The FTC has a telemarketing sales rule which requires do not call telemarketer compliance
The Federal Trade Commission protects consumers not telemarketing companies
National Do Not Call Registry and List Compliance News

This newsletter (or material) is prepared by Copilevitz and Canter, LLC, (816) 472-9000,, Copilevitz and Canter, LLC, does not provide legal services to Do Not Call Compliance or and does not endorse our website or services. This information is not to be used as a substitute for legal counsel.
2022 Newsletters
2021 Newsletters
2020 Newsletters
2019 Newsletters
2018 Newsletters
2017 Newsletters
2016 Newsletters
2015 Newsletters
2014 Newsletters
2013 Newsletters
2012 Newsletters
2011 Newsletters
2010 Newsletters
2009 Newsletters
2008 Newsletters
2007 Newsletters
2006 Newsletters
2005 Newsletters
2004 Newsletters
State Do Not Call

June 2015 - Call Compliance News


The FTC is sending almost $500,000 in refunds to consumers who were charged for mortgage relief services which were not provided.  FTC v. Jackson Crowder & Assoc.

Comment: This case involved a judgment after a five-day trial which is very rare as most defendants settle.  The Court found that the defendants and various corporations acted together as an enterprise controlled by two individuals.  The Court ruled that no “corporate demarcation” existed between companies and individuals.  They were therefore jointly and severally liable for a judgment.  If multiple corporations are involved in a business enterprise, it is very important that “corporate formalities” be observed to keep them separate so that corporate form can protect owners and business partners from joint and several liability.


The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has affirmed a dismissal of the TCPA case alleging illegal unsolicited faxes based on the statute of limitations.  Sparkle Hill, Inc. v. William Warming.

Comment: The statute of limitations for the TCPA is four years.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled that faxes containing a list of medications that were covered by insurance were not an advertisement banned by the TCPA.  Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc.  The Court ruled that an advertisement “must promote goods or services to be bought or sold, and it should have profit as a name.”  The Court ruled that no evidence showed that the list of covered drugs were for sale by the sender either at the time of the fax or in the future.

A district court in the Sixth Circuit has ruled that a Rule 68 offer of judgment does not make an individual plaintiff’s class action claim moot.  Charvat v. National Holdings Corp.  The Court ruled that there were grounds for immediate appeal and stayed the case pending that appeal.

Comment: The United States Supreme Court is now considering this issue and will rule whether a defendant in a TCPA claim can make a class action moot by offering the individual plaintiff full settlement of the claim.


A California court has dismissed a case brought against AOL alleging it sent plaintiff unsolicited text messages through its instant messenger service.  The plaintiff received three messages in error, presumably the result of some person inputting an incorrect telephone number which happened to be the plaintiffs.  Derby v. AOL, Inc.

Comment: AOL’s argument was that its AIM system was not an ATDS because it requires human intervention to send text messages.  The Court agreed and found that human intervention meant AOL’s system was not an ATDS.

A California court has granted a motion to dismiss a purported TCPA class action against Redbox.  Holt v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC.  Holt alleges she received unsolicited text messages on her cell phone.  She unsubscribed from a text service and received a confirmation messages which she alleged was illegal.  The Court rejected the argument that the plaintiff did not provide express consent for the opt-out confirmation text message.

A purported class action has been brought against Facebook alleging that it monitored its users’ posts without their express consent in violation of California’s call monitoring statute.  Campbell v. Facebook, Inc.

Comment: Regardless of whether Facebook wins or loses this case, it is important to realize that the monitoring statutes apply to “communications” not just telephone calls and online texts, chats, posts, etc.  All of these communications should be reviewed to ensure compliance with state and federal law regarding interception and monitoring.


A Florida court has ruled that a debt collector is liable for calls it placed to a consumer’s cell phone because human intervention was not involved in placing the calls.  Brown v. NRA Group, LLC.  The Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the calls were knowing and willful violations.


An Illinois court has granted a stay in a purported TCPA class action based on the Supreme Court accepting the Campbell-Ewald case.  The Supreme Court will decide whether a defendant in a TCPA action can make a plaintiff’s claim moot by offering individual settlement such that the class action cannot proceed.  Fauley v. Royal Canin USA.


A Minnesota court has ruled that a debtor provided her express consent to be called on her cell phone and did not need to specifically consent to prerecorded or ATDS calls for “prior express consent” to exist.  Ebling v. Clear Spring Loan Services.  The Court ruled “when a person knowingly provides his cell phone number to a creditor in connection with a debt, he is agreeing to allow the creditor to contact him regarding his debt, regardless of the means.”

North Carolina

A North Carolina court has dismissed a TCPA claim against a credit card company and its debt collector because the plaintiff failed to state a claim sufficient that the court could grant a leave for alleged violations of the TCPA and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  Loney v. HSBC Card Services.  The Court found the plaintiff made no allegations against the named defendant other than it “regularly collects debts in the state of North Carolina,” an activity which violates neither statute.


A Pennsylvania House Bill (HB 820) would prohibit telemarketing on a legal holiday.

Comment: Several states impose curfews on telemarketing calls, often with exemption, such as calls to existing customers.  If you would like a list of states banning calls on holidays, please contact me.

The authors make every attempt to provide current, accurate information, but Telemarketing ConnectionS® is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel, and readers should not use it in lieu of obtaining knowledgeable legal, or other professional, counsel expert in the field of commercial telemarketing law. References in Telemarketing ConnectionS® do not constitute endorsement by Copilevitz & Canter, L.L.C. or Telemarketing ConnectionS®. January 1, 2005, Copilevitz & Canter, L.L.C.
  Telemarketing Do Not Call Compliance - Avoid large fines by staying compliant.   NDNCR and SDNCR - National Do Not Call Registry and State Do Not Call Registry - Know the difference.
The Do Not Call Compliance Silver Plan offers an Automated federal and state do not call compliance solution. Scrub your list yourself using our automated list scrubbing system.
Telemarketing companies are required to enroll in the Federal Do Not Call Registry.
Do Not Call has the robust software technology and computer power to properly remove (scrub) the Do Not Call numbers from your telemarketing lists.
The National Do Not Call Registry is a list of phone numbers from consumers who have indicated their preference to limit the telemarketing calls they receive.
This Site is designed for use with MSIE 7+,FF 3.5+, Chrome, Opera and other modern browsers.
A Broadband Internet Connection is recommended for uploading and downloading files.

Terms of Use | User Agreement | Privacy and Security Policy

© Copyright 2003-2023 Do Not Call Compliance - Telemarketing Do Not Call List Compliance Service.
All Rights Reserved. Information on this site is not to be used as a substitute for legal counsel.

Do Not Call Compliance | | 800-930-7252