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
DO NOT CALL STATE & FEDERAL REGULATORY NEWS

This newsletter (or material) is prepared by Copilevitz and Canter, LLC, (816) 472-9000, http://copilevitz-canter.com/, braney@cckc-law.com. Copilevitz and Canter, LLC, does not provide legal services to Do Not Call Compliance or donotcallcompliance.com and does not endorse our website or services. This information is not to be used as a substitute for legal counsel.
 
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
 

September 2015 - Call Compliance News

FCC

The FCC has issued a declaratory ruling concluding that “e-faxes” are subject to the TCPA and the Commission’s related rules.  Declaratory Ruling August 28, 2015 CG Docket No. 02-278.  The Commission also declined to provide “safe harbor” language for fax opt-out notices.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is considering another lawsuit which could potentially prevent persons from bringing class actions who had no injury at all.  Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo.  It is unclear whether this case, involving wage and hour claims, could be applicable to TCPA class actions which involve statutory damages.

Comment: With this case and the Spokeo case already discussed in this newsletter, it seems clear that the Supreme Court is considering action against class actions, even if the FCC and Congress are not.

The Spokeo case has been set for oral argument on Monday, November 2, 2015.  This case will resolve whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to create causes of action where no actual injury occurs.  If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Spokeo, TCPA class actions and other actions involving massive penalties would not be permitted unless consumers were actually injured by the defendants’ actions.

Colorado

The state of Colorado has created a “telemarketing registration claim of exemption form” joining several other states which purport to require exempt entities file a form with the state pursuant to a statute underlined which exempts them.

Comment: I often ask if my desk, child, or dog need to file these exemption forms in these states.  How could a regulator require anything from an exempt entity (or dog)?

Florida

Florida has passed a rule allowing for licensed commercial telephone sellers to hire sales people who do not have a current commercial telephone sales person license.  The seller is to obtain interim operating authority for each unlicensed sales person using this form.  See https://www.flrules.org/gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-03520.

The Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services has proposed a regulation which would add a definition to the term “in response to an express request” for purposes of exemption to the state no-call law.  Proposed rule 5J-5.001.  The definition would require a signature similar to that required by federal law.  Prior existing business relationship would also be fine using the same definition as federal law.

Illinois

An Illinois court has rejected a proposed class action which would have paid class members zero dollars, the named plaintiff $1,500, and the class action attorneys $98,500.  The size of the class was about 180.  Grok Lines, Inc. v. Paschall Truck Lines, Inc.

Comment: I think it is clear from the fee described above who the real plaintiff is in these types of actions.

Michigan

A federal judge has ruled that a business selling magazines on behalf of a charity did not violate the national “do-not-call” list because the FCC’s regulations exempt sales calls “on behalf of” charities.  Wengle v. DialAmerica Marketing, Inc.

Missouri

A judge has trimmed the plaintiff’s attorney’s fee award in a class action settlement brought against Anthem Blue Cross.  Anthem denied wrongdoing for more than 830,000 calls to cell phone numbers.  The fee request was nearly 44 percent of the settlement fund, but the judge found this amount unreasonable.  Lees v. Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc.

Comment: The plaintiff’s attorney Alexander Burke is well known in the field of TCPA class actions.

North Carolina

A federal judge has dismissed a claim brought against a cable company which called the number associated with a customer, which had been reassigned to the plaintiff.  Danehy v. Time Warner Cable Enterprise, LLC.  The judge found Time Warner was protected by good faith defense that the number was held by a previous subscriber who had expressly consented to calls at that number.

Comment: This decision seems contrary to the FCC’s July 10, 2015 Ruling that callers have one (and only one) call to reassigned numbers before knowledge of the reassignment is inferred, even if the new subscriber does not answer the call.  However, these calls were placed in November 2013.

A North Carolina court has ruled that a person who has received telephone calls has suffered damages such that that person has standing to bring a suit under the TCPA.  Wallace v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC.

Comment: The Supreme Court is currently considering whether a nuisance level amount of damages such as the loss of cell phone time constitutes enough damage to bring a federal case consistent with Article III of the Constitution.

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 Compliance.com 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 2003-2021 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