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

April 2015 - Call Compliance News


The FCC has requested comments regarding a petition for declaratory ruling filed by Blackboard, Inc., a company which sent out educational texts related to educational organizations.  Blackboard requested a declaration that all education-related texts are for “emergency purposes,” or that messages sent to wireless numbers were sent with prior express consent even if the wireless number was no longer controlled by the consumer who provided it.  Comments are due April 22, 2015.

The FCC has sought comment regarding a petition filed by a ski resort requesting that prior express consent provided before October 16, 2013, is not invalidated by later changes in the rules effective on that date.  CG Docket No. 02-278. 

The FCC has designated Telcordia Technologies, Inc. as the next administrator of the ported numbers database.  Telcordia replaces Neustar as the administrator of the database.  This announcement authorizes contract negotiations between an industry consortium and Telcordia to administer this database.

The FCC has announced that nine entities have sought a waiver of the commission’s fax rule for opt-out disclosures.  As of March, only three petitions had been filed.  The deadline for these petitions has been set by the FCC as April 30, 2014. 

Comment: The deadline to request a waiver for the fax disclosure provisions is fast approaching.  The FCC gave this protection to businesses that, in my opinion, were “set up” by class action plaintiffs who requested a fax, then sued when the fax did not contain opt-out disclosures (for a fax they specifically requested.)  If you sent out commercial faxes any time in the past four years you should review whether they contain these disclosures, and, if not, request a waiver.

The FCC has fined AT&T $25 million based on a data breach of consumers’ social security numbers and other account information.  The breaches occurred in call centers in Mexico, Colombia, and the Philippines.


The FTC and 10 state attorneys general have settled complaints with a cruise company which allegedly used sham prerecorded survey calls to sell cruise trips.  FTC v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc.

Comment: An “informational” or “survey” call is neither if the results of such interaction will be used for a later sales attempt.  You cannot cloak a sales call in the guise of a survey and avoid FTC or other restrictions.

A Utah-based debt and mortgage relief company has entered settlement barring them from marketing debt relief services in the future.  FTC v. Philip Danielson, et al.  The defendants allegedly told consumers they could obtain relief from mortgage payments.  The defendants charged between $500 and $3,900 for these services.


A California court has denied a motion to dismiss a purported class action brought against a sender of text messages.  Haghayeghi v. Guess ?, Inc.  Plaintiff alleged she received unsolicited text messages on her cell phone.  The judge ruled that, on the face of the complaint, the plaintiff had stated a claim that she did not consent to texts to her cell number.


Walgreens has settled a TCPA class action for $11 million resolving allegations it called consumers’ cell phones with prerecorded prescription reminder calls without their prior express consent.  Kolinek v. Walgreen Co.

Comment: The plaintiff had provided Walgreens his telephone number but only after being requested to give it “for identification purposes only.”  The FCC has ruled that a consumer who provides his telephone number to a business expressly consents to calls to that number, absent instructions to the contrary.  Although this rule has since been changed for marketing calls, now requiring express written signed consent, the plaintiff argued that the request for his number constituted “instructions to the contrary” because it was limited to identification purposes.  Walgreens then settled the case after losing the argument that prescription reminder calls were for emergency purposes.


A Washington court has certified a class of persons who allegedly received prerecorded calls in violation of the TCPA.  Booth v. Appstack, Inc.  The defendant sold a mobile marketing solution to small businesses and created advertising campaigns to drive traffic to their website.

Comment: The defendant bought leads and sent prerecorded messages.  The messages further did not disclose legal name for caller or telephone number.  In March 2013, when the calls were sent, it was clear that this course of action was a recipe for disaster.


A Wisconsin judge has denied a request for a stay of a TCPA case.  The defendants had asked the Court to delay the trial based on potential FCC action with regard to calls to reassigned telephone numbers.  Helwig v. Diversified Consultants, Inc.  The Court noted that it was not clear when or whether the commission would ever make a decision on this topic.

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