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

Why not - with so many loopholes?

[erick99]

I don't think anyone was terribly surprised that the registry was upheld. There was a lot of public support and this is, after all, a big election year. What will be interesting to see is how fast the telemarketing firms find work-arounds. For example:

"Companies can telemarket to anyone who has bought, leased or rented something from them within the last 18 months, or to anyone who has inquired about or applied for something with them within the last three months.

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

You could drive a truck full of mailing lists through that loophole. I am sure they will come up with something....

Happy Trails!

Erick

Re:Why not - with so many loopholes?

[kfg]

What will be interesting to see is how fast the telemarketing firms find work-arounds.

"Hello? Yes, this is the United Way. We're calling to let you know that under arrangement with Company X a small donation allows us to offer you. . . "

KFG

Re:Why not - with so many loopholes?

[Dukael_Mikakis]

You're right. From my understanding these sorts of nuisance restrictions are just an elaborate song and dance between companies (spammers/telemarketers) and the government. The government hears all the complaining from consumers (via Dateline or whatever) and some elaborate method of restricting such marketing without trampling the Constitution (upheld because telephone lines/bandwidth are private commodities?) and then it's the telemarketers' turn to peruse the writing and find the loopholes (which the parent mentioned) to sneak past the regulation, and the government has to redraft a new law, ad infinitum.

If the government violates the Constitution, game over. Likewise if these businesses violate legitimate law.

Who loses? Well, of course, the citizens, who must contend with increasingly restrictive laws regarding telephone/email usage and increasingly sophisticated and much-more-difficult-to-screen marketing tactics.

Politicians get their big victory (yeah, in an election year). And as always lawyers win on both sides trying to uphold or crack through these laws.

And it does seem ironic (and soft) that the exemptions are for those businesses that telemarket the most. Banks about mortgages and credit cards, "airlines" offering travel packages, and the like. Seems reminiscent of the recent "anti-spam" initiative. It sounds good to the voting populace, but it also has the campaign-financing corporations drooling with delight.

Politics.

Finally the courts did something right....

[overbyj]

I have always been annoyed at the telemarketing industry's arguments as to why they should be able to do this. They have always maintained that it was free speech. What they fail to realize is that it is free speech that I have to pay for! Sure, I would have a phone anyway, but basically they are wasting my money. If they want to market on the street corner, go right ahead because that truly is free speech (obviously within limits) but when you come into my home on the telephone line I am paying for, then it crosses the line and that is not free speech.

This leads me to another thought. I have always wondered why the telemarketing industry doesn't pay for people's phone lines in return for getting phone spam. ISP's do it, why not here?

Now let's stop the politicians

[ChaosDiscord]

My state's Do-Not-Call List has kept my phone blissfully silent for the last year or so. But the various DNC List laws have several loopholes. Perhaps the worst is the political campaign loophole. Worse yet, many of those campaigns are using automated responders which simply play a recording if you (or your answering machine) answers. Our primary is today, over the last three days I've gotten a half dozen unwelcome political calls and a dozen hung up calls that I can only guess are predictive dialers. For a phone that normally rings one a week this was a huge irritation. At least they haven't started calling my cell phone (yet).

Win a free car!

[funny-jack]

One example of this already:

In our local shopping mall there is a shiny new car parked in the walkway. Next to it is a box with a pile of "entry forms" on the top of it, enticing people to enter to win a new car, or a pile of cash or whatever.

When you read the fine print on the back of the card, you find that by filling out the card, you are giving them and anyone they feel like sharing it with permission to contact you via phone or mail.

I just wonder what would happen if someone filled out one of these for me (being on the Do Not Call list) without my knowledge or permission, and they contacted me. Hmm...

Telemarketers know their business better than you

[GGardner]

The NYT ran an article about this a while back -- they interviewed people who didn't want to buy things from unsolicited phone calls, but ended up doing so anyways, because they "felt sorry" for the person making the phone call. One woman they interviewed bought 5 $1k replacement windows, which she later admitted, "probably wasn't a good idea". She also said that she would sign up for a do not call list, to prevent her from mercy purchases in the future.

Don't think that the telemarketters don't know their own business.

somewhat dubious

[sharkdba]

As much as I am annoyed by telemarketing, spam and all sort of other unsolicited products/services, I am dubious about this. I'm all for the Do-not-call list, but in this case telemarketers do have a point. Why allow charities and not them? The only reason so few people are complaining (even here on /.) is that most people are annoyed by telemarketing. If this was about a more neutral service, there would be serious complaints.

A better approach would be a do-not-call list with options: 1 option for "do not call me at all", and another option with "do not call me, but still allow charities", or something in this matter. This would give power to individual consumer, and remove any validity from telemarketers complaints.