A
Monthly Review of Issues Affecting Commercial Telemarketing by Copilevitz & Canter,
LLC, Attorneys at Law
January, 2005
FCC
A Republican campaign staffer in New England was indicted for
allegedly “war dialing” democratic “get
out and vote” phone lines in 2002. The indictment alleges
that the chairman hired a company in Virginia to make calls
to disrupt Democrats’ phone lines.
I recently had a conversation with an FCC enforcement attorney
regarding certain provisions of the TCPA. First, she clarified
that the provisions of the TCPA banning calls using automated
equipment, i.e. predictive dialers, to cellular telephone numbers
and public safety numbers applied to all uses of that equipment
and were not limited to telemarketing calls. Thus, the restrictions
on ported numbers apply to debt collection calls, etc. Second,
she clarified that the “express consent” needed
to place calls to cell phones need not be in writing. Although
the TCPA Regulation has specified that express consent for
faxes should be in writing when these changes go into effect
in mid 2005, the rule does not specify that express consent
for calling cellular telephone numbers be in writing. She did
clarify that the burden of proving express consent would be
on the caller.
FTC
The FTC is publishing in final form a number of documents required
by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, including notices to those
persons that furnish information to consumer reporting agencies
and duties of users of information obtained from consumer
reporting agencies. These documents can be obtained in the
Federal Register at the FTC’s website.
Two payment processing companies have been banned from processing
charges for companies that conduct outbound telemarketing.
The FTC said the defendants knowingly assisted telemarketers
who sold deceptive products. This is another example of enforcement
of the “accomplice liability” standard of the Telemarketing
Sales Rule.
Comments to the FTC regarding delivery of recordings, and
the FTC’s abandonment provisions are due with the agency
by January 10, 2005. You can make comments at: https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-tsr.
The requirement that telemarketers “scrub” their
list at least every thirty-one days goes into effect January
1, 2005. Previously, entities were required to scrub at least
quarterly.
The FTC published an announcement that the “do-not-call” registry
accepts personal cell phone and home number registrations.
Several internet rumors have circulated regarding whether or
not the list applies to cell phone numbers. You should also
be aware of restrictions regarding use of predictive dialers
placing calls to cellular telephones created by the TCPA. Please
contact me if you have questions regarding this matter.
ALASKA
Cynthia Drinkwater, Assistant Attorney General of the State
of Alaska, has expressed her opinion that telemarketers calling
solely for exempt entities are not required to register as
telemarketers in the state. Please contact me if you have
questions regarding this matter.
KANSAS
The Kansas Banking Commissioner has interpreted references
to “your mortgage loan” to imply an affiliation
between the advertiser and the consumer’s existing
mortgage. Thus, unless such a relationship exists, his office
may consider this type of claim to be deceptive. You should
review your scripts and written materials to ensure that
you do not imply a relationship with another company if one
does not exist or a relationship with a government agency.
MICHIGAN
A bill has been proposed in the Michigan House of Representatives
which would allow the Public Service Commission to designate
a state “do-not-call” list either administered
by the Commission or an agency of the federal government.
The bill contains a slightly different definition of “existing
customer” allowing calls to consumers who have purchased
from an entity within twelve months prior to any telephone
call.
MISSOURI
A bill has been proposed in the Missouri House of Representatives
which would allow the Missouri “do-not-call” list
to accept wireless telephone numbers. Wireless business subscribers
would be included on the list which raises a significant
question regarding the constitutionality of the list as businesses
generally are not considered to have “privacy rights” protected
by The Constitution.
A bill has been proposed in the Missouri Senate which will
restrict state contracts with telemarketers requiring that
those contracts only be with entities operating call centers
in the United States. The bill also requires that inbound and
outbound call centers disclose upon request city, state and
country where the customer service employee is located.
NEW YORK
New York has passed a law which prohibits marketing of credit
cards on college campuses except pursuant to an official
college credit card marketing policy. The policy may include
registration of on-campus credit card marketers, limiting
credit card marketers to specific dates and specific areas
of campus, and prohibition on gifts and workshops for students
regarding good credit management. The act is to take effect
on July 1, 2005. Aiming restrictions specifically at one
type of speaker is content based regulation of speech. It
would be shocking if this statute withstood constitutional
challenge.
OHIO
Ohio has filed suit against a Florida company alleging violations
of the state “do-not-call” law. The allegations
also involved fraud. More often than not, a “do-not-call” list
suit is sparked by complaints regarding fraud or other types
of deception.
PENNSYLVANIA
Pennsylvania’s privacy law will go into effect February
1, 2005, banning false statements in published customer privacy
policies regarding how businesses use personal information
they collect. You should review your privacy policy to ensure
that your practices both comply with the law and are in line
with any published statements regarding your activities.
UTAH
A bill has been filed in Utah which would limit the scope of
the state’s no call database to unsolicited ntrastate
calls. The FCC may make this bill moot by explicitly preempting
state law in the near future.
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.