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 2008 - Call Compliance News

Federal

FCC
The FCC has issued a notice of forfeiture against a toner company alleging that the company sent at least 219 unsolicited advertisements in violation of the TCPA.  The FCC has issued a forfeiture in the amount of $1,040,500, or more than $4,000 per fax.  The company had originally been cited in 2006 and, in addition to unsolicited faxes, sent at least 10 faxes to consumers who specifically requested not to receive further faxes from the company.  The FCC applied an additional forfeiture amount for these 10 alleged violations.

The FCC has issued a Notice of Forfeiture against a lead company for allegedly sending at least 9 unsolicited faxes. This forfeiture was in the amount of $51,500.  The advertisements involved mortgage financing, health and life insurance, credit and debit card services, shutters, t-shirts, and lead services.

FTC
A debt collector has agreed to pay $2.25 million to settle FTC charges of violation of the FDCPA and the FTC Act.  Allegations include calls to consumers at their workplace when the employer prohibited such calls, as well as frequent harassing, threatening, or abusive calls.  More than 1000 complaints against the company were filed with the FTC.

The FTC has settled a claim against a marketer of advanced credit cards.  The settlement imposes a monetary judgment of more than $2.4 million, most of which has been suspended due to inability of the defendant to pay.  The advance fee “credit card” could actually be used only to buy products from the defendant’s website or catalog.

The FTC has asked Congress to consider implementing standards for private entities’ use of social security numbers for identification purposes.  Any entity maintaining a consumer account in any form would be required to adopt reasonable procedures to authenticate the identity of the account holder.

The FTC has settled allegations against a company marketing credit cards to subprime consumers for a refund of over $100,000,000.  The FTC had alleged that a debt collection company owned by the card marketer engaged in deceptive conduct marketing credit cards as part of debt collection activities.  The settlement agreement requires that future credit card solicitations prominently disclose fees and other restrictions affecting the initial credit and prohibit misrepresentations about the amount of available credit.

The FTC has entered into a settlement agreement with three telemarketers who allegedly defrauded elderly consumers.  The sales presentations involved household products such as garbage bags and light bulbs.  The settlements prohibit deceptive and misleading statements in violation of the TSR and a judgment in excess of $13,000,000.  Most of the judgment amount was suspended based on the defendants’ inability to pay.

State

Arkansas
A bill has been pre-filed in the Arkansas House (HB 1019) which would require that all broadcast political advertisements (including telephone or e-mail) include the statement “paid for”, “sponsored by”, or similar language.

Louisiana
A Louisiana appeal court has approved a TCPA class with regard to receipt of unsolicited faxes.  The court found the class to be proper even though some members of the class could eventually be found to have consented to the fax transmissions (and thus not have valid TCPA claims).  Display South, Inc., et al. v. GH Imaging.

Maryland
A Maryland court has ruled that a class could not be certified with regard to prerecorded TCPA calls.  The court ruled that a class action was not the superior form to resolve the potential plaintiffs’ claims. 

Mississippi
There has been some confusion regarding the new Mississippi rules for sharing the Mississippi do-not-call list.  Mississippi now charges $500 per “contracted company”.  Noreen Fielder, the administrator of the Mississippi do-not-call list, confirmed with me on the telephone that a “contracted company” for a telemarketer is a subcontractor “downstream” from the telemarketing company, not the telemarketing company’s clients.  The telemarketing company would be required to pay an additional $500 for each subcontractor, but would not be required to pay an additional $500 for each client on whose behalf the telemarketer calls.

Missouri
A bill has been pre-filed in the Missouri Senate (SB 43) which would amend Missouri’s Do-Not-Call law to create a do-not-cal list of person who do not wish to receive prerecorded solicitations.

A bill has been pre-filed in the Missouri Senate (SB 65) which would pose restrictions on prerecorded calls including political calls by adding these calls to the scope of the Missouri do-not-call list.  Political solicitations are also required to disclose “this message is paid for by” and the proper identification of the sponsor.  Finally, entities making radio advertisements that encourage listeners to contact political officials are required to register with the Missouri Ethics Commission and disclose the identity of the person paying for such advertisement.

New York
An appeals court has dismissed a purported TCPA class action under New York law which provides that the statute authorizing a monetary recovery may not be maintained as a class action. Leyse v. Clear Channel Broadcasting.

A New York court has ruled that a defendant is not liable for attempted faxes sent to plaintiff’s cell phone.  The court ruled that the TCPA was, therefore, inapplicable because plaintiff received neither unsolicited faxes nor illegal calls to his cell phone.  Pollock v. Island Arbitration.

North Carolina
A North Carolina class action has been dismissed after the plaintiff settled with the defendant.  The court ruled that because settlement of the individual plaintiff’s claim did not affect the rights of any other potential class member, the class could be dismissed.  Thomas Cook Printing Company, Inc. v. Subtle Impressions, Inc.

A North Carolina judge has ordered a Florida telemarketer to cease placing calls to North Carolina consumers on the National Do-Not-Call List.  North Carolina does not have its own do-not-call list and thus the attorney general was enforcing the national list in state court.

Texas
A bill has been pre-filed in the Texas Senate (SB 307) which would regulate political telephone solicitations requiring that they disclose “paid for by [name of company]” or similar language and barring misrepresentations regarding the sponsor of a call.

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