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 2015 - Call Compliance News

Court of Appeals

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for “pocket-dialed calls”, a.k.a. “butt dials”.  Huff v. Spaw.  Huff inadvertently called Spaw while on a business trip to Italy.  Spaw stayed on the line for 91 minutes and listened to a conversation between Huff and a work colleague.  She transcribed and recorded the conversation.

Comment: The Court ruled that the conversation did not violate the wiretap “call monitoring” statute because Huff had no reasonable expectation of privacy on the call.  The Court ruled that exposure of a conversation, if public, need not be deliberate and instead could be a product of neglect.


The FCC has alleged that LifeLock failed to abide by a 2010 agreed upon settlement by continuing to make deceptive claims about identity theft protection services and failing to take steps to protect its users’ data.  At the time, LifeLock paid $12 million in consumer refunds.  The FTC now alleges the company failed to establish a comprehensive security program to protect its users’ data, falsely advertised claims regarding its protections, and failed to meet the 2010 settlement’s recordkeeping requirement.

 Supreme Court

The Supreme Court oral argument for the Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez case has been scheduled for October 14, 2015, and will decide whether a defendant can settle, involuntarily, with an individual plaintiff to defeat a class action.

Comment: The argument is that the named plaintiff no longer has a claim and thus cannot represent the class if a defendant offers that plaintiff full satisfaction of his or her claims.


Gallup, a polling firm, has entered a $12 million settlement in a TCPA class action.  While Gallup did not place the alleged calls through a predictive dialer, the plaintiff argued Gallup’s dialer had the “capacity” to make the predictively-dialed calls.

 U.S. Congress

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler testified before the House Energy and Commerce Panel last week regarding the effects of his new TCPA ruling on political telephone town halls, a means of communication beloved by most members of Congress.  “Wheeler was unapologetic at the hearing” claiming that telephone town halls may be banned under the new restriction. 

 A report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated that 41 percent of American households did not have landlines in 2013 and Americans are dropping their landlines at the rate of 3 to 5 percent per year, which the CDC believes is a legitimate public health concern with regard to bans on calls to cell phones without prior express consent.

Comment: This may be the time that Congress changes the TCPA, so now is the time to contact your legislator regarding how the FCC’s nonsensical rule change does not benefit consumers, hurts legitimate businesses, and affects employment in many members’ districts.


A strip club which sends promotional text messages to its customers has beaten a TCPA claim against it because the Court ruled that human intervention was required to send the messages, including manually typing the number or uploading a list of numbers to a website, typing the messages’ content, and clicking send to deliver the messages in real time or at some future date.  Luna v. SHAC, LLC.

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