Slashdot Mirror
FCC Proposes Fining AT&T Over DNC Violation
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."
According to this article the fine is not for violating the recently enacted DNC list, but rather for violating separate FCC rules. Specifically if someone asks you to remove their name from your list you are required to do so.
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.
If I remember correctly, in addition to creating the do not call list, the bill also patched up some loopholes that allowed telemarketters to continue calling after being asked to stop.
In AT&T's case, they will be bound by US law because they are a US corporation, they have offices here, and they do business in the US. Where the call originates doesn't matter since it is AT&T calling you and they do have control over it.
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?
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Your right of free speech stops at my mailbox. The constitution does not give you the right to electronically barge your way (uninvited) into my home, demand the use of my equipment and ink and paper supplies to present your message, shifting all your selling costs to me without my permission or request.
0 3/022705P.p df
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
Cave, wreck, and deep diver.