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
 

January 2012 - Call Compliance News

In this issue:
  • The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection has issued interim regulations implementing the Fair Credit Reporting Act restrictions on affiliate marketing.
  • In Illinois, the owner of a company, Universal Marketing Solutions, has been sentenced to 15 years in prison for directing a fraudulent telemarketing program involving timeshare sales.
  • A bill has been introduced in the Missouri Senate (SB 594) which would specify that the “do-not-call” list applies only to numbers used primarily for personal or family use.


Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection has issued interim regulations implementing the Fair Credit Reporting Act restrictions on affiliate marketing.  The rules apply to persons who obtain and use information about consumers to determine their eligibility for product services or employment and share such information among affiliates.  76 Fed. Reg. 79308.  The restrictions republish earlier rules based on reassignment of rule-making authority from the FTC and other agencies to the bureau.

Alaska 
The Alaska Legislature is considering a bill (HB 243) which would prohibit the use of automated telephone systems playing recorded messages to offer goods or services for sale, solicit information, promote a political campaign, or gather data or statistics.  This is a very broad ban, more restrictive than current federal law.

Illinois
The owner of a company, Universal Marketing Solutions, has been sentenced to 15 years in prison for directing a fraudulent telemarketing program involving timeshare sales.

Comment:  Most of the law and cases discussed in this newsletter involve civil penalties, but outright fraud is a crime and sometimes criminal penalties are appropriate.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decertified a TCPA class based on misconduct by the plaintiff’s attorney.  Creative Montessori Learning Centers v. Ashford Gear, LLC.  The court noted that the TCPA has potentially very heavy penalties if classes are certified.  Plaintiff’s counsel had obtained information from a fax broadcaster claiming that the information would be confidential and also recruited the class representative implying that a class already existed when it did not.  Based on this misconduct, the court noted that plaintiff’s counsel was not an appropriate fiduciary to pursue the class action under the TCPA.

The Seventh Circuit has also approved a trial court’s decision to dismiss a potential class action based on an offer by the defendant to fully satisfy the individual plaintiffs’ demands.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp.  This case gives a very important weapon to businesses facing abusive TCPA class actions.

Indiana
The Indiana Supreme Court has reversed a trial court’s decision that the Indiana Auto Dialer law was unconstitutional.  State v. Econ. Freedom Fund.  The company, which was victorious at trial, sends prerecorded political telephone messages which can include polls, get out to vote, or other political messages.  The Supreme Court held that the law did not violate the First Amendment because it was content neutral and met the United States’ Supreme Court’s standards for time, place, or manor or restrictions on speech.  The court held that it was narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest and left open amble alternative channels for communication.

Comment:  This case reverses a significant victory with regard to state prerecorded call laws which are more restrictive than the federal statutes (the TCPA and the TSR both have restrictions on prerecorded calls).

Maine
The Maine transient seller law requires registration if a telemarketer does not have a permanent place of business in the state.  Although the state statute incorporates the FTC’s definition of telemarketing as in effect January 1, 2000, the state’s website uses a more recent definition of “telemarketing” found in the revised Telemarketing Sales Rule.

Missouri
A bill has been filed in the Missouri Senate (SB 477) which would ban automated calls except with the subscriber’s express invitation, established business relationship, or for public purposes such as school closures.

A bill has been introduced in the Missouri Senate (SB 594) which would specify that the “do-not-call” list applies only to numbers used primarily for personal or family use.  The law currently applies to residential telephone service numbers, which can sometimes be used for business purposes.

View the attorney’s comments on this posting.

New Hampshire
A bill has been introduced in the New Hampshire House (HB 1232) which would repeal application of the national “do-not-call” list to political prerecorded calls.

View the attorney’s comments on this posting.

Texas
A Texas court has ruled that a consumer who owed a student loan revoked express consent to call her cell phone using an automatic dialing and announcing device.  The company argued that oral revocation of consent was ineffective, but the court disagreed holding that a consumer can orally revoke any express consent to be called on a cell phone using an ADAD given at a prior time.

Washington
A Washington consumer inadvertently and repeatedly was called by Clearwire and/or its collection agency and filed a class action against it for violation of the TCPA and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  Kwan v. Clearwire Corp.  The company moved to compel arbitration (a binding ruling, but not in court).  The court denied binding arbitration because it did not find clear acceptance of the arbitration clause by any of the recipients of Clearwire’s telephone calls.

West Virginia
A West Virginia court has ruled that a caller responding to a classified advertisement is not making a telephone solicitation under the TCPA, provided that the purpose of the call is to inquire about or purchase goods or services advertised.  Mey v. Pep Boys.  The defendant sent an automated message to the plaintiff’s son in response to a Craigslist advertisement.  An appellate court in West Virginia dismissed the suit.  The court also noted that persons who knowingly release their telephone numbers have, in effect, given their invitation or permission to be called at that number.

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