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
 

December 2016 - Call Compliance News

Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

On November 18, the FCC issued an advisory opinion stating that autodialed text messages are subject to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).  See https://www.fcc.gov/document/enforcement-bureau-issues-robotext-advisory.  The advisory states that messages including texts delivered through an automatic telephone dialing systems (ATDS) are subject to the TCPA.  The FCC reaffirmed its ruling that a sender of a text to a number that has been reassigned is protected only for the first text, and subsequent texts to the new subscriber (who presumably did not provide consent) are illegal “regardless of whether or when they learn of the reassignment.”

Comment: As we have stated before, the “safe harbor” for reassigned numbers is illusory as it only applies to the first communication to the reassigned number and knowledge of reassignment is thereafter imputed to the sender regardless of actual knowledge.

The FCC has denied a request by the Mortgage Bankers’ Association (MBA) to exempt mortgage servicing calls from the prior express consent restrictions in the TCPA.  See http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db1115/DA-16-1277A1.pdf.  It claimed that the MBA could not demonstrate the calls would be free to the end user and that the benefits to consumers outlined by the MBA did not outweigh the impact on residential privacy an exemption would cause. 

Comment: The FCC has issued numerous other exemptions to this ban, and I am surprised it did not grant this request.

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

A Florida company and its individual owners agreed to a ban from telemarketing and selling debt release services in a settlement with the FTC and the state of Florida.  FTC v. E.M. Systems & Services, LLC., No. 15-CV-01417 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 14, 2016).  The FTC also obtained forfeited assets of more than $1.8 million.

The FTC has reached a settlement in a claim against a lead generator alleging violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR).  USA v. Consumer Education Info, Inc., et al., No. 16-CV-02692 (D. Co. Dec. 2, 2016).  The complaint alleges Consumer Education called consumers whose names were on the federal “do-not-call” list and that the “opt-in” forms used to create leads did not identify the names of entities which would be calling those consumers.  Thus, these opt-ins were not effective “prior express consent” as that term is defined in the TSR.

Arizona

An Arizona auto glass company has been banned from making telemarketing calls for six years to persons in Arizona on the federal “do-not-call” list.  The company also agreed to pay $50,000 in civil penalties to the attorney general. 

Comment: The attorney general of Arizona has not been particularly active with regard to enforcement of the federal “do-not-call” list although all states’ attorneys general can enforce the federal list.

California

A California court has enforced an arbitration clause in a DirecTV contract as part of a TCPA case brought by a California consumer.  Tuck v. DirecTV, No. 16-CV-00160, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158034 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2016).

A California court stayed a TCPA case brought against a bank based on similar lawsuits against the FCC regarding its definition of an ATDS.  Clayton v. Synchrony Bank, No. 16-CV-01241, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154420 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2016).

Florida

A Florida court has refused to dismiss a purported class action against a debt collector attempting to reach a debtor who instead called the plaintiff.  Tillman v. Ally Fin. Inc., No. 16-CV-00313, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164997 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2016).  Plaintiff alleged he made a “do-not-call” request on at least one occasion but received more than 22 calls after the request for a period of three months.  The defendant argued that he was not injured “in fact” but the court disagreed ruling these calls were “precisely the kinds upon the TCPA aims to prevent.”

Comment: The company specific “do-not-call” request is very relevant here, and this case does not detract from other cases making the argument that there is no injury “in fact” when plaintiffs “set up” calls by opting-in or otherwise taking action to generate “illegal” calls.  This plaintiff did not do that, and the court therefore ruled he did suffer “injury in fact.”

Kentucky

A bill has been introduced in the Kentucky legislature (Bill of Requests 256) which would prohibit the sale of consumers’ wireless phone numbers (in directories or as leads) without prior express written consent from the subscriber. 

Montana

A bill has been introduced in the Montana legislature (LC 334) which would exempt calls related to a political campaign from the state’s prerecorded call restrictions. 

New Jersey

A New Jersey federal court has dismissed a case brought by an individual against a debt collector who made 18 attempts to contact the plaintiff, 17 of which were unanswered.  Plaintiff claimed to have received many more calls but had no records to prove this.  Chisholm v. AFNI, Inc., Civil Action No. 15-3625(JBS/JS), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162303 (D.N.J. Nov. 22, 2016).  The Court ruled that the plaintiff had knowingly provided his telephone number to DirecTV and therefor expressly consented to the debt collection calls based on that account.

New York

New York has passed a law which requires telemarketers to transmit caller identification information.  The law goes into effect immediately. 

Comment: This law duplicates federal caller ID transmission rules.

Pennsylvania

A bill has been introduced in the Pennsylvania House (HB 2434) which would create a “do-not-call list” for persons who do not wish to receive prerecorded political calls.  The law would not apply to live voice calls or to prerecorded calls during the five calendar days preceding an election.

A bill has been introduced in the Pennsylvania Senate (SB 1406) which would allow businesses to add their telephone numbers to the state no-call list.

Comment: The federal “do-not-call” list was ruled to be constitutional by an appellate court because it was designed to protect the privacy of individuals.  Many courts have found that businesses do not have those same privacy interests, and this bill would likely be found unconstitutional if passed.

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