, is determined according to Federal law. Ivy Broadcasting Co. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 391 F.2d 486, 491 (2d Cir. 1968). Federal courts have upheld similar tariffs on public policy grounds. Travelers Ins. Co. v. SCM Corp., 600 F. Supp. 493, 496 (D.D.C. 1984) (tariff is “binding public regulation — established as a matter of public policy — to limit” liability). Pilot Indus. v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 495 F. Supp. 356, 361 (D.S.C. 1979), quoting Western Union Tel. Co. v. Esteve Bros. & Co., 256 U.S. 566, 571 (1921) (limitation of liability “an inherent part of the rate”).

Judgment affirmed.