Posted on 09/24/2003 1:08:49 PM PDT by scab4faa
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - A federal judge has ruled that the Federal Trade Commission overstepped its authority in creating the national ``do-not-call'' list against telemarketers.
The ruling came in a lawsuit brought by telemarketers who challenged the list of 50.6 million numbers submitted by people who do not want to receive business solicitation calls.
The immediate impact of Tuesday's ruling by U.S. District Judge Lee R. West was not clear. He did not issue an order directing an action by the FTC. The list was to go into effect Oct. 1.
West said the main issue in the case was ``whether the FTC had the authority to promulgate a national do-not-call registry. The court finds it did not.''
In 1994, Congress enacted the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act that directed the FTC to ``prescribe rules prohibiting deceptive ... and other abusive telemarketing acts.''
But the judge said Congress gave the Federal Communications Commission, not the FTC, the authority to operate ``a single national database to compile a list of telephone numbers of residential subscribers who object to receiving telephone solicitations.''
The FTC said the Omnibus Appropriations Act, signed by President Bush in February, authorizes the FTC to ``implement and enforce the do-not-call provisions of the Telemarketing Sales Rule.''
``This decision is clearly incorrect,'' FTC chairman Timothy Muris said Wednesday. ``We will seek every recourse to give American consumers a choice to stop unwanted telemarketing calls.''
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin, R-La., and Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., said they were confident the ruling would be overturned and that they believe Congress gave the FTC authority to operate the registry.
``We will continue to monitor the situation and will take whatever legislative action is necessary to ensure consumers can stop intrusive calls from unwanted telemarketers,'' they said in a joint statement.
Direct Marketing Association, one of the plaintiffs, said it was happy with the ruling, even though it ``acknowledges the wishes of millions of U.S. consumers who have expressed their preferences not to receive telephone-marketing solicitations - as evidenced by the millions of phone numbers registered on the FTC list.''
The DMA, a nonprofit trade organization representing 5,000 U.S. companies, said it will work with its attorneys, the FTC and the FCC during the next few days to evaluate what the ruling will mean for consumers and businesses.
The telemarketing industry estimates the do-not-call list could cut its business in half, costing it up to $50 billion in sales each year. Telemarketers would have to check the list every three months to see who doesn't want to be called. Those who call listed people could be fined up to $11,000 for each violation.
The lawsuit was filed by U.S. Security, Chartered Benefit Services Inc., Global Contact Services Inc., InfoCision Management Corp. and Direct Marketing Association Inc.
A similar lawsuit is pending in U.S. District Court in Denver, where the trade group American Teleservices Association and two telemarketing companies sued in January to keep the FTC from starting the do-not-call program.
In the Denver case, the plaintiffs said the list would violate telemarketers' constitutional rights and exceed the FTC's authority. The FTC argued that the list presented no serious constitutional problems and was created under congressional authority in response to concerns about intrusions into consumers' privacy.
Plaintiffs in the Denver case are Mainstream Marketing Services Inc. of Boulder, Colo., and TMG Marketing Inc., a Nebraska company that operates from Denver.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.netscape.cnn.com ...
That will just keep you on their list. Better telling them that you don't want to be called, but thanks anyway. ... The phone company has a variety of phone products to stop solicitors.
I tried that, but I still get calls. I'd rather do what I can to make it expensive for them. I think if everyone does this it will work and we won't have to pay for "products" to keep them away.
FROM:OLADOKUN DANIELS #24 KOFO ABAYOMI STREET VICTORIA ISLAND LAGOS-NIGERIA
Dear Sir,
RE: BUSINESS PROPOSAL - STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL. I am OLADOKUN DANIELS,Chairman of the Contract Review Panel that was recently inaugurated by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to review the activities of past military government with particular reference to contracts awarded by all ministries between.......
I'll post the rest of the message for a million dollars! Or maybe a six pack.
1) They are overbroad -- they do not just apply to "telemarketers" (who I would define as being companies making massive numbers of cold calls at random), but also to ANY business calling ANY residence for ANY reason.
2) To be in compliance, ANY business, no matter how small, that wishes to call ANY residential number ANYWHERE in the US must pay over SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR for access to the Do-Not-Call registry, even if they only need to look up an occasional number now and then; free look-up access is provided only for five area codes, which is often not enough to cover an entire state, and sometimes not even an entire metro area.
The bottom line is that these regulations are NOT "anti-telemarketer" -- the telemarketing firms will consider $7K per year to be small change, and it will be a relatively simple programming change to incorporate the do-not-call registry into their already-computerized systems. What these regulations REALLY are is "ANTI-SMALL-BUSINESS" -- most of us who are in or run small, non-telemarketing businesses cannot possibly afford this $7K per year, nor can we afford an $11K penalty. Thus, if the FTC regulations were to stand, this would effectively limit just about ALL small businesses to calling ONLY residences within a five-zip-code area. I call that "restraint of trade" -- the exact opposite of what the FTC has been tasked to do.
I hate telemarketing calls as much as anyone else. But there's got to be a better way to do this.
The mass marketeers are going into the clubs, religious organizations and public interest groups that folks belong to. They get the executives -- one or two, eventually a majority of the excutive committee or whatever the master steering group is to to all things necessary -- from providing solicitation lists to changing by-laws -- so as to allow the marketeers to call YOU. YOU, the member of a club, church, sect, synagogue, or organization.
You see, as a member of club, the FIRST AMENDMENT'S guarentee of the right of free association PREVENTS any goobermint [sic] body from stopping that kind of marketing.
Marketng is like sex. You just can't avoid it. An intrinsic part of nature.
Yeah, they shouldn't have the authority to regulate interstate commerce.
Having the govt involved in this area was very bad.
Leaving the telemarketers to self-regulate is even worse.
Here's a rundown on what I did to defeat the telemarketers, and what happened in subsequent events:
1. Installed Telezapper. Response: telemarketers' calling systems now ignore S-I-T tones.
2. Selected "opt out" on every form I filled out. Response: many businesses have deleted opt-out options, and now require that I send them a NOTARIZED letter via CERTIFIED MAIL before they will cease and desist from calls. In other words, I have to spend MORE money to be allowed the quiet enjoyment of my property.
3. Asked telemarketers to put me on their "Do not call list" when they call. Response: telemarketer either breaks call before I can finish saying the magic words, or they suddenly say "No habla Ingles, Senor" or "What was that? You're breaking up!"
Amazing how many conservatives could understand the dangerous ambitions of the govt getting involved in healthcare, but not this issue.
Well, if telemarketers had not behaved so abominably for so long, the government would not have gotten involved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.