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
 

May 2019 - Call Compliance News

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) issued a notice of proposed rule-making with regard to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act which would limit debt collectors to no more than seven attempts by telephone per week to reach a consumer about a specific debt and require debt collectors to send consumers certain information about the debt including itemization and how to dispute the debt.  Comments are due 90 days after publication in the Federal Register which will happen in the coming weeks and can be submitted using Docket No. CFPB-2019-0022 at www.regulations.gov.

Comment: Please contact me if you would like assistance with filing comments. Frequency restrictions regarding how often a telemarketer or debt collector can contact a consumer are rare, but states and federal agencies are increasingly proposing them.

Federal Communications Commission

The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) has proposed a declaratory ruling which would allow phone companies to block “robocalls” to their customers without affirmative action on behalf of the customer. The agency calls this “blocking by default”. 

The declaratory ruling would be considered at the FCC’s meeting on June 6, 2019 and will allow telecom providers to offer call-blocking programs based on “reasonable analytics” designed to identify unwanted calls.

Comment: It will be difficult for the FCC to craft a rule that is not a violation of free speech rights, but the text of the declaratory ruling has not yet been released.

California

A California judge has stayed a “wrong number” Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) case brought against a health insurance company pending FCC rulings on the definition of “called party” and the safe harbor for reassigned numbers. Matlock v. United Healthcare Services.

A California court has ruled that a TCPA claim survives death of the plaintiff, i.e. even if a plaintiff dies, her lawsuit can continue (substituting an heir as the plaintiff). Eaton v. Midland Credit Management. Plaintiff’s attorney still has a duty to promptly notify the court and the other side of the death. 

Mississippi

Mississippi has enacted a bill (SB 2821), effective April 16, 2019, which adds text messages to the scope of communications regulated by the Mississippi Telephone Solicitation Act. It also adds solicitation of charitable donations to the definition of “telephone solicitation”. 

Comment: Calls by professional fundraisers soliciting donations to charities are now banned to numbers on the Mississippi no call list unless there is an exemption (like a past donation).

Illinois

An Illinois court has ruled that a TCPA plaintiff has a valid claim when a company sent more than six text messages per month to him when his consent form specifically limited the number of texts to six per month.  Hudson v. Ralph Lauren Corp. The court ruled, however, that the sender did not have to include opt-out instructions in each text as the plaintiff had claimed.

Comment: Consent is not “all or nothing”, and limitations imposed on that consent are valid. Courts have considered this question before when a cell phone number was obtained “for security purposes only”, then used for marketing purposes. Here, defendant’s own form limited texts to six per month and the court found it liable when it exceeded that number. It is very important to examine the circumstances under which express consent is obtained especially if those limitations are imposed by the person obtaining the consent. That entity has no excuse not to honor those conditions.

New Jersey

A judge has dismissed a case brought against a texting company but refused to allow plaintiff’s counsel to withdraw or dismiss defendant’s claim for sanctions against plaintiff who allegedly used Slack to generate texts to himself.  Gino D’Ottavio v. Slack Technologies.  Slack argued there was unrebutted evidence that plaintiff sent text messages to himself in order to fabricate TCPA claims. The judge allowed Slack’s counterclaims to proceed against the plaintiff and said he would consider sanctions after discovery was completed.

Ohio

An Ohio appellate court has affirmed an order disqualifying Bryan Anthony Reo from representing his father and spouse in a case alleging violations of the TCPA during a debt collection call. Reo v. University Hospitals Health Systems. The trial court ruled and the appellate court affirmed that attorney Bryan Reo was a witness in the matter and, therefore, could not act as counsel.

 

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