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 2016 - Call Compliance News


The FCC has announced a task force between the agency and several communications companies including Google, AT&T, and others designed to seek a technological cure for illegal prerecorded telephone calls.  The task force likely will attempt to collaborate between carriers and the agency to offer commercial blocking services to consumers.


A California court has ruled that a settlement payment to a mutual plaintiff did not make the matter moot for purposes of class action determination.  Edwards v. Oportun, Inc.

Comment: The Supreme Court left the issue open of whether actual delivery of the funds, rather than just an offer, would make the matter moot for class action purposes.  This judge rejected that argument.  The Court also denied defendant’s motion to stay, i.e. delay the case, based on the challenge to the FCC’s regulations currently ongoing in the District of Columbia.

A California court has ruled that Twitter could be liable for texts sent to persons who obtained a number previously used by a different Twitter subscriber.  Nunes v. Twitter, Inc.  The Court ruled that Twitter “made” the texts as defined in the TCPA.

Comment: The judge ruled that Twitter should ask Congress to amend the statute to protect it from liability for calls to reassigned numbers, but that the TCPA provides for that liability.  This case could result in a huge settlement.

A California court has ordered that a purported TCPA class action plaintiff is not entitled to all call logs of a defendant.  Davis v. AT&T Services, Inc.  The Court ruled that pre-class certification discovery should be limited to certification issues, i.e. whether or not the case is appropriate for a class action.  Broad fishing requests like all numbers called are not relevant to that determination especially if the numbers called do not match the class definition proposed by the plaintiffs.

Comment: Discovery in TCPA class actions is an often-abused tool of plaintiffs who ask for burdensome, irrelevant, and abusive items.  This order gives good language for other defendants seeking limitation on such requests.

District of Columbia

A federal judge has ruled that a data breach alone, without resulting harm to consumers, does not result in a legally actionable case.  Attias v. CareFirst, Inc.  The Court ruled that absent evidence that stolen data has been or will be used, individuals do not have standing to sue for breach.

Comment: Whether a person can sue for a “naked” statutory violation, with no actual damages, is an important issue with regard to the TCPA. I have seen many suits recently by plaintiffs suing because a disclosure was not perfect (e.g. missing one element), but with no actual damages caused by the “violation.”  This data case is an example of courts ruling that “naked” violations of other statutes are not actionable.


An Illinois judge has dismissed a TCPA lawsuit against a debt collector when the recipient for the calls created a “honey pot” of numbers designed to be called in violation of the TCPA.  Tel. Sci. Corp. v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC.  The complaint alleged that the numbers received more than 12,000 recorded calls from the defendant.  While the Court determined the “honey pot” did not create the illegal calls, it ruled that TSC’s “damages” were not within the “protected zone of interest” created by the TCPA because TSC was not an injured consumer.  It could not allege privacy invasion, nuisance, or inconvenience because it subscribed to the numbers solely to receive illegal calls.


A judge has denied a motion for summary judgment brought by a defendant in a TCPA class action.  Margolis v. Surrey Vacation Resorts, Inc.  The plaintiff alleged he received calls on his cell phone concerning vacation options in Branson, Missouri.  The defendant argued that the number had been transferred from a previous subscriber to the number and that he used a pseudonym “George Larson” to complete online surveys. 

Comment: The plaintiff Max Margolis is a well-known TCPA plaintiff’s attorney and plaintiff.  Although the Court found the individual claim could survive, it found that the online survey and other factual issues “raised serious questions regarding the named plaintiff’s ability to serve as class representative.”

New Jersey

A New Jersey court has ruled that an individual suit against DirecTV could continue despite a similar class action in the state of California.  Swetra v. DirecTV.  The plaintiff alleged he received collection calls on his cellular telephone number for an unrelated account.


A Pennsylvania court has denied standing to a plaintiff who purchased more than 35 cell phones for the sole purpose of generating lawsuits under the TCPA.  Stoops v. Wells Fargo Bank.  She also registered the phones in areas where she did not live.

Comment: The Court found and confirmed that the plaintiff lacked “prudential standing” because she intentionally encouraged “violations” of the statute.


The federal government has claimed civil penalties in the amount of $487,000 against a company which had been found to violate the TCPA millions of times.  The original ruling caused a speculation that the company could be subject to billions of dollars of damages.  U.S. v. Corporations for Character, LLC et al.

Comment: Plaintiffs in TCPA class actions often argue for catastrophic levels of damages based on $500 (or $1,500 for knowing or willful violations) per phone call which quickly amount to millions of dollars for any sizeable campaign.  Absent a default, or actual fraud, courts have not awarded these sorts of catastrophic damages, and the government’s claim for a much smaller amount, i.e. less than a million dollars, shows that the government itself does not think such catastrophic damages are warranted or perhaps obtainable.

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