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
 

December 2005 - Call Compliance News

FCC
The Federal Communications Commission has reached a settlement with a major cellular  telephone company regarding alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, including the national “do-not-call” list. The settlement involved a voluntary contribution to the United States Treasury in the amount of $100,000. Although the cellular telephone company did not make outbound sales calls to persons other than its own subscribers, the Order required it to implement policies governing its independent dealers. The company is also required to formally establish an internal process to promptly investigate government or private complaints. The TCPA holds a business responsible for the actions of its resellers and agents. For example, a “do-not-call” request made to one agent is binding on the business even if a different agent places another call to that consumer. Businesses with multiple independent agents must ensure that those agents regularly communicate “do-not-call” requests to a central location, and obtain that centralized list for their future calling campaigns.

The FCC has issued a citation to “Doctorplan” alleging violations of the Unsolicited Fax Rules of the TCPA. Unsolicited faxes continue to be the most enforced provision of the TCPA both by the FCC and private plaintiffs. As you may know, several multimillion dollar judgments have been won by private class action plaintiffs in this area. The Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 allows faxes to be sent to recipients who have an established business relationship with the business but with certain disclosures. However, the FCC has still not detailed exactly what those disclosures are supposed to be.

FTC
The FTC has announced a settlement with regard to “do-not-call” list violations involving the largest penalty to date. More details to follow.

The Federal Trade Commission has obtained a final court order barring several Canadian based telemarketers from offering no call services, as well as committing fraud, including bank fraud and identity theft. The suit alleged that the telemarketers charged a $399.00 upfront fee that provided no services to consumers who purchased product and directly debited consumers’ accounts for this amount. Direct debits on consumer accounts are subject to certain rules both imposed by the FDIC and trade organizations such as NACHA including obtaining a signature to show express consent for such payments. Federal E-Sign law does not necessarily require that the signature be in ink, but you must carefully review your processes if you obtain payment from consumers using these means. The Order requires defendants to surrender $345,000 in penalties.

NAAG
The National Association of Attorney’s General has announced that all 51 Attorneys General have urged the FCC not to preempt state authority over billing practices for telecommunications services. The FCC is therefore considering multiple preemption issues with regard to telecommunications and telemarketing at this time, although action is expected soon with regard to preemption of state “do-not-call” lists and delivery of recording rules. As you may know, both federal telemarketing rules, the TCPA and TSR, allow state attorneys general to sue to enforce their provisions, so states are not without power to protect their citizens under the federal rules scheme. The TCPA still is most often enforced by private plaintiffs, both individually and as purported class actions in state courts. Recent federal class action reform law, however, has caused some TCPA class actions to be moved to federal court, generally thought to be more favorable to defendants.

Canada
Both Houses of Parliament in Canada have passed legislation implementing a national “do-not-call” list. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission will soon implement regulations establishing this list.

Alabama
An Alabama appeals court has rejected the claim of a TCPA plaintiff that he was entitled to damages for “willful or knowing” violations of the TCPA for unsolicited facsimiles that he received. The appeals court ruled that the plaintiff is not entitled to all damages asked for even though the defendant defaulted. The appeals court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to $500 per facsimile received.

Arizona
An Arizona appeals court has ruled that a TCPA plaintiff was entitled to damages under the TCPA based on a text message he received on his cellular telephone. The TCPA bars automatically dialed calls to cellular telephones without express consent. The FCC has repeatedly ruled that these restrictions apply both to text and voice messages. You can only place calls to cell phones using a dialer if you have express consent to place the call. The definition of “express consent” under this section of the TCPA does not require it to be in writing or signed, but you need to maintain accurate records of consent, and the consent must not be deceptive or otherwise illegal, as it is the business’s burden to prove consent if challenged.

California
A challenge has been filed to California’s new “junk fax” law which requires that unsolicited faxes only be sent with express written consent of the recipient after January 1, 2006. Federal law allows faxes with an established business relationship and proper opt out language. The National Chamber of Commerce has filed suit alleging that California’s law is preempted by the TCPA.

Colorado
An appeals court in  Colorado ruled that Colorado did not have to adopt additional legislation to allow TCPA cases in its state courts. Many state courts have made this ruling, i.e. no additional legislation is necessary on the state level for a consumer to file a TCPA action.

Louisiana
Louisiana has lifted the calling ban in area codes 337 and 985. The ban remains in effect only for area code 504. Louisiana is the only state which has passed a law barring calls during a declared emergency, though this might change in the future.

Pennsylvania
A bill has been proposed in the Pennsylvania Senate which provides that a mobile telephone provider may not publish a subscriber’s telephone number in a directory without express consent, nor can such a directory be sold by the company unless the customer is informed in advance that the number may be included in a publicly available directory and consents.

Texas
Texas has increased its per location filing fee for telemarketing registration to $200 + $15 for each additional location. Previously the state had charged $10 for each additional location.

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