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.
 
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
 

January 2022 - Call Compliance News

 

Federal Trade Commission

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has increased the maximum penalty allowed for violations of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”) from $43,792 to $46,517. See https://www.federalregister.gov
 /documents/2022/01/10/2022-00213/adjustments-to-civil-penalty-amounts.

Comment: The FTC will often argue that a single call could be a violation, thus maximum civil penalties under the TSR can be catastrophic for almost any size telephone campaign. However, these maximum penalties are rarely, if ever, imposed absent egregious fraud and the maximum” penalty often demanded by the FTC is merely a negotiating tool. Still, compliance with the TSR is of tantamount importance.

Minnesota

A Minnesota court has issued summary judgment in favor of the Defendant in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) case, holding that the entity Plaintiff sued was not responsible for the calls he received. Zean v. SelectQuote Insurance Services. SelectQuote claimed it never placed or caused a call to be placed to Plaintiff, left a message on his voicemail, or otherwise contacted him in any way. Zean could not link SelectQuote to the calls, which were answered by Efinancial when he returned them. The court concluded “Zean’s summary judgment argument is based on his vehement belief that SelectQuote is responsible for the telemarketing calls he received. However passionate his belief, it is fully contradicted by the record.”

Comment: SelectQuote should be applauded for defending this case, as it surely cost more to defend that it would have been to settle with Zean for some nuisance value.

Oklahoma

A bill been proposed in the Oklahoma House (HB 3168), which would create a new section known as the “Telephone Solicitation Act of 2022.” The bill would bar the use of an automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers. The bill would also bar playing any prerecorded messages without prior express consent. The bill also proposes a curfew of 8 a.m. through 8 p.m. and would prohibit more than three telephone calls from any number to any person within a 24-hour period regardless of subject.

Comment: This bill has some provisions of the Florida “mini” TCPA, but also adds additional restrictions.

Tennessee

A Tennessee court has denied cross-motions for summary judgment in a TCPA case involving calls from a debt collector. Stewart v. Health Care Revenue Recovery Group, LLC. The case involved allegations of violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), as well as the TCPA. Plaintiff alleged 62 violations of the TCPA for prerecorded voicemail messages. The Defendant argued it did not use an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”), and the court properly ruled that this argument was irrelevant as the TCPA bans the use of prerecorded voice or ATDS calls absent prior express consent.

Comment: This is not a total loss for the Defendant, which the court allowed to argue that the calls were made with Plaintiff’s prior express consent.

Utah

A bill has been proposed in the Utah House (HB 217), which would ban any seller with a felony conviction from registering as a telephone solicitor in Utah. The bill would also ban the use of any fictitious personal names in telephone solicitations.

Washington

A bill has been proposed in the Washington House (HB 1650), which would ban the use of automated dialing announcing devices (“ADAD”) absent prior express consent. This bill would apply to live or prerecorded messages if the system “automatically selects or dials telephone numbers.”

A Washington court has ruled against a well-known private plaintiff who alleged calls he requested violated the TCPA. Johansen v. Efinancial, LLC. After receiving an online inquiry, Efinancial contacted Johansen in a 26-minute telephone call during which he answered all questions and provided specific and detailed health information. Only after providing this information did he object to the call claiming it was on the “do-not-call” list. The judge ruled the online inquiry was a “signed, written agreement” and that Efinancial had a reasonable basis to call him. Plaintiff claimed he did not submit the internet request. The judge rejected this argument. Even if he did not submit the request, the judge further ruled that the “safe harbor” provisions of the TCPA applied. The judge dismissed the case with prejudice.

Comment: This is a very important case regarding “fake” leads allegedly used by many TCPA plaintiffs. Even if a lead is fake, the court ruled that because the Plaintiff participated in the follow-up call, he gave the caller a reasonable basis to assume the consent had been valid and the call was therefore subject to the TCPA’s “safe harbor.”

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 2003-2022 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