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
 

December 2013

In this issue:

  • The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has announced a proposed rulemaking with regard to debt collection practices with comments due on February 10, 2014. This may be a major revision to the regulations implementing the FDCPA.
  • The FTC has determined that the Telemarketing Sales Rules’ caller ID restrictions do not need to be modified to reduce caller ID spoofing. The tactic is already illegal under its rule (and the FTC Act) and the FTC concluded that no additions or modifications to the Telemarketing Sales Rule could effectively prevent caller ID spoofing.
  • A Florida court has ruled that a plaintiff could not proceed with a class action against a debt collector after the debt collector made her an offer of judgment fully satisfying her individual claims

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has announced a proposed rulemaking with regard to debt collection practices with comments due on February 10, 2014. This may be a major revision to the regulations implementing the FDCPA. Specific issues the agency intends to address include e-mail and text messaging and entities collecting their own debts (currently exempt from the FDCPA in most circumstances).

Comment: If your business collects debts on its own behalf or for other entities, you should review the proposal as it likely is a precursor for a major change in the FDCPA regulations.

Federal Trade Commission
The FTC has obtained a court order against a Canadian individual and four telemarketing companies to pay more than $5.1 million to Canadian and American consumers with regard to claims of buyers for those consumers’ cars. The order permanently bans the defendants from telemarketing and payment processing.FTC v. Matthew J. Loewen, et al. The FTC alleged the defendants falsely claimed that in exchange for a $390 fee, they would connect the consumer with a buyer for their car. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington found the allegations to be true and ruled that defendants violated the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule.

Six defendants have settled claims the FTC made with regard to prerecorded calls which said they were from “Rachel from Cardholder Services.” FTC v. ELH Consulting, LLC, et al. The plan marketed debt settlement services. The defendants agreed to a permanent ban from all telemarketing as well as settlingdebt relief services.

The FTC has determined that the Telemarketing Sales Rules’ caller ID restrictions do not need to be modified to reduce caller ID spoofing. The tactic is already illegal under its rule (and the FTC Act) and the FTC concluded that no additions or modifications to the Telemarketing Sales Rule could effectively prevent caller ID spoofing.

Comment: Many of my clients have been victims of caller ID spoofing, and the FTC’s conclusion that it should not impose additional burdens on a compliant company when the practice is already illegal is refreshing.

The FTC has filed a complaint against a company which allegedly “crammed” tens of millions of dollars of charges on consumers’ mobile phone bills without permission. FTC v. Tatto, Inc. 
A website allegedly informed visitors they had won free Justin Bieber tickets, but instead gathered phone numbers for a paid “cramming” service.

The FTC has issued its analysis of the national “do-not-call” registry for fiscal year 2013. It contains registration and complaint figures for all 50 states by population as well as information regarding entities accessing the registry. The registry contains more than 220 million telephone numbers.

California
A California court has denied a motion to reconsider a defendant’s argument that the TCPA did not apply to debt collection calls. Inigues v. CBE Group, Inc. The court ruled that the defendant was incorrect that there was a broad exemption for debt collection calls from TCPA restrictions and, therefore, denied the request.

A California court has denied a defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in a TCPA case where she alleged a bank called her on her cellular telephone without consent. Martin v. Wells Fargo Bank. The bank claimed that a 1987 consumer disclosure statement was modified in 2012 to include mandatory arbitration. The plaintiff denied ever receiving or seeing the change and the court ruled that the bank had the burden of proving the existence of the arbitration agreement by preponderance of the evidence. The court ruled that it failed to do so and denied the motion to compel arbitration.

Florida
A Florida court has ruled that a plaintiff could not proceed with a class action against a debt collector after the debt collector made her an offer of judgment fully satisfying her individual claims. Delgado v. Collecto, Inc.

Comment: The court held that a case for controversy no longer existed for the individual after she had received an offer of judgment fully satisfying her individual claims. There are other circuits that have disagreed with this ruling, and the Supreme Court likely will resolve the “conflict” between jurisdictions.

Minnesota
A Minnesota court has denied a motion to dismiss a purported TCPA class action brought by an individual against a bank. Hashw v. Department Stores National Bank. The plaintiff claimed that he was contacted on a cellular telephone using an ATDS. The court ruled that his allegations were sufficient to allow the TCPA claim to continue.

Missouri
A case in Missouri has addressed the same question as Florida, i.e. whether an offer of judgment mooted an individual’s claim such that a class action could not proceed. March v. Medicredit, Inc. That court ruled that a defendant should not be able to use offers of judgment to support class actions.

New York
An appeals court in New York has overruled a trial court which dismissed a TCPA class action in the state because New York’s rules prohibit class action suits for statutory damages. The court held that the state’s civil procedure statute did not apply to the TCPA which was a federal claim. Bank v. Independence Energy Group, LLC.

Comment: Until now, TCPA class actions could not be brought in the state of New York. This case eliminates that bar.

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