The FTC has a telemarketing sales rule which requires do not call telemarketer compliance
bject classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="https://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,29,0" width="740" height="298"> bed src="./template_pack/basic/flash/header.swf" quality="high" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="740" height="298" FlashVars="&site_host_clean=www.donotcallcompliance.com%2F&short=true">
The Federal Trade Commission protects consumers not telemarketing companies
National Do Not Call Registry and List Compliance News
DO NOT CALL STATE & FEDERAL REGULATORY NEWS

This newsletter (or material) is prepared by Copilevitz and Canter, LLC, (816) 472-9000, http://copilevitz-canter.com/, braney@cckc-law.com. Copilevitz and Canter, LLC, does not provide legal services to Do Not Call Compliance or donotcallcompliance.com and does not endorse our website or services. This information is not to be used as a substitute for legal counsel.
 
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 2018 - Call Compliance News


Federal Trade Commission

A company purportedly offering student loan debt relief has settled charges brought by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) alleging fraud and violation of the national “do-not-call” registry.  FTC v. Student Debt Relief Group.  The company was forced to turn over more than $2.3 million in assets to the FTC.

The FTC has filed a lawsuit against two companies and their owners who allegedly sent billions of illegal prerecorded calls in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”).  FTC v. James Christiano, Net.Solutions, Inc., et al.  The FTC alleged the company used spoofed called IDs among other violations of the TSR.

Federal Communications Commission

The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) has made a declaratory ruling and notice of proposed rulemaking regarding toll-free texting.  The regulations provide that a text messaging provider may not text enable a toll-free number without obtaining authorization from the subscriber.  Such authorization can be revoked at any time.

Ninth Circuit

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to overturn certification of a class of persons who received faxes from Allstate Insurance.  Etter v. Allstate Insurance Co.  Etter received a single unsolicited fax advertisement which did not contain opt-out notice language and which he did not expressly request.  The trial court had ruled that whether a given recipient had consented to the fax could be proved on a class-wide basis, and had therefore certified the class.

Florida

A Florida court has refused to dismiss a TCPA class action based on allegedly illegal faxes.  The defendant argued that a single fax did not cause sufficient injury for the plaintiff to have standing under the constitution, but the court disagreed.  Bobo’s Drugs v. Fagron, Inc.

Georgia

A Georgia court has ruled that a system which requires human intervention to dial a call is not an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) under FCC rulings and the D.C. Circuit’s ruling in ACA Int’l v. FCC.  Maddox v. CBE Group, Inc.  The court noted that the law does not require that a human dial all ten digits.  “The focus is on whether the system can automatically dial a phone number, not whether the system makes it easier for a person to dial the number.”  The court therefore concluded the system was not an ATDS.

New Hampshire

A New Hampshire judge denied a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) plaintiff’s request to certify a class of fax recipients.  Menachem Raitport, et al. v. Harbour Capital Corp.  The court adopted the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. FCC that solicited faxes do not need to include the TCPA’s disclosures.  The judge therefore denied plaintiff’s request to certify the class.

New York

Although New York exempts entities which have a certificate to do business in the state or are incorporated in the state from its telemarketing fees and bonds, it does require registration with no fee for entities which meet that exemption.  Recently, state regulators have become more aggressive regarding the no fee registration and information they require to process it.

Comment: If you would like to review your exemption status in New York or other states, please contact me.

A New York court has adopted the D.C. Circuit’s ruling in Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. FCC that the FCC could not require disclosures on solicited faxes.  The court noted that the D.C. case was a consolidated petition for review and therefore binding on other courts outside the District of Columbia.

South Carolina

A new law has gone into effect in South Carolina that involves the use of local area code numbers and caller IDs.  The new requirement prohibits the use of a South Carolina area code to be projected by the caller unless the caller is physically located in the state.  The law provides no exemptions.  See https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess122_2017-2018/bills/4628.htm.

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 Compliance.com 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 2003-2018 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