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

May 2015 - Call Compliance News


The FCC has sought public comment with regard to a request from a telecom company to clarify that the TCPA does not apply to messages it sends to its customers about the status of their accounts.  (In the matter of: Global Tel*Link, CG Docket No. 02-278).  See Public Notice (released April 21, 2015), FCC, 

The company uses an IVR system to initiate collect calls between inmates and persons they are attempting to call. 

If the FCC adopts this exemption, it would be one more “content-based” exemption to the TCPA ban on ATDS or prerecorded calls to cell phones made without prior express consent.

Comment: It is my belief that these content-based exceptions make the entire section unconstitutional.  Comments were due May 21, 2015, and reply comments are due by June 6, 2015.  Please contact me if you are interested in preparing comments or would like to discuss further. 

The FCC has issued a citation to a political prerecorded company alleging violations of the TCPA for prerecorded calls to cell phones placed without express consent.  In re:  The commission called 10 of the cell phone numbers provided by and asked the person who answered the number if he or she provided express consent for the calls.  None of them said they had provided consent.

On May 4, the FCC issued several citations for calls to cell phones in violation of the TCPA.  These companies should immediately confer with counsel as class action plaintiffs may file “copycat” suits in response to the citations.

Verizon and Sprint have agreed to pay $158 million to settle investigations of “cramming” involving those companies billing customers for unauthorized services provided by third-party text messaging services.  The charges on consumers’ bills ranged from 99 cents to $14 per month.  Verizon and Sprint retained 30 percent or more of these fees.

The FCC has announced that as of May 8, 2015, 61 petitions have been filed seeking a waiver of certain fax disclosure requirements the agency admittedly imposed in an unclear fashion on businesses sending faxes to consumers.  See Public Notice (released May 8, 2015), FCC,  Comments on the petitions were due by May 22, 2015, and reply comments are due by May 29, 2015.

The FCC has moved to dismiss a petition for review filed by Neustar, the company which was formerly the administrator of the cellular portability database.  Previously, the advisory committee had recommended that Telcordia become the new list administrator replacing Neustar.  The company’s stock had plummeted upon news of losing the FCC’s contract.


A district court granted the FTC an order against Instant Response Systems, barring the individual and his company from calling elderly consumers in attempting to solicit payment for unordered medical alert devices.  The company allegedly shipped fake invoices and unordered medical alert pendants to consumers then called attempting to coerce payment.  The Court ordered a judgment in the amount of $3.4 million against the defendants.


Alaska is one of several states which publish a list of companies which are registered as telemarketers in the state.  As of April 27, 2015, Alaska had registered only five companies pursuant to its statute.


A California court has refused to dismiss a case brought by a consumer who ported a landline number to a cell phone, then sued a debt collector who called attempting to collect a debt.  Calls to cell numbers are permitted only with prior express consent if an ATDS is used, and the plaintiff alleged he never provided such consent.  Horowitz v. GC Services Limited.

A court in California has dismissed a TCPA case brought against a texting company because the plaintiff failed to allege the text was sent “without human intervention.”  McKenna v. WhisperText.  Whisper’s application allowed users to text their contacts.  The Court ruled that the plaintiff did not plead the application had the capacity to store or produce numbers without human intervention.


A Florida court has issued a stay in a case involving a purported class action for a failure to include proper disclosures.  Bondhus v. Henry Schein, Inc.  The defendant moved for a waiver of the opt-out provisions as provided by the FCC.  The defendant requested a stay in the case pending the FCC’s ruling on the petition for waiver.

Comment:  More than 12 entities have filed a request for waiver, most of which are likely defendants in class action cases.  The plaintiffs will likely object to their suits being made moot and dismissed by FCC waivers so expect them to fight the waiver process every step of the way.


A judge in federal court in the Eastern District of Missouri has ruled that a TCPA class action should be stayed pending FCC rulings on petitions before it concerning what constitutes an ATDS.  Hofer v. Synchony Bank.  The bank had called Hofer regarding a credit card debt purportedly owed by his deceased father.  The judge held that “Synchrony has not provided any reason to believe that a decision by the FCC on this issue is forthcoming.”

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 2003-2024 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