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

March 2015 - Call Compliance News


The FCC has issued a forfeiture order against an Alabama company in the amount of $342,000 for delivering 43 unsolicited prerecorded advertising messages to 33 consumers.  In the matter of: Security First of Alabama, LLC.  The forfeiture order follows a 2011 notice against the company.  The company did not respond to the first notice of apparent liability.

Comment: Ignoring correspondence from the FCC or other regulator is perhaps the worst choice when determining how to respond to such communications.

A bank has requested clarification from the FCC regarding prior express consent, specifically asking whether a person who advertises his or her telephone number has expressly consented to receive calls at that number.  Comments were due by March 15, 2015.  Petition of Citizens Bank, N.A., CG Docket No. 02-278 (filed January 16, 2015).

The FCC has now received 15 petitions seeking waiver of the fax disclosure rules required by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”).  Several companies omitted the fax disclosures on expressly requested faxes, and were then sued by the recipients of such faxes.  The FCC granted these companies relief if they seek a waiver of the disclosure requirement.

The FCC has issued a forfeiture against American West Advertising, LLC for sending four unsolicited prerecorded advertising messages to consumers.  The FCC assessed a penalty at $18,000 for the four calls.


The FTC has fined seven companies $1.2 million for “cramming” violations.  The companies admitted to billing consumers for services without their proper authorization.  They will pay a penalty and must adopt the client’s plans designed to prevent future violations.  One company, Back Office Support Systems, Inc., manages many activities for each of the long-distance company defendants.

The FTC has filed an action against a company which allegedly offered debt relief services but provided no actual services to those consumers.  FTC v. Payday Support Center, LLC.  The FTC alleged that telemarketing calls associated with the program implied a relationship between the caller and the consumer that did not exist.

The FTC has charged Direct TV with misleading customers about costs of satellite television contracts and cancellation fees.  The FTC’s complaint alleges that telephonic sales presentations did not include disclosures regarding the monthly costs of subscriptions to consumers.

Comment: The Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”) requires that sellers clearly and conspicuously disclose all material terms of the transaction before obtaining billing information.

The FTC has also announced a new contest to solicit solutions to illegal prerecorded telephone calls.


The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has appealed to the United States Supreme Court regarding the issue of whether making a full settlement offer to an individual plaintiff makes a class action brought under the TCPA moot.  In the case, Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald, the U.S. Navy sent a recruiting text and a recipient filed a putative class action against the sender of the text. 


A purported class action has been filed against Wal-Mart Stores alleging violations to the TCPA.  Dubanoski v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.  The plaintiff alleges he received calls regarding a Wal-Mart credit card he never had. 

Comment: It is very important that your database of telephone numbers be current because someone who has expressly consented to receive calls at a given number, but then loses control of that number, cannot provide express consent for the later owner of the number.


A federal judge has approved a payment of more than $15 million in plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees in a class action settlement brought against Capital One alleging violations of the TCPA during debt collection calls to consumers’ cell phones.


A bill has been proposed in the Pennsylvania Senate (SB 387) which would establish a state “do-not-call” list for political prerecorded calls.  The bill would create a separate no-call list from the commercial list already in use.


A court has granted a stay in a TCPA case against a debt collector based on the FCC’s potential efforts to give clarity to TCPA issues.  The case Gensel v. Performant Technologies involved a consumer who received debt collection calls for a previous subscriber of the telephone number.

Comment: The ACA has asked the FCC for clarification regarding four issues: 1) “Confirm that not all predictive dialers are categorically automatic telephone dialing systems (‘ATDS’ or ‘autodialers’); 2) Confirm that ‘capacity’ under the TCPA means present ability [to store, produce or dial phone numbers]; 3) Clarify that prior express consent attaches to the person incurring a debt, and not the specific telephone number provided by the debtor at the time a debt was incurred; and 4) Establish a safe harbor for autodialed ‘wrong number’ non-telemarketing calls to wireless numbers.”

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