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
 

July 2008 - Call Compliance News

Federal

FCC
The FCC has rescinded a Citation issued to a sender of prerecorded telephone messages. The Citation, issued in 2006, alleged violations of the TCPA’s bans on unsolicited prerecorded calls. The business provided the FCC information showing that it did not place the calls in question and the FCC, in 2008, rescinded the Citation.

The FCC has issued a report regarding the state of the National Do-Not-Call List. More than 145 million numbers are now on the registry. The number of entities paying for access to the registry has decreased, however, from 6,824 to 6,242.

A private plaintiff sued the Federal Communications Commission regarding its established business relationship exemption for fax advertisements. The court of appeals dismissed his claim (Biggerstaff v. FCC). The plaintiff claimed that the established business relationship exemption contradicted the express text and legislative history of the TCPA. The court ruled that he could not challenge the 1992 established business relationship exemption because it was outside the scope of the 2006 rulemaking by the FCC on the same topic.

A private plaintiff has sued a business for allegedly sending twelve unsolicited facsimiles to the plaintiff encouraging the purchase of discounted prescription drugs. The defendant removed the case to federal court but the federal court returned the action to state court because the TCPA specifically provides for causes of action in state court.

The FCC still has not ruled on preemption petitions, with regard to the TCPA, which have been before the Commission for years. I recently spoke with an FCC attorney regarding this issue and the only information she could provide me was that the petitions were still pending.

FTC
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, the FTC has disclosed that among the records it maintains about individuals are name, e-mail address, and telephone number of consumers on the National Do-Not-Call List.

The FTC and the California Office of Privacy Protection will host a public workshop in Los Angeles on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 on how businesses can secure personal information and protect the privacy of consumers and employees. The workshop is free and open to the public.

The FTC has obtained a court order enjoining the activities of a credit repair company and its owner who allegedly falsely promised to remove derogatory information within consumers’ credit reports.

State

California
A California appellate court has ruled that a California criminal ban on disruption of school activities did not apply to anti-abortion protestors’ displays of large photos of aborted fetuses. The court ruled that the First Amendment bars the government from suppressing speech because of listeners’ reaction to it. Here the disruption caused by the photos was based on teachers’ and students’ responses to the photos, rather than the speech itself. This case is relevant to telephone solicitations because regulators often use the argument that consumers dislike telephone solicitation calls. This “hecklers veto” is not a valid reason to support suppression of speech.

Illinois
An appeals court in Illinois has affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of a defendant cruise company which allegedly sent unsolicited fax advertisements to a travel agency. The trial court ruled that the travel agency had consented to receive the faxes and there was, therefore, no TCPA claim. The travel agent had been a member of the trade group and had routinely supplied its contact information to enable entities such as cruise lines to supply information regarding promotions to members of that group.

Kansas
A doctor who sued a company alleging violations of the TCPA has been awarded approximately $10,000 for attorneys’ fees in a putative class action. The defendant removed the case to federal court. After the case was remanded, the federal court awarded the plaintiff attorneys’ fees for the cost of the motion.

Louisiana
A Louisiana court has approved a class action against a long distance company for violations of the TCPA. The court awarded more than two million dollars to the plaintiffs’ attorneys for fees. This suit alleged that the long distance company sent unsolicited fax advertisements to the plaintiffs.

Mississippi
Mississippi has proposed changes to its “do-not-call” list increasing the fee from $800 to $1,000 and removing the five year expiration date for consumers’ numbers added to the list. The change becomes effective immediately.

Missouri
Missouri has amended the exemptions to its state telemarketing statute to exclude from the exemption merchandise sold by an entity under the direction and supervision of the Division of Professional Registration. The exemption is now limited solely to entities regulated by the Department of Insurance and the Department of Financial Institutions.

A Missouri court has ruled that a class action against a defendant debt collector could not be certified because each plaintiff could have solicited the contact from the defendant. Because this question had to be asked for each plaintiff, a class was not appropriate, the court ruled.

New York
The state of New York has adopted the federal established business relationship exemption including purchases in the 18 months preceding the call or inquiries in the three months preceding the call. Previously, New York required a financial transaction for there to be an established business relationship. These rules went into effect on June 25, 2008.

A New York appellate court ruled that an attorney who sent unsolicited faxes was liable for TCPA violations. A disclosure on the faxes that they were “not advertisements” was not effective under the TCPA and the court ruled that the faxes were unsolicited advertisements subjecting the sender to TCPA liability.

North Carolina
A bill has been proposed in the North Carolina House (HB 738) which would amend the state’s law regarding prerecorded messages to permit health insurance companies to convey information related to the consumers’ healthcare preventive services, medication, or other covered benefits.

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