With the federal government and most states under a state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic, telemarketers should be aware of laws that restrict telemarketing calls during a state of emergency.
New York has just passed legislation that has the capacity to be one of the most onerous telemarketing compliance laws. The legislation may potentially impact telemarketers’ outbound calling and data sharing practices.
Magazine subscription program defeats Do Not Call lawsuit
Telemarketer’s Do Not Call Violations Cost Business $6 Million
Andrew Lustigman and Scott Shaffer Discuss TCPA Lawsuits and Implications on Telemarketers in new Inside Counsel article.
We blogged about how the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals opened the door for Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class actions in Michigan by ruling that state prohibitions on class actions had no effect on federal lawsuits.
In Keim v. ADF MidAtlantic, LLC, decided on July 15, 2013 in the Southern District of Florida, the defendants were allowed to moot the threat of a class action by paying the plaintiff everything he demanded on his individual claim.
In Luskin v. Seminole Comedy, Inc., decided on June 19, 2013 in the Southern District of Florida, Judge Robert Scola denied a motion to dismiss a case concerning text messages, even though the plaintiff had provided his telephone number to the text sender.
In United States vs. Mortgage Investors Corp. of Ohio, filed in the Middle District of Florida on June 25, 2013, a home loan refinancing company agreed to pay a $7.5 million civil penalty for allegedly violating Do Not Call provisions of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR).
In Mais v. Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, decided on May 8, 2013, in the Southern District of Florida, the court awarded the plaintiff $7500 for fifteen calls to his cell phone made by a debt collector.
The FTC has proposed new amendments to the Telemarketing Sales Rule. Importantly, the proposed changes would bar non-traditional payment mechanisms such as remotely created checks. The proposed rules also clarify other provisions of the Rule.
As a reminder, last year the FCC revised its rules for auto-dialed calls to completely eliminate the established business relationship (EBR) exemption for calls to landline numbers. The new regulations go into effect on October 16, 2013.
In Standard Mutual Insurance v. Ted Lay Real Estate, decided on May 23, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the TCPA's $500-per-call damages provision is not punitive in nature. The significance of this ruling is that, at least in Illinois, TCPA damages can be insured by marketers.
On May 9, 2013, the FCC clarified the extent to which sellers can be held liable for robo-calls and texts sent by third-party marketers on their behalf.
Here is a look at four recent class-action lawsuits under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA):
Commercial text messengers, take note: an Alabama-based bank avoided a federal lawsuit by putting an arbitration clause in its terms and conditions.
In December, we warned that New Jersey could see a boom in Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class actions. Now it looks like Michigan will get hit with a similar increase in telemarketing-related suits.
A recent series of rulings will likely trigger an avalanche of class action lawsuits over unwanted text messages and robocalls, particularly in the State of New Jersey.
This week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued an order covering the same issue, but with a key limitation that creates a serious legal risk every time a marketer acknowledges an opt-out request with a confirmatory text.
Arizona House Bill 2825 broadly defines "business opportunity" where it wasn't defined before.
On February 15, 2012, the FCC revised its rules to completely eliminate the established business relationship exemption for pre-recorded and artificial voice calls and to require prior express written consent for all telemarketing calls to wireless numbers.
The United States Supreme Court has spoken, and the doors of federal courthouses are now fully open to anyone wishing to sue telemarketers under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
The FTC has approved a new Business Opportunity Rule that will be effective March 1, 2012. The Rule is intended to replace the original 1978 Trade Regulation Rule.
The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts remarked, "this is the strangest statute I have ever seen." He was talking about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA.
President Obama, as part of his plan for economic growth and deficit reduction, is proposing to relax a portion of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act as applied to government debt collection efforts.
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court agreed to resolve a dispute concerning the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), a federal law regulating unsolicited faxes and telephone calls to cell phones and numbers on the Do Not Call list.
These days, class-action lawsuits for illegal telemarketing calls are popping up like weeds or flowers (depending on your perspective) in a spring garden. The statute in question, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA, holds not only the caller responsible for illegal calls, but in some cases, the party on whose behalf the call was made.
Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels signed into law House Enrolled Act 1273, which allows consumers to register their cell phone numbers, prepaid wireless calling, and Internet-enabled VOIP services with the state's existing Do Not Call registry.
The FTC recently filed a complaint and obtained a temporary restraining order issued against a telemarketing operation that allegedly made millions of illegal phone calls.
The Federal Trade Commission has announced sweeping amendments to the Telemarketing Sales Rule that significantly restricts the marketing of what it broadly characterizes as "debt settlement" programs.
The FCC has announced proposed revisions to its rules under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) to further restrict the transmission of pre-recorded voice calls to residential telephone subscribers.
MoneyGram International will pay $18 million in consumer redress to settle FTC charges that the company allowed its money transfer system to be used by fraudulent telemarketers to bilk U.S. consumers out of millions of dollars.
Telemarketers who utilize pre-recorded voice messaging are reminded that the FTC's new enforcement policy prohibiting telemarketing sales calls that deliver pre-recorded voice messages unless the seller has previously obtained the recipient's signed written agreement to receive such calls from the specific company becomes effective September 1, 2009.
Fourteen defendants involved in the telemarketing operation by Largo, Florida-based Suntasia Marketing, Inc. have agreed to pay a total of more than $16 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges.
The Federal Trade Commission recently announced two important amendments to the Telemarketing Sales Rule. Published on August 29, 2008 in the Federal Register, one amendment harmonizes the FTC's call abandonment calculation standard with that of the Federal Communications Commission's standard and the other dramatically limits the FTC's current policy on pre-recorded voice calls.
On October 23, in testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Bureau of Consumer Protection Director Lydia Parnes stated that, even though the initial entries by consumers in the Do Not Call registry would soon hit their 5-year expiration date, it would not purge any numbers until final Congressional or agency action to determine whether that 5-year period should be extended.
The Federal Trade Commission announced that it will continue past January 2, 2007 its policy of forbearing enforcement of the prerecorded voice messaging policy under certain limited conditions.
On November 1, 2006, the DMA will discontinue all mail and most web-based consumer registrations for Telephone Preference Service (TPS). Consumers will be redirected to the Federal Trade Commission's Do Not Call Registry instead. This was first reported in AdvertisingLawBlog on July 7, 2006.
Direct marketers who intend to rely on fax advertisements must have an established business relationship with the recipient prior to sending the fax, as well as having received the recipient's fax number pursuant to that relationship.
The DMA announced that yesterday that it was ending enrollments in its telephone preference service (TPS) The TPS was a laudable industry alternative - initiated way back in 1985 - to deal on an self-regulatory basis with persons who did not want to receive telemarketing calls.