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

February 2015 - Call Compliance News


The FTC issued a report regarding its enforcement of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in the past year.  The agency filed 10 cases against 56 pending cases, and settled nine cases worth $140 million in judgments.

The FTC won partial summary judgment against Dish Network alleging it violated the “do-not-call” list, refused to honor entity’s specific “do-not-call” requests, and abandoned calls in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule.  The Court found Dish liable for more than four million calls made by it or its vendors to persons on the national “do-not-call” registry.  United States v. Dish Network.

Comment: The 238-page opinion found Dish liable for more than 1.7 million calls made directly by Dish and 2.3 million calls made by Dish retailers to persons on the national “do-not-call” list.

The Court also ruled that the “safe harbor” in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act did not apply because it requires the sellers to have written procedures for compliance.  Dish was unable to produce written procedures regarding how it selected telephone numbers for calling lists to ensure compliance with the registries.

This would be a good time to review the “safe harbors” in the TCPA and TSR to ensure you have documentation of each required item, e.g. record-keeping, training etc.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has sued a non-bank mortgage lender for paying illegal kickbacks under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA).  They allegedly deceived consumers regarding the veteran organization’s endorsement of its products and will pay two million dollars in penalties.

Comment:  We should be extremely careful when marketing highly regulated products such as financial services as special laws such as RESPA can apply in addition to general state and federal consumer protection law.


A California Court has denied a debt collector’s motion to stay a case pending FCC rulings on the definition of “automatic telephone dialing system.”  Alvarado v. BA Area Credit Services.  The Court ruled that the issue of “capacity” as set forth in the definition of automatic telephone dialing system was within the Court’s ability to decide and did not involve technical expertise requiring FCC intervention.  The Court also noted that “there is no indication that a decision from the FCC is coming any time soon.”


A bill has been introduced in the Connecticut House which would prohibit fraudulent caller identification information and require telemarketing businesses maintain a customer relations telephone line for consumer questions or complaints.


Florida has proposed to amend its regulations regarding its state telemarketing act.  (5J-6.005 et seq.)  New rules would require a specific form to be used to post a telemarketing bond and would set a range of penalties for violation of the tax restrictions.  Minor violations would be subject to a fine ranging from $1,000 to $10,000 per violation, while major violations would be assessed a fine of $5,000 to $10,000 per violation including suspension or revocation of a telemarketing license.

The text of the new rule can be reviewed at


The Mississippi House is considering a bill (HB 415) which would add calls urging support or opposition to political candidates to those calls included in the definition of “telephone solicitor” for purposes of the state’s “do-not-call” law.

Comment: Political calls are “fully-protected speech” under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Commercial speech, e.g. telemarketing sales calls, is protected by the First Amendment at a lesser level.  Including fully-protected speech in the commercial telemarketing restrictions would likely cause the state statute to be ruled unconstitutional because it would be subject to a higher level of constitutional scrutiny.

New York

A bill has been proposed in the New York General Assembly which would allow individuals to add their fax numbers to the state no call registry.

Comment: Unsolicited faxes are already prohibited under the TCPA.  Numerous class actions have been filed and any entity making unsolicited faxes is likely breaking federal law.


A bill has been proposed in the Oklahoma House (HB 1430) which would add businesses to the definition of “consumer” for purposes of the state’s telemarketing law.  Thus, businesses would be subject to no call restrictions and other forms of consumer protection found in the Oklahoma law.


A Pennsylvania court has recognized that the FCC’s ruling on “express/prior express consent” is persuasive and should be given deference by the Court when considering a TCPA class action claim where a consumer did not give express consent to be called to a creditor.  Zarichny v. Complete Payment Recovery Services.


A bill has been proposed in the Texas House (HB 411) which would prohibit credit access businesses from making telemarketing calls to entities on the federal “do-not-call” list.  A credit access business is an entity that represents that it can provide to consumers services which would improve a consumer’s credit history or rating or similar services.

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 2003-2022 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