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

February 2019 - Call Compliance News


More courts are enforcing arbitration provisions to defeat purported Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) class actions.  In re: Midland Credit Management, Inc. (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2019); Petrie v. Gosmith, Inc. (D. Colo. Jan. 31, 2019).

Comment: For the arbitration clauses to apply, the calls or texts must be related to the topic of the agreement, and not some unrelated goods or services.

TCPA Filings in 2018

Some surprising news, TCPA filings have decreased in the past two years from the peak of 4,639 lawsuits in 2016 to 4,380 in 2017, and 3,803 in 2018.  The ACA International reports these numbers.

Comment: It may be that businesses submit to more rigorous compliance measures and plaintiffs’ attorneys have already picked “low hanging fruit”.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied a request for a full re-hearing of its order in Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC v. RingCentral, Inc.  The appellate court had previously ruled that a cover sheet that included a one-line statement “send and receive with RingCentral” was not an advertisement such that the entire fax would be converted into an unsolicited advertisement under the TCPA.  An earlier appellate ruling had upheld a trial court decision that any damage caused by the above statement was minimal and did not give the recipient constitutional standing to sue under the TCPA.

A hearing will be held March 11 in California before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Gallion v. Charter Communications.  In that case, Charter Communications claimed that the TCPA cell phone call ban is unconstitutional because of its exemptions for other types of speech, including government debt collection.  Charter Communications lost, but is appealing the matter and will have oral argument in March.

Comment: This case presents similar issues to the challenge brought by this firm on behalf of American Association of Political Consultants in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals which we already argued in December 2018.

U.S. Supreme Court

As you probably know, the Supreme Court is considering whether courts are required to defer to the Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC”) interpretation of TCPA provisions and will soon hear oral argument in PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., a fax case.  In that case, the appellate court held it had to follow the FCC’s interpretation of whether a fax was an unsolicited advertisement or not, even if the fax message offered free goods or services.  The briefs filed so far have supported PDR Network’s argument that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled incorrectly, and it was not required to follow the FCC’s interpretation.

Comment: The plaintiff, represented by prolific TCPA fax class action attorneys Anderson + Wanca argue contrary, i.e. a fax offering free goods or services can still be an advertisement.


A California court has ruled that a text confirming a hotel reservation and encouraging the recipient to download a travel management app was not telemarketing or advertising and did not require prior express written signed consent.  Phan v. Agoda.  Plaintiff had provided her telephone number to defendant four times but sued claiming the reservation confirmation texts were advertising.  The court disagreed.

Comment: It is important that your “transactional” messages avoid advertising content, but the name of your company, a url, or an app alone likely are not advertising even though such information could lead the consumer to future advertising content.

A California judge has ruled that a plaintiff has to clearly describe what role each defendant has in launching allegedly illegal calls.  Ewing v. Encor Solar, LLC, et al.

Comment: This case will support dismissal of some defendants whose role in calls does not include direct control or authorization to make calls.


In a text class action against Planet Fitness, judges ruled that an arbitration clause in the plaintiff’s gym membership agreement did not require arbitration for his subsequent TCPA claim.  Ramos v. PF Homestead, LLC.  A judge ruled the arbitration clause in the agreement did not contemplate TCPA claims and thus was inapplicable.

Comment: Arbitration clause are effective but must be drafted carefully to protect both sides.

New Jersey

The New Jersey Senate is considering a bill (SB 3032) which already passed the House and is being considered in the current 2019 session by the Senate Economic Growth Committee.  The bill would require oral disclosure within the first 30 seconds of the call with the name, mailing address, and telephone number of the person on whose behalf the call is being made.

New Mexico

A well-known plaintiff has lost a case against an individual who argued that he never made nor employed anyone to make outbound telemarketing calls on his behalf, yet the plaintiff still sued.  Childress v. Deering.  Childress submitted various records purporting to link Deering to a business which made the calls, but the court disagreed.

Comment: I have recently had several clients deal with allegations of liability for calls which they did not place.  This case shows that defendants have more options than simply paying off these nuisance allegations.

New York

A New York court has held that a recruitment fax was actually an unsolicited advertisement offering services to the recipient and refused to dismiss the recipient’s TCPA claim.  Lackawanna Chiropractic, P.C. v. Trivity Health Support, LLC.

Comment: While job offers and recruitment offers are not unsolicited advertisements, they need to be legitimate and not subterfuge.  The same rules apply to polls or surveys which are exempt unless they are advertisements in the guise of a poll.


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