A
Monthly Review of Issues Affecting Commercial Telemarketing by Copilevitz & Canter,
LLC, Attorneys at Law
September, 2005
BRITISH COLUMBIA
Effective October 1, 2005, British Columbia will require a telemarketing registration
for sellers and professional fundraisers. The rule exempts a charity soliciting
donations “in-house.”
FTC
The FTC has settled with Columbia House alleging that it violated the national “do-not-call” registry
and specific consumer “do-not-call” requests. The settlement involves
a $300,000 penalty.
The FTC has announced that the 100,000,000th number has been added to the national “do-not-call” list.
The Federal Trade Commission continues to aggressively enforce its interpretation
of the Telemarketing Sales Rule affecting delivery of recorded messages to consumers.
If you send recorded messages to consumers, either on your own or through a third
party for any purpose, you should review these calls to ensure compliance both
with FCC and FTC rules.
The FTC has rejected a request to require consumers complaining about calls to
numbers on the national “do-not-call” list to provide additional
information. A long distance company asked the FTC to require consumers to include
a description of the goods or services offered to quickly enable the long distance
company to determine that it is exempt from the FTC’s jurisdiction on this
question. The FTC rejected the long distance company’s request claiming
that its online announcements already informed consumers that certain types of
calls are exempted from the national “do-not-call” list. The FTC
concluded that the current complaint system collects the appropriate amount and
type of information from consumers.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL
The Top 10 Consumer Complaints List for 2004 includes telecommunications/slamming/cramming
at No. 3 on the list. It has moved up one place since last year.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
The SEC has proposed a rule change regarding telephone solicitation requirements
for sellers of securities. The new rules would impose an 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
curfew without express consent or an established business relationship, require
companies to keep Firm specific “do-not-call”lists, and require securities
brokers to use the Federal Trade Commission’s national “do-not-call” list.
The rules would also contain a disclosure requirement and other rules similar
to the current FCC restrictions on telemarketing contained in the “do-not-call” list.
Please contact me if you would like to discuss these new FCC regulations which
will be published in the Federal Register and become final after a comment period,
at least 90 days after publication.
ALABAMA
An Alabama appellate court has overturned a defense decision dismissing certain
TCPA claims based on unsolicited facsimiles. The trial court had held that the
plaintiff did not prove that the defendant knowingly made the facsimile transmission.
The Appellate Court held that the “knowing” provision of the TCPA
dealt only with enhanced penalties and that the plaintiff, therefore, was not
required to prove a knowing violation for his TCPA suit to be heard by the Trial
Court.
COLORADO
A Colorado appellate court has reversed the trial court which had dismissed a
TCPA action because the state of Colorado had not specifically authorized TCPA
suits in State Court. Most cases have held that a state must “opt out” of
TCPA suits rather than “opt in” to allowing them.
ILLINOIS
An Illinois Court has ruled that a TCPA claim was under a business’s insurance
policy as the facsimiles could have been sent illegally through negligence rather
than knowing action. Cases are split regarding whether insurance applies to damages
under TCPA claims.
IOWA
Iowa and two other states have signed an agreement with a South Dakota bank designed
to prevent fraudulent telemarketers from gaining access to consumers’ bank
accounts.
MINNESOTA
Minnesota has reached a settlement with a debt collector after it alleged the
debt collector made false representations regarding consumer debt and continued
to place phone calls to consumers after learning that the consumers did not owe
the debt in question.
Missouri
Missouri has raised the price of its state “do-not-call” list from
$25 per quarter for each area code to $50 per quarter for each area code. The
price increase is effective September 14, 2005.
Missouri’s Attorney General has announced that the cable television provider
will pay $75,000 to the State of Missouri to settle allegations of violation
of the state “do-not-call” list law. This settlement called for a
penalty of $1,000 per alleged violation.
OREGON
The Oregon Legislature has passed an amendment to its telephone harassment statute
which bars sending a text message, voicemail, or any other message to any telephone
after the person has given notice that he or she does not want to receive those
messages.
TEXAS
A Texas Court has rejected a TCPA suit based on a two year statute of limitations
under state law. Despite the fact that federal law allows a four year statute
of limitations, the Court held that state law applies.
UTAH
A TCPA suit filed against a non-profit organization has been dismissed by a Utah
trial court. As you may know, the TCPA allows prerecorded calls by or on behalf
of charitable organizations. The trial judge recognized this exemption and dismissed
the plaintiff’s suit.
WISCONSIN
Wisconsin has filed suit against a Florida based seller of travel alleging that
it failed to register as a telemarketer, called Wisconsin residents on the new “do-not-call” list,
used electronically prerecorded messages and caller ID blocking and failed to
make required disclosures.
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®. September 1, 2005,
Copilevitz & Canter,
L.L.C.