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

November 2020 - Call Compliance News

Federal Communications Commission

Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) Commissioner Geoffrey Starks has requested FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to suspend consideration of partisan or controversial items pending the presidential transition.

The FCC has reached a $200 million settlement with T-Mobile resolving claims of waste, fraud, and abuse in Sprint’s “Capital Lifeline” program for low-income consumers. Sprint received a $9.25 monthly subsidy for Lifeline subscribers on the condition that the discount be passed to subscribers. The FCC alleged that Sprint retained the subsidy despite knowing consumers were no longer using their phones.

On November 30, 2020, the FCC signed an order designed to protect consumers from “one-ring” telephone calls.  See These calls are intended to prompt the called party to return the call, subjecting them to toll charges. The caller ID presented is domestic, but the return call is actually international causing the charge.

The order allows providers to block these calls and to educate the public in conjunction with the Federal Trade Commission regarding these calls and to modify the regulations implementing the Telemarketing Sales Rule accordingly.


A lawsuit has been filed in California alleging Sport Clips barber shops sent texts to consumers announcing the location of new stores. Gonzalez v. Sport Clips, Inc.                         

Comment: Even if a consumer provided his or her telephone number to Sports Clips, it is unlikely that it was provided for the purpose of a store announcement. For example, if a consumer provided her telephone number to be texted when the stylist is ready, that might be a limitation such that a store announcement would not be permitted. It is important that you review the provenance of telephone numbers to which messages will be sent to ensure that a given message can be sent to it based on the prior express consent obtained.


Another court has denied an “incentive award” to a named plaintiff in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) class action settlement based on the earlier higher appellate court ruling in Johnson v. NPS Sols., LLC.  Hawkins v. JP Morgan Chase.

Comment: It will be hard for plaintiffs’ counsel to justify their claims that TCPA plaintiffs are the actual parties of interest when those plaintiffs can no longer be paid an incentive award. Of course, given that the incentive award was a fraction of a percent of the attorneys’ fees claimed in these cases, this argument never was legitimate.


A Louisiana court has set aside a default judgment entered against a debt collector. Young v. Tele Recovery Corp. The judge ruled the lawyer who operated the company was not properly served, but allowed plaintiff to revise the complaint and directed the defendant to make himself available for service of the amended complaint.

Comment: Ignoring a lawsuit you receive is never a good idea, even if there are some arguments that service was improper.


We recently represented a third party which received a subpoena in a purported TCPA class action. We objected to the subpoena as it was overbroad and inappropriate. The magistrate judge, followed by the district judge agreed to quash the subpoena. Chinitz v. Realogy.

Comment: If you receive a subpoena and are not a party to the action, you are entitled to more protection than discovery between parties. You should carefully review your options before responding, especially if the subpoena subjects you to significant expense or effort.

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