Federal court rules against FTC no-call list

CBS MarketWatch.com ^ | 9/24/2003 | William L. Watts

[SierraWasp]

11:29AM Federal court rules against FTC no-call list by William L. Watts

WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- A federal judge in Oklahoma City ruled that the Federal Trade Commission didn't have authority to implement a popular do-not-call list shielding consumers from telemarketing calls, the Direct Marketing Association said. The court reportedly found that statutory jurisdiction for such a list rested with the Federal Communications Commission rather than the FTC. The DMA, a trade group representing telemarketers, brought the suit. In a statement, the organization said it "acknowledges the wishes of millions of U.S. consumers who have expressed their preferences not to receive" telemarketing solicitations. The DMA said it would work with the FTC and the FCC to "evaluate the practical implications" of the judge's decision, which was issued Tuesday.

[kjam22]

A 22 doesn't go Kaboom. It goes "plink"

[steve-b]

Following service in the United States Marine Corps

And here I thought that the "dumb jarhead" was just a malicious stereotype born of interservice rivalry.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Have a tape recording or a .wav file of a woman screaming. When the telemarketer calls, start the screaming and in your weirdest serial killer voice, start going on about how she just won't die....

Quit worrying, dude - nobody believed the report of that telemarketer, so you're still safe from the law. No need to continue that cover story.....

;)

[Lazamataz]

No need to continue that cover story...

Oh good. Now, was it lye or turpentine that works so well?

[HungarianGypsy]

I am often mistaken for a child when I answer the phone. I now get pleasure from telling telemarketers that my mommy and daddy are not available. One night I got one such call and told the man that my mom didn't live there and my dad was dead. After that he still had the nerve to try and sell me the New York Times. I just laughed at him as I told him no.

[steve-b]

Telemarking firms are often the highest paying employers for unskilled labor in many of the cities where they set up shop.

Is it my fault that these people didn't bother to learn any job skills?

[NotJustAnotherPrettyFace]

HAHAHAHA! Got any more of those stories? I could use a few more good laughs today.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Lye, according to an episode of CSI I saw. Plus, a 55 gallon barrel works nicely.

[steve-b]

You are assulting an individual who's trying to make a living.

I can just picture a somewhat tipsy second-story man uttering this statement with owlish dignity to the cop who just collared him.

[Sideshow Bob]

From the article: "The court reportedly found that statutory jurisdiction for such a list rested with the Federal Communications Commission rather than the FTC."

Hold on, now. Just because a regulatory commission issued a regulation doesn't mean that it can legally do so.

But we're not talking about the FCC issuing a regulation relating to safety rules for plucking chickens or OSHA regulating the manner in which funeral directors distribute casket pricing information. We're talking about the FTC issuing a rule to protect a large group of consumers from being adversely impacted by telemarketers who - as an industry - have a long and well-documented history of significant incidences of illegal or unethical actions. This type of government prohibition or regulation is exactly within the purview of the FTC.

I think the court has erred. Yes, there may exist statuatory language defining telecommunications as being subject to FCC rules. But there's also statuatory language defining consumer protection as subject to FTC rules. There is no such thing as exclusive jurisdiction for any one executive branch agency.

What this court has done is to rule on a chicken and the egg argument. Is this a telecommunications issue affecting consumers? Or is this a consumer issue affecting telecommunications? This court has, in my view, arbitrarily decided on the former.

The larger question - the one being glossed over in this discussion - is how can the judicial branch interfere in an executive branch action, if it does not violate the Constitution?

Sounds to me like a violation of the separation of powers clause.

[steve-b]

After that he still had the nerve to try and sell me the New York Times.

"I'm sorry; I've been kind of busy lately. When I have more time to read historical fiction, I'll get back to you...."

[Cboldt]

You don't know who they are, but they know who you are. Half true. I've called companies back, that disrespected my civil complaints, and they were able to ID the offensive telemarketing person.

It's not hard to be assertive without being obnoxious.

[Rebelbase]

True.

[Cboldt]

I didn't read the decision closely, but I think the FCC was granted this authority, but the FTC ran with it.

That we tolerate FedGov growth (and even PAY for the infighting) to stifle this annoyance amazes me.

[Lazamataz]

Lye, according to an episode of CSI I saw. Plus, a 55 gallon barrel works nicely.

Thx. You're my buddy.

[RonF]

The judicial branch is saying that the executive branch's agency assumed authority that the legislature gave to a different agency. That's a legitimate function of the judiciary. The judicary didn't say that the legislature can't such authority to agency "A" or "B"; it said that it didn't. The legislature can make clear who should have the authority here without much trouble, and should do so immediately.

[chuckr]

well...'cause they can lobby our government! and we just vote :-(

[Sideshow Bob]

To avoid getting phone calls from solicitors, make sure you opt out with any business you have a relationship, but remember, they can no longer service or sell to you as they have in the past. This would include your bank, phone co, insurance, investments, internet, cable co, etc.. Next, have your phone company provide a caller id device, a service that doesn't allow blocked calls, and then have the phone answer with a message that you don't allow solicitation calls. These are not very expensive services. On your voice mail, say that you do not accept sales calls period and not to leave a message if that is what it's about. Be careful when you fill out forms, surveys, or registrations, these are most often used for solicitation. Use initials and slight changes to your name to catch folks that may violate this. When solicitors do call, get their name and company BEFORE you tell them to remove you. Should someone violate this, forward the details to the state AG. You may want to start by changing your phone number. Nearly everyone you want to call can be quickly contacted about your new phone number.

But why should anyone have to go through all these "simple" steps to simply not have their privacy invaded.

A no-call list is exactly like posting a "No Solicitations" or "No Trespassing" sign on your premises or having codes, ordinances or laws regulating that activity. Solicitors and others can still attempt to enter my private property uninvited, but are subject to the penalties or consequences of violating any existing tresspassing or solicitation code, ordinance or law.

[RonF]

The courts, and rightly so, have found this proposal to be a POS. Is there a solution out there? Yes, but the one offered up was both illegal and stupid.

From what I read, the courts had no problem with the proposed regulation; it's simply an issue of who's supposed to issue and enforce it. Where have courts ruled on the merits of the regulation?

[mhking]

The courts, and rightly so, have found this proposal to be a POS.

No, actually, the courts (according to the news stories that have come out on the decision this afternoon) have said that the FTC didn't have jurisdiction, the FCC does.

The courts did not talk about the validity of the rules themselves.

I'm cautiously optimistic that the FCC will enact comparable rules within the near term so that we (the public) are not subjected to the whims of unscrupulous telemarketers.