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.

[Arrowhead1952]

Can't you just white out the company's name and address and use the envelope to mail the bank your mortgage payment or something?

Hadn't thought about that. Just make a label and stick it over the send to address and your retrun label in the upper left hand corner. What a great enterprising idea. May have to tell my wife not to rip up all those envelopes with prepaid postage.

[Labyrinthos]

Thanks for posting the opinion. The court almost ruled correctly, but crashed at the end. Assuming the court correctly recited the legislative history (which probably came from a join stipulation of facts from the parties to the lawsuit), Congress expressly and unequivically gave the FCC, but not the FTC, the power and authority to create a national "do not call" list. If that was the end of the fact pattern, then the court would have ruled correctly. But earlier this year Congress apparently allocated money to the FTC to implement the "do not call list" that the FTCt had previously created -- without proper authorization and therefore, illegally -- thereby ratifying the FTC's action. According to the district court, the FTC exceeded its authority because Congress in appropriating the funds to the FTC to implement the "do not call" list failed to expressly authorize the FTC to do what Congess had just given it money to do.

The judge is wrong and he will be overturned on appeal. However, his decision is not a hack job by any respect. If anyone is to blame, then it is the tards in Congress who could have avoided the lawsuit by simply passing laws that expressly state what Congress intends rather than passing a lot of cryptic crap and trusting the courts to figure out what Congress really meant.

[RonF]

I think people are way out of line to damn this judge. He didn't say that there was anything wrong with the substance of the DNC list regulation at all. He just said that the legislature gave the FCC the authority to do this, not the FTC. If the legislature didn't make it clear who should be doing this and the executive branch didn't get it straight, it's not his fault. Congress can clear this up very quickly. It's not the judge's fault if the Congress can't write laws clearly.

[RonF]

Those simple things look like they'll take time and money for me to defend my own privacy. I think the burden belongs on those who seek to invade my privacy, not me.

[Tall_Texan]

I apologize. I DO get worked up about the subject because these vermin are a major annoyance. And I don't exempt politicians. I will not vote for politicians who call again and again with canned speeches - including ones I would have otherwise voted for. And I will call them and tell them so.

I consider what telemarketers do rude and offensive and so, in my frustration, I will get rude and offensive in return. Frankly, *any* company or enterprise that cold calls me gets on my permanent DO NOT DO BUSINESS WITH list. If they are that desperate for my money, they don't deserve it.

The only thing I didn't like about the legislation is that it wasn't tough enough. It needed less exemptions and stiffer penalties. And if the entire telemarketing industry dried up and blew away overnight, I would be thrilled to death. Let them find real jobs where they are productive rather than jobs where they harass and offend people.

If I want to but a product, I will pick up a phone or get in my car or get online and initiate the business contact. The coward behind the sales call is not afraid that I don't know what they have to offer. The truth is they know I might like the competitor's product better and rather than working to make their product more appealing they'd rather badger me into choosing them before considering the alternatives. It's a cowardly approach to business and I do not intend to support it with my money.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Does that clown outfit work?

[Cboldt]

There are many burdens in daily life. My attitude is to be VERY reluctant to invite a Federal Authority to manage the issue. Your mileage may vary.

[Tall_Texan]

It worked for John Wayne Gacy. (Isn't that the clown in the picture?).

[InfraRed]

Thanks for repeating that list, but it is of no use to myself, nor is it simple.

I already have caller ID, but it does not keep my phone from waking me. Also, many cell numbers show up without names on the caller ID devices. Am I expected to memorize everybody's cell phone number, just to know when it's a phone solicitor? What if a friend or family member gets a new cell phone number? How's this for an idea: Stop making me get up to look at caller ID!

I already have a phone answering machine, but it does not keep my phone from waking me.

Why should I have to spend additional money, for additional services or products, to prevent strangers from harassing me inside my own home? If the phone solicitors will pay for the additional services, fine.

I do not have time to file opt-out requests with every company in the world. If the phone solicitors want to hire someone to perform these services for me, fine. This time-consuming chore is caused by the actions of the phone solicitors, so they should pay for it.

I have politely asked many solicitors to place my number on their do-not-call lists. It has helped, somewhat, but I do not wish to spend the rest of my life requesting the same thing from an infinite number of new companies. Also, I have received many calls from the same companies, even after I requested that my number never be called again. One of them is a charity, so I guess there's not much I can do about it. They've been calling twice per month, for over two years since I asked them to stop calling.

Like I said earlier, do not expect me to change my number. I have had this phone number for 14 years, and I have no intention of changing it now. I had a second phone line installed for a couple of years. To the very day it was disconnected, I kept getting calls from bill collectors that were trying to reach the person to whom the number previously belonged. Nothing I said would convince the collection agencies that I was not the person for which they were looking. There is NO WAY I will give up my current number and start getting "wrong number" calls again.

I am extremely careful about where my phone number gets logged. Despite my efforts, the phone solicitors still get the number somehow.

Stop making noise inside my home! Stop expecting me to waste my time, and my money, to defend myself against unwanted trespassers inside my own home!

The fact is, phone solicitors are causing the problem, and the phone solicitors should be responsible for all costs involved in cleaning up the mess they have made. The cleanup should not be done at taxpayer expense, and it certainly should not be at the expense of individuals.

[Lazamataz]

Does that clown outfit work?

Clown suits and crawl spaces work every single time.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

I didn't know that....

[Sideshow Bob]

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.

No, that's not accurate. This court struck down the FTC's authority on consumer issues granted by the legislature because the legislature granted authority of telecommunication issues to the FCC.

This nutball judge made the determination that a no-call list rule was NOT a consumer issue. Unless the no-call rule somehow is in conflict with existing FCC rules, how can any court decide which agency trumps another?

Unless the Telemarketers were able to demonstrate that their due process rights were violated, this court should have determined this suit to be frivolous and thrown their asses out of court.

The FTC will appeal and win at the federal appellate court level.

The crime here is that this idiot judge from Oklahoma has increased the legal costs (and our collective tax liability) in perpetuating the Telemarketers baseless suit.

The time has come to eliminate lifetime appointments to the judiciary. 10 or 15 year terms should be the limit for any federal appointment.

[steve-b]

The court almost ruled correctly, but crashed at the end. Assuming the court correctly recited the legislative history (which probably came from a join stipulation of facts from the parties to the lawsuit), Congress expressly and unequivically gave the FCC, but not the FTC, the power and authority to create a national "do not call" list. If that was the end of the fact pattern, then the court would have ruled correctly. But earlier this year Congress apparently allocated money to the FTC to implement the "do not call list" that the FTCt had previously created -- without proper authorization and therefore, illegally -- thereby ratifying the FTC's action. According to the district court, the FTC exceeded its authority because Congress in appropriating the funds to the FTC to implement the "do not call" list failed to expressly authorize the FTC to do what Congess had just given it money to do.

To summarize: The district court ruled that Congress didn't say "Simon Says".

[Professional]

Well, a few people have opined that my "simple" list is too much work, and too expensive. I could do this in one sitting, over a few hours, then benefit from it for the remainder of my Ma Bell days. By the sounds of it, this telemarketing REALLY bothers you, fine. If it bothers you that much, take the simple steps and get on with life.

There are SO many things that bother me, but I can either cope, or have a frickin heart attack. I choose the former.

[Crusher138]

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.

It isn't as obvious as a sign on the door. It a constantly updated list, one that they will probably have to buy or subscribe to, one that will probably have many errors on it, that they will then have to cross reference to their lists of customers to purge the "do not calls."

What about the poor telemarketing schlub who is a legitamate business man? He now has to spend his time updating the list of people he is allowed to call and, God forbid, he accidentally calls someone who signed up last week and hasn't been updated on his list yet. The least that will happen is he will have to hire a lawyer and fight it. At worst he could have to pay thousands of dollars of fines.

Then we have the yo-yo customer who says or thinks they are on the list and complains. What happens then? Is the complaint dropped or followed through on anyway?

I'm not a telemarketer, but just the thought of what a telemarketer will have to go through just to stay in business makes my head swim.

You get the feeling that they really want to put telemarketers out of business, but know that they can't do that legally, so they are going to regulate them to death instead.

[Professional]

The proposal is full of all sorts of sticking points, the obvious ones, jurisdiction, will do just fine, for starters.

This do not call list thing will be debated for years.

[steve-b]

He now has to spend his time updating the list of people he is allowed to call and, God forbid, he accidentally calls someone who signed up last week and hasn't been updated on his list yet.

Stop making up nonsense. The rules clearly and explicitly say that telemarketers only have to update every three months, and that they are not expected to know about people who signed up for the DNC list after the last update.

Then we have the yo-yo customer who says or thinks they are on the list and complains. What happens then? Is the complaint dropped or followed through on anyway?

Obviously, the complaint is dropped as soon as the FTC checks the DNC list and fails to find the yo-yo's number.

[Labyrinthos]

To summarize: The district court ruled that Congress didn't say "Simon Says".

Exactly.

[steve-b]

This do not call list thing will be debated for years.

Nope. Even if the ruling stands (unlikely, given Labyrinthos' explanation of the legal rationale behind it), a debugged version of the DNC list law will be passed by Congress and signed by the President within a week.

[hadaclueonce]

NOW I am Mad!!!
who has his email address..
better yet his phone number, I will keep him up all night.