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

August/September, 2014 - Call Compliance News


A group of 15 members of the House of Representatives has written to the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission requesting reform of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the potentially catastrophic class action damages available for violations which cause no consumer harm.  The group requests that the FCC modernize the TCPA rules given that 96 percent of adults are mobile subscribers and 54 percent of households are either entirely or mostly wireless subscribers.


The FTC has filed a motion seeking protective order, closing an entity which allegedly sold fraudulent debt relief and credit repair services to consumers.  The court issued a temporary restraining order on August 21, 2014, closing the doors on “American Bill Pay Organization.”

Comment: A temporary restraining order is the legal equivalent of kicking the doors down on a business.  Usually the FTC only does this in cases of fraud.

The FTC has announced updated fees beginning October 1, 2014, for access to the national “do-not-call” registry.  Companies will now pay $60 per area code (an increase of $1) up to a maximum charge of $16,482 for all area codes (an increase of $260 from the previous maximum).

The FTC has announced prize winners for its “Zapping Rachel” contest designed to combat illegal prerecorded telephone calls.

Comment: It remains to be seen whether the FTC will do anything to combat illegal spoofing in prerecorded calls other than burdening legitimate companies with additional regulations.


A California court has denied a motion to dismiss a class action brought by an individual against a cruise line.  Lively v. Caribbean Cruise Line.  The plaintiff alleged that she was called on her cell phone using an automatic telephone dialing system.  At least five other reported class actions have been filed against the defendant but the court denied a motion to stay the case based on those other class actions.

A class action settlement has been approved by a court in a case against Bank of America.  Rose v. Bank of America Corporation, et al.  Plaintiffs alleged that they were called on their cell phones using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or artificial prerecorded voice for debt collection purposes.  The settlement involves a payment of $32 million by the bank.  The court ruled, however, that class counsel included an unreasonable number of hours in their claim for attorney’s fees.

A California court dismissed a TCPA case against a defendant that had no offices or staff in California.  Freeman v. Specialty Retailers, Inc.  A TCPA defendant should look at jurisdictional issues to determine if the plaintiff has filed in the correct court in addition to disputing matters on their merits.


A district judge has refused to grant a motion to dismiss to a business which allegedly placed illegal calls to a consumer’s cell phone for debt collection purposes. Espejo v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc.  Santander argued that the case should be stayed based on the FCC’s consideration of the definition of automatic telephone dialing system.  The court denied the claim because the case had been ongoing for more than three years and no FCC action was immediately forthcoming.


Kansas Attorney General, Derek Schmidt, has sued a Utah Medical Devise Provider for violation of the Kansas Do-Not-Call Act.  The calls claimed that the consumer would be eligible to receive a medical alert device but was actually a sales call allegedly in violation of Kansas’ Do-Not-Call Act.


A Michigan court has held that an offer of judgment made by a defendant in a TCPA case made plaintiff’s case moot and dismissed the action.  APB Associates v. Bronco Saloon Inc.


Missouri’s Attorney General urged the FCC to allow phone companies to use call blocking technologies to block sales calls at customer’s request.  Thirty-seven other state Attorneys General signed the letter to the FCC.

The Missouri Attorney General reached settlements with two residential alarm companies settling alleged violations of Missouri’s “do-not-call” law.

Comment: Missouri still maintains its own list and its established business relationship exemption is shorter than the federal period.  You should be careful regarding compliance with state law especially when it differs from federal restrictions.

New Jersey

A New Jersey court has denied the motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging violations of the TCPA.  Dobkin v. Enterprise Financial Group, Inc.  The company offered extended auto warranties and allegedly did not honor a company-specific “do-not-call” request made by the plaintiff.


An Ohio court has ruled that a debtor who provided his cell phone to a creditor on numerous loan applications expressly consented to be called at that number.  Hill v. Homeward Residential.  The court, however, agreed with the plaintiff that he may not have consented at the time defendant obtained his cell phone from other sources.

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