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
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.
 
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
 

March 2013 - Call Compliance News

In this issue:

  • The FTC has released its summary of top consumer complaints from 2012. Identity theft topped the list, followed by debt collection.
  • The FTC has announced a settlement with Equifax regarding alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The FTC alleged that the credit reporting agency improperly sold lists of consumers who were late on their mortgages. The Fair Credit Reporting Act prohibits selling credit information about consumers except for limited purposes.
  • A California court has ruled that a consumer’s conversation with the bank was not improperly monitored because the consumer’s agreement with the bank disclosed the potential for call monitoring.Bailey v. Household Finance Corp. of California.

Federal Trade Commission
The FTC has filed suit against 29 companies alleging that they sent unwanted text messages to consumers.  FTC v. Subscriberbase Holdings, Inc., et al.  The text messages were purportedly sent to notify recipients of prizes, but were actually intended to generate sales leads.

The FTC has released its summary of top consumer complaints from 2012. Identity theft topped the list, followed by debt collection.

The FTC has sued a business and its owners alleging deceptive marketing of health insurance products in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule.  FTC v. IAB Marketing Associates, et al.  Defendants allegedly used websites to gather contact information from consumers, then sold those consumers purported health insurance which actually was not an insurance product.

An individual and company have settled with the FTC and agreed not to use prerecorded messages.  FTC v. Roy M. Cox, Jr., et al.  The settlement included a $1.1 million civil penalty suspended due to inability to pay.  The FTC alleged that Cox used false and deceptive caller ID information including “CARD SERVICES” and “prep private office.”

The FTC has announced a settlement with Equifax regarding alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  The FTC alleged that the credit reporting agency improperly sold lists of consumers who were late on their mortgages.  The Fair Credit Reporting Act prohibits selling credit information about consumers except for limited purposes.

The FTC also announced a settlement with a payment processor after alleging that the processor charged consumers’ bank accounts without consent.  FTC v. Automated Electronic Checking, Inc.  The company will pay a settlement of almost $1 million and be banned from processing payments in the future.

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
An appellate court has refused to hear the appeal of a trial court order certifying a TCPA class.  In re. Lake City Industrial Products.  The defendant had claimed that the federal court did not have jurisdiction but the Sixth Circuit ruled that the United States Supreme Court has decided the matter and federal courts have “federal question” jurisdiction over TCPA claims.

Seventh Circuit
A court has ruled that misconduct by the plaintiff’s attorney did not preclude certification of a TCPA class of persons who received illegal faxes.  Reliable Money Order, Inc. v. McKnight Sales Co., Inc. The court ruled that the plaintiff attorney’s ethical breach did not prejudice their client or undermine the integrity of the proceeding and, therefore, allowed the class to proceed.

California
A California court has denied class certification in a TCPA case because credit card holders signed an arbitration agreement when they obtained their card. Cayanan v. Citi Holdings, Inc.

A California court has ruled that a consumer’s conversation with the bank was not improperly monitored because the consumer’s agreement with the bank disclosed the potential for call monitoring. Bailey v. Household Finance Corp. of California.

Comment: I recommend disclosure of monitoring for all calls to or from California and other states that require “both” or all parties consent to a conversation being monitored.  Note that monitoring can take any form such as listening in, recording, third party extension, etc.

Missouri
Two Nevada companies have entered into a settlement paying the State more than $41,000 in penalties for violations of the State “do-not-call” law.  The settlement also included an injunction barring the companies from making telemarketing calls to any consumer in the state of Missouri if the person is on the Missouri “do-not-call” list, unless the consumer has expressly consented to receive the call.  Missouri v. Firebrand Group SL, et al.

The Missouri Attorney General also obtained a $55,000 judgment against a Florida business after he allegedly violated Missouri’s “do-not-call” law. Missouri v. A+ Financial Center, LLC, et al.  The FTC has also taken action against this company alleging it sent illegal prerecorded calls to consumers with false caller ID information.

Missouri’s Attorney General issued its list of top 10 consumer complaints received in 2012.  Number one on the list of complaints was telemarketing calls to persons on Missouri’s “do-not-call” list.

Comment: It is very important that you remember that Missouri has a different “do-not-call” list than the federal list and its established business relationship exemption is shorter than the federal period.  Missouri actively enforces its state “do-not-call” list, although the list does have exemptions not contained in the federal law.

Missouri’s Attorney General has filed suit against a diabetic supply company from Tennessee alleging violation of Missouri’s “do-not-call” list.  The Attorney General alleges that he has received at least 500 complaints about the company.  Missouri v. Simplex, et al.

New Jersey
A federal court has upheld a ruling denying class certification in a TCPA unsolicited fax case.  Landsman & Funk, P.C. v. Skinder-Strauss Associates.  The trial court upheld New Jersey’s rule prohibiting class actions under the TCPA because they provide for a specific monetary award.

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 2003-2021 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