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
 

May-June 2008 - Call Compliance News

Federal

FCC
The FCC has published a summary of its rules and revisions pursuant to the TCPA. Currently, no proposed changes in the regulatory regime are on the FCC’s agenda.

FTC
The FTC has issued a letter to a major subprime mortgage company closing an investigation regarding a data breach of that company’s stored consumer information. The company promptly notified consumers of the breach, but the FTC took into account the company’s overall data security practices, response to data breach, and responsiveness to the FTC’s investigation in closing the investigation without a fine. The FTC letter noted that it would expect companies to take sufficient steps to protect data even from inside “rogue” employees.

The FTC announced 13 lawsuits against allegedly deceptive telemarketers filed on May 20, 2008. The operation dubbed “Tele-PHONEY” included actions against a variety of domestic and international telemarketers. Common to most of the claims was failure to promptly offer refunds, deceptive representations regarding what was offered, and targeting elderly or otherwise vulnerable consumers.

The FTC’s new affiliate marketing rule goes into effect on October 1, 2008. If your business shares consumer information with affiliates or receives such information from your affiliates for marketing purposes, you should immediately review this rule and compliance with it. It is not retroactive regarding data received prior to the October implementation date, but prospectively will affect how you share data with organizations affiliated with you.

The FTC will implement new CAN-SPAM rules effective July 7th. These rules will clarify that CAN-SPAM applies to all persons, including corporations that receive commercial electronic e-mail. Additionally, e-mails which are sent by multiple entities can now be designated to come from one “sender” if compliant with the rule. Please contact me if you have questions regarding the new CAN-SPAM rule.

U.S. Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court has denied my client’s Petition for Certiorari to the Florida Supreme Court with regard to the issue of preemption of state law by federal law with regard to interstate calls. Until the FCC or Congress resolves this matter, the question of preemption by the TCPA will remain unresolved. There are cases on both sides of this issue depending on your jurisdiction.

State

California
A California district court has rejected the FCC’s standard for “prior express consent”, ruling that a consumer providing a number to a business and not making instructions to the contrary does not constitute “prior express consent” to receive calls to that cell phone number. This case likely will be appealed.

Colorado
An appeals court in Colorado has upheld a trial court’s ruling that TCPA claims are not assignable in Colorado. The plaintiff purchased the right to prosecute a sender of unsolicited faxes. The trial court and the appeal court ruled that such claims are not assignable in Colorado.

Georgia
Georgia’s telemarketing law has been amended to include sales of securities within those telephone calls regulated by Georgia’s telemarketing law, banning deceptive, fraudulent, or abusive practices.

Illinois
An Illinois court has denied a motion to certify a class of plaintiffs against a bank which faxed advertisements to businesses in several states. The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to specify that the class was limited to those entities which did not consent to receive the faxes and therefore denied the class certification.

Another Illinois court has ruled that the TCPA’s ban on unsolicited faxes did not violate the First Amendment. The court held that businesses had a substantial interest in the costs of receiving unsolicited faxes. The court ruled that this restriction on commercial speech was not broader than necessary to protect this interest and therefore the TCPA was constitutional.

Missouri
The Missouri Attorney General has become increasingly aggressive with regard to enforcement of Missouri’s “do-not-call” list. You should review compliance with federal and state “do-not-call” lists especially in states which maintain their own “do-not-call” list and/or have differing established business relationship periods or other differences from the federal standard. Missouri has also been aggressive with regard to interpretation of the exemptions to the Missouri “do-not-call” list, bringing suit against nonprofits even though donation calls are exempt from the Missouri list.

Nevada
Nevada Supreme Court has ruled that state courts in Nevada can hear TCPA claims if those claims otherwise comply with Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court ruled that a separate statute or “rule” authorizing TCPA claims in state court was not necessary to confer jurisdiction.

New Jersey
A rule has been proposed in New Jersey which would require telemarketers to disclose their outgoing call capacity as part of the application for registration as a telemarketer. New Jersey bases its fee for registration on the number of outbound telephone lines a telemarketer uses.

Ohio
The state of Ohio has filed suit against a credit card payment processor company alleging that it normally provided services to telemarketers who were violating the National Do-Not-Call Registry and fraudulently charged consumers fees. The suit also alleged that the telemarketers were not registered to solicit in Ohio.

The Ohio Attorney General has also filed suit against a major corporation alleging that it failed to register in the state of Ohio and then charged consumers’ bank accounts without proper confirmation.

The Ohio Attorney General has filed a third action against a Canadian company alleging failure to register and improper charging of consumers’ accounts.

Vermont
Vermont has amended its telemarketing statute to require that telemarketers who debit consumers’ depository accounts record the entire telemarketing call and maintain such recorded authorizations for a period of at least four years. The law also requires that the telemarketer include a description of specific goods or services offered and the material terms of the transaction, among other items, in the oral authorization. This recording requirement exceeds that required by the Telemarketing Sales Rule.

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