FCC Proposes Fining AT&T Over DNC Violation 392
Iphtashu Fitz writes "The FCC has just announced a proposed $780,000 fine against AT&T for violating the recently enacted Do Not Call telemarketing rules. The FCC charges that AT&T marketers called 29 consumers on 78 different occasions after those consumers had signed up on the Do Not Call list. The FCC has posted a press release (pdf) to this effect on their web site."
just to clarify (Score:5, Informative)
What is also interesting is AT&T's reaction in the above article, as I have had telemarketers call me offerring me things like identity theft protection on my AT&T Universal card, yet they aren't at all affiliated with AT&T.
ATT's response (Score:3, Informative)
We want to stress that this FCC investigation is not based on the nationwide do-not- call list that went into effect in October. Instead, it concerns claims by customers who believed they were on an AT&T-specific list and received a call they think was from AT&T.
Re:Not the "Do Not Call" list (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Good - let's get this tested right away (Score:3, Informative)
For those who don't get it: technically speaking, calling someone on the DNC list isn't a felony, it's a civil infraction.
Re:International telemarketeers (Score:4, Informative)
Even if it is a foreign corporation, the fines will still stick if they have offices here or are licensed to do business in the US.
The case I'm not real sure about is if you were a foreign corporation, did not have offices in the US, and did no business in the US (i.e. were not licensed to sell anything here, etc.) And if that were the case, then why are you calling me since you can't sell me anything?
Also, if you were a complete independent telemarketing company and were hired to do a campaign into the US for someone else, then I don't know what the law would say. Maybe the fines would apply to the company that paid for the ad campaign?
Re:I got a call from Dell yesterday... (Score:1, Informative)
My local phone company (SBC) repeatedly ignored my requests to be placed on their do-not-call lists, but I think they got the message after I reported them to the FTC, FCC and state attorney general.
Free Speech (Score:5, Informative)
Can you imagine a whole new class of "door-to-door" salesmen who knocked on your door, entered your house uninvited, demanded the use of your possessions, showed their product and then claimed that you had no right to stop them because it would violate their right of free speech?
The TCPA has been around for over 10 years now and has been upheld to be constitutional, but that doesn't prevent lawyers from trying the same old arguments again and again. They include: Destination Ventures, Ltd. v. FCC, 46 F.3d 54, (9th Cir. 1995), and Moser v. FCC, 46 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1161. See also Kenro, Inc. v. Fax Daily, Inc., 962 F. Supp. 1162 (S.D. Indiana 1997). Linder v. Thrifty Oil negates the popular "minimal harm" argument.
Because cert to the US Supreme Court was denied in the 9th Circuit, it means that the operating law is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which unanimously upheld the TCPA as constitutional. The 9th Circuit is the largest of the 13 federal circuits so this ruling holds a lot of weight. It covers California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam or the Northern Mariana Islands. In addition, federal district courts in three circuits have also upheld the constitutionality of the TCPA.
An 8th Circuit District Court (Eastern District of Missouri) judge ruled (March 13, 2002) that the TCPA is unconstitutional. The judge was none other than Rush Limbaugh's uncle, Steven Limbaugh, Sr. Limbaugh's bogus ruling was reversed, as we predicted, by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals on March 21, 2003. (it is important for you all to understand the differences between a ruling being reversed, remanded, or otherwise directed. Reversed pretty much means that something was in such gross error, it should have never existed.)
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/
More infor can be found at junkfax.org
Re:Good - let's get this tested right away (Score:3, Informative)
Courts find people liable for things they proved they didn't do all the time (see the Chaplin paternity case). It really shouldn't be that way, but because it is sometimes that can work to your advantage.
"Ok, you proved you didn't do it, but we think you're scum anyway. Pay up."
And who doesn't think telemarketers are scum? Hell, I've known some telemarketers who knew they were scum, but didn't care because it kept them in coke money.
Pay up buddy.
KFG
calls from AT&T!(even if you don't know which (Score:3, Informative)
I don't mean independantly operated, I mean a different company.
AT&T Wireless moved from independant operation to independant in 2000 over 3 years ago.
Trust me, if you had been foolish enough to buy the stock (AWE) you would remember.
The Credit Card is yet another non AT&T company carrying the AT&T brand.
If that's all the violations they've had then they have done quite well. Or I should say thier contractors have done well.
Re:This could be wonderful, but it could backfire (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe you did? The FTC set up the national Do No Call Registry. This article is about the FCC and has nothing to do with the national registry, regardless of what the
Box them up (Score:2, Informative)