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

April 2022 - Call Compliance News

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has denied Todd Bank’s request to amend a complaint that had been dismissed at the district court. Bank v. GoHealth, LLC. Bank argued that the district court did not allow him the opportunity to amend his earlier complaint, but the appellate court disagreed saying that was solely within the trial judge’s discretion to allow a third amended complaint. Bank had alleged a prerecorded call which violated both federal and state law. The judge denied his standing to sue, however, because the call was received by his mother. The judge concluded he failed to suffer an injury as he did not suffer an invasion of his privacy.

Comment: Defendant also argued that the plaintiff failed to have a cause of action because he is a serial Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) litigant. The judge denied this argument.


California’s Senate has advanced a bill (SB 1059) through the Judiciary Committee increasing the likelihood it will ultimately be adopted into law. The bill amends the state’s definition of “data broker” to include any business that knowingly collects and shares certain personal information and shares it with third parties. The current version of the law applies only if the data broker sells data, rather than “shares” it.

Another bill has been introduced in the California Senate (SB 1380) which would require state agencies to notify consumers of personal data breaches.

A California court has ruled the terms “willful or knowing” in the TCPA require that the caller knew or was reckless in not knowing that the activity violated the law. True Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. McKesson Corp.

Comment: If a violation is “willful or knowing” the TCPA provides for treble damages. This plaintiff argued that intentionally sending a fax meant the violation was “knowing,” but the court disagreed, ruling treble damages were only available if the sender knew that the fax was illegal.

District of Columbia

A TCPA plaintiff has been sanctioned for failure to comply with discovery. Betz v. My Computer Career, Inc. The court ordered plaintiff to comply with document production within 14 days or face additional sanctions, including but not limited to dismissal of the case. The court also subsequently denied Betz’ motion to reopen discovery after he failed to schedule any depositions before discovery ended.


An Illinois court has refused to dismiss a purported class action alleging violation of the “do-not-call” list and internal “do-not-call” policy requirements by a seller of consumer solar panels. Moore v. Pro Custom Solar, LLC. The judge ruled the calls that were received were telephone solicitations and plaintiff sufficiently alleged the solar company did not train its employees in the existence and use of its internal “do-not-call” policy.

Comment: Plaintiff’s counsel is Avi Kaufman, who is very active in the TCPA class action area, especially with regard to internal “do-not-call” policy requirements. Plaintiffs’ claims are commonly shifting to “do-not-call” claims after the Facebook v. Duguid, 141 S. Ct. 1163, 1167 (2021) decision clarified the definition of “automatic telephone dialing system” (“ATDS”). If you would like assistance with compliance regarding the TCPA’s internal “do-not-call” list and policy requirements, please contact us.

A judge has denied a company’s “motion to bifurcate” discovery in a wrong number case where a restaurant mistakenly provided plaintiff’s number to Grubhub as its contact number. Marshall v. Grubhub, Inc. The judge noted the case had been ongoing for more than two years prior to the motion to bifurcate discovery and ordered class and individual discovery to continue at the same time.


The Oklahoma House is likely to pass a bill known as the “Telephone Solicitation Act of 2022” (HB 3168) which would mirror the “mini” TCPA law passed by Florida last year. Under the bill, a person cannot knowingly make a telephone sales call if the call involves an “automated system” for selection or dialing of telephone numbers or the playing of a recorded message unless the caller has the prior express written consent of the called party.

Comment: The bill would only apply to organizations that are required to register as a telemarketer in Oklahoma, exempting many organizations, including publicly traded companies, supervised financial institutions, etc.

New Jersey

A judge has affirmed an arbitration award to a bank after it successfully defended TCPA claims from a credit card holder who received debt collection calls. Credit One Bank, N.A. v. Lieberman. The arbitrator awarded the bank $286,000 and the bank claimed an additional $73,000 to defend the appeal for a total of almost $360,000. Although the bank called Lieberman more than 600 times, the credit card agreement adequately provided the bank express consent for these calls.

Comment: Counsel for plaintiff, Marcus & Zelman, LLC, is not subject to this award, but they may face other claims. The arbitrator held that Lieberman misrepresented interrogatory responses and noted that claimant decided to compel arbitration and sought compensation for fraudulent claims.


A Pennsylvania court has refused to strike the opinion of a plaintiffs’ expert witness in a TCPA class action. Heidarpour v. Vision Solar, LLC. Jeffrey Hansen wrote an opinion for the plaintiffs stating that defendant’s dialing system was an ATDS as the term is defined in the TCPA, because it used “random or sequential number generation.” The court, however, did not certify the class pending additional discovery.

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