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
 

October 2007 - Call Compliance News

Federal

FTC
The FTC has issued an advisory opinion ruling that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act allows a debt collector to notify a consumer that has ceased trying to collect a debt. The FDCPA is one of the most consumer friendly laws out there, and if your calling involves “slow pay” or reminder calls for payments, you should carefully examine, in advance, your compliance with this law.

The FTC has participated in a major “sting” involving brokers’ sales of lists of consumer credit card numbers to agents posing as telemarketers.  The FTC has brought an action against a company which allegedly assisted telemarketers who violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule with regard to marketing of “guaranteed” credit cards.  Selling lists with unencrypted credit card and banking information violates the Telemarketing Sales Rule.  The FTC has repeatedly brought actions against those brokers even though they are not involved in the actual telephone calls themselves. The standard for “accomplice liability” is set in the TSR, but the FTC has been aggressive in its interpretation of this standard. If your business involves sales of services to telemarketers, you should establish procedures and record-keeping which protect you under the “accomplice liability” rules of the Telemarketing Sales Rule.

The FTC has announced a crack down on fraudulent schemes targeting Spanish speakers, including two actions against “work-at-home” schemes.

The FTC has brought an action against four companies and their principals alleging deceptive marketing of debt reduction services. Three defendants allegedly misrepresented their ability to reduce consumer debt. Debt reduction and credit repair have been areas of high interest for the FTC for the last two years. The Telemarketing Sales Rule has special rules if a product is represented to potentially improve a consumer’s credit score, so you should make sure your scripts comply with these and other provisions before starting a campaign.

Two telemarketers will pay more than $500,000 to settle FTC charges that they defrauded U.S. businesses by paying for directories and listings that were never ordered.  The terms of this settlement include prohibition on misrepresenting that consumers have a preexisting business relationship with a caller when they do not.  The United States Postal Service participated in the investigation.

The Federal Trade Commission has again issued guidance to consumers regarding cell phone numbers and the national “do-not-call” list.  Contrary to e-mails, cell phone numbers are not being released to telemarketers and consumers will not soon be getting telemarketing calls on cell phones.  The Federal Communications Commissions prohibits telemarketers from using predictive dialers to call cell phone numbers and thus it is unlikely that cell phone numbers will receive a deluge of calls without the consent of the consumer.  There is no separate “do-not-call” registry for cell phones.  Consumers can add their cell phone number to the national “do-not-call” registry.

TCPA
A professional plaintiff has obtained rights to the telephone number 999-9999 which is often used as a “place holder” in lists of telephone numbers.  If a predictive dialer or prerecorded voice call is placed to that number, the plaintiff then claims damages of $1,500 per call under the TCPA.  You should avoid placing prerecorded or predictive dialed calls to “place holder” numbers in any area code.

State

California
A California state court has ruled that the proper statute of limitations for TCPA cases is four years, not a three year period provided for by state law.

District of Columbia
D.C. has announced settlement with two persons regarding a fraudulent business opportunity campaign.  More than $8.5 million of assets were seized, and one of the principals is permanently banned from engaging in telemarketing. 

Florida
A Florida court has ruled that an insurance company was not required to provide coverage for an entity accused of illegally sending faxes in violation of the TCPA.  Most state courts which have considered this question have ruled that insurers do have a duty to defend and pay for an insured’s damages in TCPA fax cases but the question depends on the language of specific insurance policies. Given that liability for TCPA class actions can extend into the millions of dollars, expect more cases in this area.

New York
A bill has been introduced to the New York General Assembly (AB 9437) which would amend the state’s “do-not-call” list to include text messaging advertisements within the activities covered by the list.  Most unsolicited text messages, however, are already illegal under federal law, thus this bill would have little practical effect.  Text messages are currently regulated both by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and CAN-SPAM.

The New York federal court had dismissed a TCPA suit filed alleging illegal faxes.  The court ruled that the TCPA action must be filed in state court. The TCPA, although a federal law, generally requires plaintiffs to file actions in state court.

Ohio
An Ohio appellate court has affirmed that a fax sent by one member of a chamber of commerce to another did not violate the TCPA.  The trial court found that the document was “informational and descriptive” and was not an “advertisement”. Generally, claims that faxes for commercial purposes are “informational” are not successful.

Texas
The Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners has adopted an amendment to its regulations providing standards with regard to telemarketing by chiropractors to prospective patients.  Misrepresentations are prohibited and telemarketing can not include a promise of successful chiropractic treatment. 

Wisconsin
The administrators of the Wisconsin “do-not-call” list have adopted a position that the Wisconsin “do-not-call” list applies to instances of “upselling” in outbound or inbound telephone calls to or from Wisconsin residents.  There are serious constitutional implications from this position, and I will seek a formal legal opinion on this issue prior to assuming that this is actually the position that Wisconsin will take on this issue. Wisconsin still exempts transactions with “existing customers” so many upsells would be exempt because, by definition, the offer is made to a customer. In my opinion, it is highly unlikely that Wisconsin will be able to enforce this rule for outbound calls by Wisconsin consumers to businesses in other states.

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