DOJ and 4 States Want $24 Billion In Fines From Dish Network For Telemarketing (arstechnica.com) 117
walterbyrd writes: The DOJ as well as Ohio, Illinois, California, and North Carolina say that Dish disregarded federal laws on call etiquette. US lawyers are asking for $900 million in civil penalties, and the four states are asking for $23.5 billion in fines, according to the Denver Post. 'Laws against phoning people on do-not-call lists and using recorded messages allow penalties of up to $16,000 per violation,' the Post added.
Re:First amendment (Score:5, Informative)
The first amendment right is a right to speak. Its not a right to force others to listen.
No first amendment rights are being violated here. There is a do not call list that people opt into that means "This person does not wish to recieve your phone calls". If you think that allowing people to be forced into hearing others speech is OK, then fine, but lets not pretend that position is about defending rights.
Re: (Score:1)
Among other things, a newspaper heaved into your driveway cannot be punished as garbage. The front of your house is your open, public approach, and it's been to the Supreme Court, and speech wins every time. They can come up and knock, too.
Now if you put a fence around your yard and no tresspassing signs, that's different. A no call list might be similar to a no tresspassing sign.
Re: (Score:2)
First Amendment pre-dates telephones. If a salesman wants to stand on the public right-of-way and talk about his wares, that is his right under the First Amendment. The First Amendment did not give salesmen the right to make a device in my pants pocket vibrate at all hours of the day and night, masquerading as someone I might want to talk to and interrupting my private time.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that's a kind of press, the mechanical means of mass producing and distributing speech, specifically protected in the First Amendment alongside Speech itself. Modern courts have added "The Press"-qua-job-description, but the real reason is kings would backdoor censor by outlawing or controlling printing presses.
Indeed, there is a push on to do away with "The Press" job description, and being a "member" of "The Press" is synonymous with any citizen doing anything press-like, like picking up a cell
Re: (Score:2)
"The republicans do that because that is how they be."
But because we're Republicans, we can shoot any telemarketers we catch.
Political Exception (Score:4, Informative)
But if the Republicans rulers of a corporation hire thousands of co-conspirators to call the people in order to prevent us from communicating by calling us and tieing up our communication devices thus not allowing us to communicate, then they have taken our voice. They are taking our voice.
Actually, Congress has written all of these laws to make an exception for... Congress. Political fundraisers can call you all they want.
Re:Political Exception - WRONG (Score:1)
Wrong. The FCC explicitly stated the law (47 USC 227) prohibits political robocalls to cell phones without prior express consent. The FCC even issued citations to Democratic Dialing, LLC for it.
What is permitted is non-telemarketing (including political) robocalls to LANDLINES.
Re: (Score:1)
Wrong. The FCC explicitly stated the law (47 USC 227) prohibits political robocalls to cell phones without prior express consent. The FCC even issued citations to Democratic Dialing, LLC for it.
What is permitted is non-telemarketing (including political) robocalls to LANDLINES.
So *one* anti-phone-spam law they haven't carved out an exception on. They only wrote the law to let them and their fundraisers harass us on LANDLINES. How incredibly considerate of them.
And anyone who says political calls aren't telemarketing is selling something.
Steals your time (Score:4, Interesting)
The difference is that telemarketing steals your time in a way you can't reallocate. It's a much more significant intrusion than junk mail, and much more inconsiderate. And it is used much more frequently by very disreputable companies who hide caller IDs, refuse to give you real addresses, pretend to have preexisting relationships with you, etc...
Basically the sheer quantity of fraud combined with the much greater intrusion make it an appropriate area for regulation. The phone companies should be preventing it but don't. So long as the phone companies won't, governments should.
Re:First amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
The First Amendment guarantees a voice, but does not guarantee a platform. The fines for ignoring the DNC list are not for speaking; they are for violating the DNC list.
Re:First amendment (Score:4, Insightful)
The first amendment does not cover their use of my resources (my phone line) to convey their speech. They tie up my resources to do their speech. As soon as this is not the case, we can talk about their freedom of speech.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Although I recognize that telemarketing can be annoying, it's a form of speech."
Telemarketing is speech in the same way that mugging is a display of affection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Although I recognize that telemarketing can be annoying, it's a form of speech.
True. The form is commercial.
Arguably it's no different than junk mail, which there's no effort to ban.
Except the effort to ban Junk mail. [abc.net.au]
Online ads, which actually can be harmful by inserting malware, are not banned.
C'mon, you have to be aware of Ad Blocking software, right?
I don't see why telemarketing is worse than those.
That's ok, you don't have to see it. It can be heard. And it is. People call and complain about it all the time.
There are good reasons why certain types of speech like slander and violent threats are illegal. However, telemarketing doesn't have the harmful impacts of those types of speech.
That's why it has different regulations, though I should point out that "slander" and "violent threats" are themselves subject to a wide grade of analysis and review, as well as differences in handling.
This is a first amendment issue, and the government shouldn't be able to enforce bans on telemarketing. If a particular form of advertising is particularly obnoxious, the market can handle it if customers just stop doing business with that company.
Unfortunately, you're wrong on this. Especially since most of the ca
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's fine, too. One less annoyance in the world is already a good outcome.
Re:Lots of money (Score:5, Insightful)
We so need a corporate death penalty. This isn't quite the case for it to be used but, it should certainly exist. Also, if the corporation is sentenced to death, all of the C-level executives should have an automatic prison sentence that can be enhanced for their crimes.
Remember (Score:1)
To throw the low-level workers into the slammer, too.
"I was just following orders" is not a valid excuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Throw the share holders and all customers in too. They were funding this entire mess.
Re: (Score:2)
Customers, no. They're innocent victims.
Stockholders, however, are like the owner of a vicious dog who refuses
to take responsibility for the dog's behavior.
The current approach of "Well, I talked to the dog and I think he understands and I've paid the fine.
Besides, the toddler was trespassing." just doesn't cut it.
Re: (Score:2)
Were they? I was under the impression that the typical slashdot mantra is that you can vote with your wallet, in which case customers are part of the problem.
I'm just calling out the absurdity of throwing an entire company's workforce into the slammer, especially low-level workers who have far more riding on following orders than a customer does by supporting a company with a monthly subscription fee.
Re: (Score:2)
Throw the share holders and all customers in too. They were funding this entire mess.
If you have a 401k and it invests in NASDAQ index or comm stocks, then you are also one of the shareholders.
As a rough guess, I would say there are probably 60 million people in the U.S. that are either shareholders or customers of this company. That is a lot of people to put in prison.
Re: (Score:2)
That's my point. If you're going to go all the way down then why stop at low level employees. This is the USA, just arrest everyone in the country and call it a day.
Re:Lots of money (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I put a corporate death penalty up on the whitehouse.gov petitions a couple years ago. Got something like 3 signatures. It was even less popular than the one where I suggested that members of Congress should be required to use VA hospitals until the problems with VA hospitals are solved. A couple veterans I know were pretty gung-ho for that one.
Did you get the word out? Certainly this is the first I've heard of either one.
Figure out how to get it to go viral on FB and you'll get the signatures.
Re: (Score:2)
We so need a corporate death penalty. This isn't quite the case for it to be used but, it should certainly exist. Also, if the corporation is sentenced to death, all of the C-level executives should have an automatic prison sentence that can be enhanced for their crimes.
In theory, I support the idea, but the problem is that in practice, you could end up putting 100,000 people out of a job. They would have absolutely no influence on how the company is run, and may not be in a position to rock the boat anyway, since they have to feed their families, too.
Perhaps it could work something like this: Throw the execs in jail, then confiscate all stock, and re-allocate it evenly among the remaining employees. As the sole remaining shareholders, it would be up to them to find good l
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the remaining employees be sole remaining shareholders or am I reading this wrong? Lots of other people and companies can own shares in a company. When a company is starting up and gets outside investors they normally trade a fairly large amount of equity for the injection of money. Public companies can have shares owned by millions of people (especially when a nationalized company such as Air Canada or the British post office first go public and people want to own a part of if). Pension funds an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It just wouldn't do anything. Corporations are "born" easier than humans, and their "death" is meaningless. If you slaughter CorporationA, you may rest assured that a nanosecond CorporationANowNewAndImproved emerges that inherits everything from CorporationA, including staff and production means.
What you might lose is the name. Which may well be a good thing for said corporation since they just did something that warrants being shot.
Re: (Score:1)
;-)
I have, in my control, multiple corporations for a variety of reasons. They can come with a whole host of benefits and can be used for all sorts of good things. I strongly urge most everyone to look into the possible benefits - you can even do some interesting tax structuring with one if you're interested in going that route. Basically, you hire yourself to go to work at your regular job and then your car becomes an asset that has depreciation, fuel costs become business expenses, and things of that natu
Re: (Score:1)
You seem to think that I do that - I do not, but I still do write down business expenses, as I own a business still. In fact, I own in part, or in whole, lots of businesses now. See, I'm retired. However, YOU can do that - and it is perfectly legal, depending on how you structure it and your jurisdiction. Businesses are taxed only on profit, why should your taxes be any different? Your not an asshole for reducing your tax burden, tax avoidance is legal and ethical. Tax evasion is immoral and unethical. The
Re: (Score:2)
We so need a corporate death penalty
- and there should be a mechanism for converting it to community service. Cruel and demeaning community service, for about 4 - 5 billion years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Says the guy who obviously doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about..........
AT&T purchased DirecTV. But that's okay. Post something without even doing a quick check.. You moron
Too Bad (Score:1)
The only people who would see a dime of this aren't affected by it. It's lawyers all the way down.
Re: (Score:1)
If you want something, file a civil suit.
Re: Too Bad (Score:4, Interesting)
There is a serious collective action problem here. Between caller ID spoofing, robo-calling, callers refusing to identify their company or who they are calling on behalf of, and outright fraud, it is all but impossible to establish a TCPA violator's identity well enough to stand up in court, and then it is practically impossible to enforce any judgment. The time and effort it takes to win money is more costly for most people than what they could collect in a civil case.
Re: Too Bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Too Bad (Score:2)
Do the signaling protocols that telcos use accurately carry source information, even when VoIP providers help spoofing? Why won't my caller phone show that info? I didn't say identifying the caller was impossible, just that it is inordinately difficult and often not worth the hassle. It also tends to raise one's blood pressure.
They can find the source of "premium rate" calls (Score:1)
I contend that yes, the phone company *always* has the ability to find the source of a call, otherwise premium-rate (900, 976, phone sex, fortune-teller, etc.) calls would not work.
I bet if a telemarketer were to call a premium rate number, the phone company would have no problem knowing who to send the $2.99/minute bill to.
Re: (Score:2)
What your looking for is ANI (Automatic Number Identification).
with newer VoIP exchanges it's easier to spoof, but you wouldn't be able to from a legit phone company connection.
Re: (Score:2)
"Not worth the hassle" is the part that matters. Because for them it's all hassle and no reward.
If the Feds were to open a RICO case against a telemarketer and choose to make the telephony providers who enable them part of the conspiracy and part of the 20 years in prison, $100,000 per count prosecution then you bet your sweet ass they'd be coming up with circuit traces and source information, rapidamente.
I would imagine just considering a RICO case and telling a telco that they were considering including
Re: (Score:2)
That should get results!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Too Bad (Score:4, Interesting)
Some of this is cat and mouse... whatever system is used to identify them is circumvented, when that circumvention no longer works a new one is devised. If a company gets nailed badly enough, they declare bankruptcy and continue on in another corporation using slightly improved evasion methods.
Re: Too Bad (Score:2)
I think what we need is liability to the callee that aligns incentives in useful ways. For example, require caller ID to be accurate, and if the caller would be liable for $X in damages, make their telco liable for $X/2 in damages, and the caller's telco liable for $X/4 in damages, with a reasonably streamlined adjudication process. If Verizon owed me $125 for each ID-spoofed call I got in a month, they'd work pretty hard to make it reliable enough to shift that liability.
Re: (Score:2)
reasonably streamlined adjudication process
No such animal, either engage a lawyer who will charge you $400 to try to win $500, or take a day off from work to go press the case yourself.
I've been dealing with a serial harasser who claims to be Google, but is damnably hard to identify - even though they purport to want my business... it's not worth the hassle of chasing down their identity to try to possibly sue them in a local court to win a judgement that is then impractical to collect.
Re: Too Bad (Score:3)
For that bit, I was thinking basically an administrative law judge or a panel at the FCC, where their main job is to adjudicate cases like this, and so they can have streamlined accesses to relevant databases -- for example, I say "I got unsolicited calls at 9:15 on day A, 10:43 on day B", and so forth, and they can confirm with my telco that those calls were made, and get details about the callers that my carrier might not give me. If those details sustain my claim of TCPA violations, this judge or panel
Re: (Score:2)
Seems optimistic, would be nice, but I've never known the legal system to try that hard to help people.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of this is cat and mouse... whatever system is used to identify them is circumvented, when that circumvention no longer works a new one is devised. If a company gets nailed badly enough, they declare bankruptcy and continue on in another corporation using slightly improved evasion methods.
Like calling from out of the country maybe - where such laws don't apply or cannot be easily enforced.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of this is cat and mouse... whatever system is used to identify them is circumvented, when that circumvention no longer works a new one is devised. If a company gets nailed badly enough, they declare bankruptcy and continue on in another corporation using slightly improved evasion methods.
Like calling from out of the country maybe - where such laws don't apply or cannot be easily enforced.
Yeah, the ultimate evasion - it does take quite a bit of initial investment to set up an international scam, or at least pre-existing contacts in the non-extradition country willing to help. Thankfully, most telemarketing harassers don't have that much initiative or resources.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Fines for violations against the public should go into a government fund. And every year when every taxpayer files their taxes, they get a proportional share out of that fund; either as a tax credit or a refund. That way the money goes back directly to the public.
Fukkin... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nail 'em to the wall, boys.
Ain't nobody got time for telemarketer calls.
I don't care if the fine money goes to ISIS, better them than telemarketers allowed to roam free in parks where there are unattended children. Bastards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even the bank employees like a laugh now and again.
The people who were called. (Score:1)
Should be the ones to get the money.
Only 4 states want money? Thus far... (Score:2)
Someone got this story on the early-morning side.
If there's any money to be had you can bet that every single other state in the Union will have their attorneys general filing suit to join in the grab for cash.
This isn't about protecting consumers.
This isn't about punishing companies that screw with consumers.
It's not even making it about having dinner safe at home at eight o'clock at night without the damn phone ringing.
It's about government entities wanting MONEY from anyone and everyone they can get it f
Re: (Score:2)
Awesome, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
I get a bunch of these calls every week and... it's never once been Dish. It's always these sleazy scam operations with "Stop what you're doing I can make you ten thousand bucks" or "The FBI says there's a break-in every 8 minutes." I know it's only anecdotal, but no one I know who complains about annoying robocalls has ever mentioned Dish, it's always scammers.
I don't doubt that Dish has abused their phone privileges. But while this (unrealistic) fine in the tens of billions of dollars is big headlines for these AGs, maybe before they tear a ligament patting themselves on the back, they could also do some (less glamorous but more impactful) work against these mom and pop scam outfits?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Loud whistle by the phone time (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They do. The problem with a fly-by-night operation is that it's a fly-by-night operation. Scammers aren't running legitimate, fixed businesses, and that makes them hard to shutdown.
What you hear about in the news now and then are the dumb on
Dish Network is just annoying (Score:1)
I quit Dish years ago and still get at least two or three pieces of junk mail from them every week wanting me to come back. Now I can tell you the reason I cancelled Dish was not because I hated Dish, or it was too expensive. It was simply that where I moved to I could not get a decent signal. Now I can see Dish Network using different media to sell their services. But to spend postage to continually hound a former customer who cannot receive your service is a waste of advertising dollars.
Just imagine the m
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In today's news, a Minnesota youth basketball team has been ejected from their league for being too good. [foxnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The fine for a bank failing should be the bank failing. The "bailout" should be given to depositors (there was even an existing mechanism for that, the FDIC), not to the institution that lost the funds. But no, apparently we live in an age where mediocrity and incompetence is rewarded and excellence is restricted. Cos you'll just make the rest of us look bad, ya know?
Or at least be nationalized when bailed out but hey, that would be 'un-American'.
If the taxpayers bail out a company, that company should then belong to the taxpayers.
Re: (Score:2)
> So get a restraining order for their salesmen
Interesting idea -- how hard is that to get? It can't be _that_ easy, right? Don't you need to provide a "valid" reason?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Sure come on in and I'll be able to tell you how Jesus saved my life. I was a wicked person years ago but Jesus found me and now with daily prayer... hey, where are you going?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Similar to class action lawsuits, the purpose of fines like this is not really to reward the victims, it's to punish the company that's breaking the law. I don't care where the money goes as long as it's not in Dish/ATT's accounts anymore.
Consumers (Score:2)
Surprising (Score:2)
Possible Trespass to Chattels (Score:2)
When in Law School, a friend tried to frame 'fax spamming' as a Trespass to Chattels. They use your paper, ink, and equipment, after all.
If the Trespass argument held water, then perhaps it could be extended to robocalls which can, depending on your plan, use up your minutes or text credits. They'd also take up some of your answering machine or cell phone's memory.
It was a class project. I don't know if it was ever used in actual court arguments. IANAL.