Appeals Court OKs FTC's Do-Not-Call List

GTRacer writes "The USA Today website just posted a report that the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (Denver) has upheld the FTC's national Do Not Call registry. In their decision, the Court found the list to be 'a valid commercial speech regulation...without burdening an excessive amount of speech.' The telemarketers had challenged the constitutionality of blocking commercial free speech while allowing charities and select others to continue phone solicitation. Interestingly enough, 'Officials in the telemarketing industry did not immediately return calls seeking comment.' Isn't it now obvious these people have a double-standard when it comes to reaching out and touching someone?" The court's decision is available to read.

Comments

Also, banks are not 'exempt'

[missing000]

As a consultant for a large mortgage bank, I can assure you banks are not exempt.

This fact helped me convince upper management that outbound campaigns were a cost prohibitive idea.

Re:Why not - with so many loopholes?

[squiggleslash]

It also exempts long-distance phone companies and airlines; banks and credit unions; and insurance companies operating under state regulation.

Sort-of. Phone companies, banks/etc, and airlines for some reason fall under the FCC's remit rather than the FTC's, so this is why they're "exempt". Except they're not, the FCC has ruled that these organizations are bound by the DNC list too.

Which is why those of us who've signed up haven't had any unsolicted calls from phone companies or credit card issuers. :)

Re:Finally the courts did something right....

[plover]

The judge's opinion in this case was that a person's home has always enjoyed a unique place with respect to the homeowner's rights. The concept of "cost" to the recipient didn't enter into his argument.

Here's the relevant quote from Frisby v. Schultz the court cited in this ruling:

One important aspect of residential privacy is protection of the unwilling listener. ... [A] special benefit of the privacy all citizens enjoy within their own walls, which the State may legislate to protect, is an ability to avoid intrusions. Thus, we have repeatedly held that individuals are not required to welcome unwanted speech into their own homes and that the government may protect this freedom.