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
 

January 2015 - Call Compliance News

FCC

As of January 13, 2015, eleven petitions have been filed seeking waiver of the FCC’s fax disclosure rules as previously discussed in this newsletter.  The petitioners seek retroactive waivers of the opt-out notice requirements and fax ads they sent to persons who expressly requested the faxes.

The FCC has also adopted an exemption to the TCPA’s ATDS restrictions for package delivery notifications sent by a package carrier to telephone numbers for the package recipient (which may or may not have been provided by the package recipient).

Comment: Again, this shows the potential that the FCC will issue orders to reasonable businesses using telephones for reasonable consumer-friendly purposes.  It also shows another “content-based” exemption to the TCPA’s ATDS restrictions. “Content-based” restrictions of speech must meet a stronger test if challenged on free speech grounds, so this exemption may mean the TCPA ATDS restrictions will ultimately be struck down as unconstitutional.

FTC

The FTC has filed a staff comment with the FCC regarding its opinion about “call blocking technology.”  The national association of attorneys general asked the FCC whether there are any legal or regulatory prohibitions that prevent telephone carriers from offering consumers call blocking technology.  The FTC’s opinion was that there are no such legal barriers.

Comment: Many courts have affirmed the right to be left alone or the right to privacy.  These barriers, however, must be instituted by the consumer rather than using content-based restrictions of speech applied by a regulation or an agency.

Florida

A Florida court has denied in part and granted in part a Motion to Dismiss brought in a purported TCPA action against a debt collector.  The debt collector called the plaintiff’s cellular telephone numerous times using an ATDS.  The court ruled that plaintiff sufficiently pled that she had been called without her express consent, but denied state law claims that these actions were unfair and deceptive.  Ferrara v. LCS Financial Services Corp.

A Florida court has denied a Motion to Dismiss a case brought in a TCPA action by an individual against a law firm.  Gesten v. Stewart Law Group. The calls were an attempt to collect a debt from plaintiff’s husband and used a prerecorded message.  Plaintiff unsuccessfully claimed in response to defendant’s argument that only the intended recipient of a call could sue under the TCPA.

Comment: This defense argument, i.e. that only the intended recipient of a call can sue under the TCPA, has been rejected in most courts.

Illinois

Philip Charvat has served as a TCPA class representative and private plaintiff in many cases in the past decade.  He recently challenged a subpoena brought against him seeking a deposition from an earlier TCPA class case.  Charvat v. Travel Services.  The court ordered the defendant to obtain information from publicly-available sources prior to subpoenaing third parties.

Indiana

A bill has been pre-filed in the Indiana Senate (SB 227) which would remove the exemptions to the state “do-not-call” list for calls by charities, licensed real estate brokers, insurance companies, or newspapers.

Comment: When the Indiana “do-not-call” list was passed, a paper published an editorial supporting the exemption for newspapers claiming the legislature would not be wise to pick fights with entities which buy ink by the barrel.  Perhaps the power of print media has declined in the past decade. It should also be noted that calls by charities are currently exempt from the Indiana “do-not-call” list, but calls soliciting a donation “on behalf of,” i.e. by a professional fundraiser, are not exempt.

Missouri

Missouri’s attorney general has filed suit against a construction company in St. Louis arguing that it violated Missouri’s “do-not-call” list.  Coster v. Abelard Construction. 

Comment: Missouri is active with regard to enforcement of its “do-not-call” list which is separate from the national “do-not-call” list, and does not have the same exemptions found in the federal law.

Missouri’s attorney general has released a report of his 2014 enforcement of the law.  In 2014 the attorney general’s office filed 20 lawsuits resulting in fines and penalties of approximately $270,000.

Missouri has filed suit against a California seller of home security systems alleging violation of Missouri and federal telemarketing law.  Koster v. First Pacific Marketing, LLC.  The calls were allegedly prerecorded and made a claim that the FBI had reported increased break-ins in the recipients’ neighborhoods.

Comment: In addition to actively enforcing Missouri’s “do-not-call” list, claims of fraud reception, calls potentially making claims which are fraudulent or deceptive are much more likely to result in regulatory enforcement.

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