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

June 2022 - Call Compliance News

Third Circuit Court of Appeals

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that an “automatic telephone dialing system” (“ATDS”) is determined by “that equipment’s [present] ‘capacity’ to employ a random or sequential number generator to store or produce telephone numbers, not its actual use of such a generator.” Panzarella v. Navient Sols., Inc.

Comment: If you’ve been following this dispute at all, you have already reviewed your dialer to ensure it does not have a random or sequential number generator which can create or store telephone numbers, at all. Your system should only be able to call numbers which are loaded to it, and those numbers should be stored and called in some non-random order. I would be happy to review your dialer or your vendor’s dialer to ensure it is not an ATDS under the standard.


A Colorado court has ruled that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) definition of ATDS requires it to use a random or sequential number generator to create telephone numbers. Mina v. Red Robin Int’l Inc. The court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the system had the capacity to randomly or sequentially decide which numbers to call from a stored list made it an ATDS. Further, the court rejected plaintiff's argument that a text is an artificial voice which can’t be sent to cell phones absent prior express consent.

Comment: The court noted that the term “artificial or prerecorded voice” is plain and unambiguous and means “sound produced by one’s vocal system” not the “metaphorical meaning” plaintiff argued.


A court has dismissed a lead provider from a TCPA case after the lead purchaser called the plaintiff to sell education services. Lacon v. Educ. Principle Found. The court ruled that the lead provider did not have minimal contacts with the state of Pennsylvania such that it had personal jurisdiction over that company. It sold lead packets to the callers, but it had “no control” over what the sellers did with those leads. “Once it sent the lead packets, its role ended.” The court ruled that because it did not place the calls, supervise the calls, or even monitor the calls at all, the court did not have jurisdiction.

Comment: I would also argue that the TCPA would not apply because the lead seller did not make the calls. It would still be important to review the lead sales contract to determine liability between the lead seller and lead purchaser, but the plaintiff would have no claim against the lead seller.


A Texas court has dismissed a case brought by a frequent pro se plaintiff against an entity which did not even show up to defend the case. Hunsinger v. Akatsuki Investments, LLC. Hunsinger filed a complaint and Akatsuki never answer. Hunsinger amended the complaint and Akatsuki never answered. Finally, the court ruled that if Hunsinger failed to request an entry of a default judgment, the court would dismiss the claim for want of prosecution. He did not seek a default and the court therefore dismissed the complaint.

Comment: If you are served with a suit or if you receive a complaint letter from an individual or governmental entity, not responding is the worst course of action. This defendant got very lucky.

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 2003-2024 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