A
Monthly Review of Issues Affecting Commercial Telemarketing by Copilevitz & Canter,
LLC, Attorneys at Law
June, 2004
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
The FTC has reached a settlement with a company and four individuals resolving
allegations of improper debt collection activity. The settlement involved
a $300,000 civil penalty.
A Federal District Court has approved a settlement between
the FTC and Canadian telemarketers. The FTC alleged that the
defendants sold bogus credit card protection and advance fee
credit card services to United States customers. The FTC alleged
that the defendants misrepresented their identity and deceived
consumers regarding liability for unauthorized charges on their
credit cards. The FTC worked with provincial police in Canada
to obtain a permanent injunction, including summary judgment
against the defendants. The total fine and judgment against
the defendants was more than $4,000,000. Advance fee credit
cards and credit card protection continue to be types of telemarketing
drawing high scrutiny from enforcement authorities. If you
sell these types of services, or any other type of service,
for that matter, it is extremely important that your materials
are compliant and that you monitor your sales activities to
ensure adherence to those materials.
The proposed fee increase under the Telemarketing Sales Rule
for the national “do-not-call” list comment period
ended on June 1st. The agency will now respond to these comments
and promulgate the final rule.
FLORIDA
The Attorneys General in Florida and Minnesota have filed suit
against a major long distance company alleging that incorrect
bills were intentionally sent to consumers to generate inbound
calls during which an upsell would be made. Telemarketing
and consumer protection laws in general still apply to inbound
calls if an upsell is made during the call.
MARYLAND
Maryland has amended its state telemarketing law to incorporate
the Telemarketing Sales Rule and the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act. Violations of either federal statute will now constitute
violations of state law, as well. State law provides for
payment of a reasonable attorney’s fee, while federal
law generally does not.
MICHIGAN
Ten states, including Michigan, have settled charges against
a local and long distance telephone reseller. Their suit
alleged deceptive telemarketing practices, including “slamming” and
misrepresentations regarding the price of services.
NEW JERSEY
New Jersey has adopted a regulation requiring registration
for commercial telemarketers. There are no exemptions to
the rule for residential telemarketers. The registration
requires a fee but no bond, although the registering company
must also obtain a certificate to do business in the state
and have a registered agent in the state. You can download
the form for this registration at http://www.state.nj.us/lps/ca/donotcall/tmarketform.pdf.
NEW YORK
A proposal has been introduced in the New York General Assembly
which would amend the state’s definition of “established
customer” to limit it to contacts regarding renewal
of an existing contract or payment of debt pursuant to an
existing contract. Please contact me if you would like a
copy of a chart which sets forth the federal definition of
established customer, as well as the state definitions which
can vary from the federal one.
NORTH CAROLINA
The North Carolina Attorney General has filed suit to enforce
terms of its state debt counseling law against a nonprofit
organization. Many states regulate debt counseling, even
if performed by a nonprofit. State laws can limit fees charged,
require a license, and in some cases ban debt counseling
entirely. Further, enforcing authorities including states,
the FCC and the IRS are scrutinizing the relationships between
nonprofit debt counselors and any for profit companies they
may work with. Generally, these relationships must be at
arms length and meet many other requirements. Businesses
should document all contracts made in these situations to
protect both entities.
TENNESSEE
Tennessee has become the first state to adopt a law designed
to discourage off-shoring by businesses in call center or
data entry areas. The law directs the State Commissioner
of Finance Administration to promulgate regulations to authorize
a preference in state contracts to data entry and call center
vendors providing services solely by citizens in the United
States, who reside in the United States or are authorized
to work in the United States. I have prepared a Memorandum
which summarizes legislation affecting off-shore activities
and would be happy to provide it to you upon request. Several
states’ proposals are much more burdensome than the
law adopted by Tennessee. Additionally, some laws already
adopted have a disproportionate effect on foreign call centers.
These laws include requirements to disclose the location
of the call center (as opposed or in addition to the actual
business making the call) and/or the “true name” of
the telemarketing sales representative. The latter type of
requirement is especially difficult for persons from countries
whose names are hard to pronounce or unfamiliar to consumers
in the United States.
UTAH
Although a Utah court has ruled that state law does not apply
to interstate recorded telephone calls, the Utah Division
of Consumer Protection continues to attempt to enforce some
of its state laws against interstate calls. It is surprising
that the Division would ignore a controlling court decision
and such a course of action could subject the Division to
sanctions, although the courts may be loathe to impose sanctions
against a governmental body.
WISCONSIN
The Wisconsin Attorney General has obtained a judgment against
a company after filing suit alleging “cramming,” i.e.,
billing customers for voice-activated email message services,
which were not authorized by the consumers.
Wisconsin has also obtained a judgment against a telecommunications
company alleging “slamming” and false or misleading
statements.
Wisconsin has also filed suit against a company which allegedly
faxed illegal time-share advertising to consumers. As you may
know, “fax blasting” laws will likely subject the
sender to TCPA suits, including class-actions.
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®. June 1, 2004, Copilevitz & Canter,
L.L.C.