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
 

June, 2014 - Call Compliance News

In this issue:
•An online mortgage lead creator will pay a $225,000 civil penalty to the FTC settling charges that it deceived consumers regarding terms of mortgages. FTC v. GoLoansOnline.com. The FTC charged that the company advertised low interest fixed rate mortgages that were, in fact, adjustable rate mortgages.
•A court has granted summary judgment to a plaintiff who received a text after sending “STOP” to the defendant. Legg v. Voice Media Group. The court denied class certification but ruled that the defining characteristic of an ATDS is the capacity to dial numbers without human intervention.
•A Kansas court has ruled that “capacity” to act as an ATDS is an issue currently under consideration by the FCC and, therefore, stayed the case brought by a consumer against a debt collector alleging illegal calls to her cell phone. Higgenbothan v. Diversified Consultants, Inc.

Federal Communications Commission
Sprint has been fined $7.5 million for failure to honor internal “do-not-call” requests from consumers for phone and text message campaigns. The company already paid a $400,000 fine to the FCC in 2011.


Comment:  Telecom and other entities regulated by the FCC are usually subject to FCC enforcement while other companies are subject to FTC enforcement. Both regulators enforce the same national “do-not-call” list.

Federal Trade Commission
The FTC has entered a settlement with a debt collector and its principles resolving allegations of violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. FTC v. Asset & Capital Management Group, et al. The company will forfeit more than $4 million in assets to the Commission.

The FTC has obtained an order holding marketers of a $10,000 credit line in contempt of court and ordering them to pay $3.7 million in penalties. FTC v. EDebitPay, LLC, et al. The FTC had originally sued the company in California in 2007 and settled, requiring the defendants to clearly and conspicuously disclose fees for their services in future marketing.


Comment:  Any company that enters into a settlement with a regulator should carefully monitor compliance with its agreement as settlements often contain enhanced penalties for future noncompliance.

An online mortgage lead creator will pay a $225,000 civil penalty to the FTC settling charges that it deceived consumers regarding terms of mortgages. FTC v. GoLoansOnline.com. The FTC charged that the company advertised low interest fixed rate mortgages that were, in fact, adjustable rate mortgages.

The FTC has mailed more than 4,800 refund checks to customers of National Card Monitor, LLC, a telemarketer which represented that its services would lower consumers’ credit card interest rates for an advance fee. The defendants allegedly violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule by making deceptive claims regarding their services as well as charging advanced fees in violation of the rule.

A company that sent prerecorded telephone calls has entered into a settlement agreeing to permanently cease sending prerecorded calls. United States v. Sonkei Communications, Inc. The FTC had initially charged Sonkei and its owner of providing substantial assistance or support to telemarketers which sold credit card services and home security systems to consumers in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule and the national “do-not-call” registry. The FTC also alleged that the defendants sent false caller identification information. The settlement offer also imposed a $395,000 civil penalty.

California
A California court has ruled that California’s call monitoring statute, Cal. Pen. Code § 632.7, applies regardless of whether a call is confidential or not, i.e. that section requires consent before monitoring or recording of any telephone call to or from a cell phone in California. Lofton v. Verizon Wireless.

Connecticut
The Connecticut Senate is considering a bill which would require the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority to promulgate regulations concerning telemarketing of electric services to residential consumers.

Florida
A bill has been introduced in the Florida House (HB 7051) which would require that telemarketing bonds be payable to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for the use of injured consumers and would ban the use of “novelty payments” for goods or services sold through telemarketing. The term “novelty payments” includes remotely created checks, payment orders, cash-to-cash money transfers, or any other payment method that does not provide systematic monitoring to detect and deter fraud.

A court has granted summary judgment to a plaintiff who received a text after sending “STOP” to the defendant. Legg v. Voice Media Group. The court denied class certification but ruled that the defining characteristic of an ATDS is the capacity to dial numbers without human intervention.

Indiana
A resolution has been introduced in the Indiana Senate (SCR 16) which urges the Federal Communications Commission to make enforcement of the national “do-not-call” registry a priority.

Kansas
Kansas has amended its “do-not-call” law to require that companies honor internal “do-not-call” requests for a period of five years from the request. It also modified its established business relationship exemption to reduce that exemption to a purchase in the past 18 months (from 36 months).


Comment:  The Kansas established business relationship purchase exemption now matches the federal definition. Calls in response to an inquiry are still not included in the Kansas exemption.

A Kansas court has ruled that “capacity” to act as an ATDS is an issue currently under consideration by the FCC and, therefore, stayed the case brought by a consumer against a debt collector alleging illegal calls to her cell phone.Higgenbothan v. Diversified Consultants, Inc.

New York
A bill has been introduced in the New York Senate (SB 7288) which would ban “cramming,” i.e. the inclusion of unauthorized charges on a consumer’s telephone bill.

Washington
A Washington court has refused to stay the progress of a case filed by two consumers alleging that a debt collector called their cell phones illegally. Meyer v. Receivable Performance Management. The court ruled that it is “one thing to hope the FCC will issue new rules that favor debt collectors like RPM. It is another to hope the FCC will impose those rules retroactively.”

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