Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SMS Cellphone Spam Declared Illegal

Posted by michael on from the we-hates-it dept.

TCPALaw writes "The FCC has just released an order that reiterates that SMS spam messages to cellphones are illegal under the existing Telephone Consumer Protection Act and now also under the CAN-SPAM Act. Each such unsolicited message you receive without permission entitles you to take the sender to small claims court and collect a minimum of $500 for each violation. They said this in 2003, and now have reiterated it. To quote: 'In 2003, we released a Report and Order in which we reaffirmed that the TCPA prohibits any call using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded message to any wireless telephone number. We concluded that this encompasses both voice calls and text calls, including Short Message Service (SMS) text messaging calls, to wireless phone numbers.' The order is in 3 parts, one, two, and three."

28 comments

  1. So does this mean that.. by rusty0101 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... if I set up a system to monitor several servers, or routers, that sends me a status message on device down events, or periodically sends me an update that things are looking good, and the company I did this for lets me go without stopping the notifications, can I take the company to small claims court and get myself $500 for each such notification?

    I kind of doubt it, but it might help defray the lost wages...

    --
    You never know...
    1. Re:So does this mean that.. by bofkentucky · · Score: 1

      Get a new phone number, and for future reference, don't give the company your after hours mobile phone, if they want to contact you, thay can foot the bill of a phone/pager.

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
    2. Re:So does this mean that.. by macdaddy · · Score: 2, Informative

      I doubt it. You have a prior commercial relationship with the sender and unless you explicitly tell them to stop the transmissions you would have no basis for a complaint. Tell them to stop and they don't and you'll have something to complain about. It's really quite simple. The same applies to spam. Establish a commercial relationship with Company X and they can start sending you commercial messages. Tell them to stop and they must. If they don't then you can complain.

    3. Re:So does this mean that.. by Nos. · · Score: 1

      Exactly, and if/when you do tell them to stop, make sure you do so in a documentable fashion, for example a registered letter. Receiving a registered letter is also a way to help ensure a company sits up and takes notice of it.

  2. It would certainly be worth your while to test by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2, Informative

    And I'd give you 50/50 chances in court. But you'd better keep a damn good log of the notifications.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    1. Re:It would certainly be worth your while to test by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      This was in reply to the first post, I just clicked on the wrong reply link.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    2. Re:It would certainly be worth your while to test by rusty0101 · · Score: 1

      I would prefer not to test, and keep the job.

      I am sure there are people out there who were supposed to support the corporate servers, who were told to set up a notification system that would let them know of any outage, and also told that they were responsible for their own cell phones, etc.

      If they are discharged, they keep their cell phone, the Automatic Notification system was created at the company's request, and it falls under the classification of a automatic dialer since it is sending messages to a phone that does not belong to the company sending the messages.

      I think it would qualify, but I hope never to be in the position of finding out.

      -Rusty

      --
      You never know...
  3. This is moot though. by mind21_98 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    SMS messages usually cost money in the US. It'd cost the same as direct mail to send spam out to people, so it's just not economically viable. On the other hand, spam is basically free (besides the Internet connection) and is a quick and unfortunately easy way to promote oneself. I really wouldn't worry too much.

    --
    US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
    1. Re:This is moot though. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not entirely true- many SMS providers such as Verizon, TMobile, Sprint and AT&T provide e-mail addresses that are linked to the SMS system. Of course, any e-mail to those addresses gets truncated at 160 chars- but just look at slashdot sigs which get trunc'd at 120 chars. Well written spam COULD get through- if you tried hard at the writing. And basically free to the sender- though likely 10-15 cents a message to the receiver if it isn't in their calling plan.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  4. does this apply to AT&T spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Does this apply to your own provider's SMS spam ? I know AT&T sends messages every now and then, and it's annoying as I use SMS for emergency alerts.

  5. So does this mean... by Timeburn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If my email inbox is forwarded to my phone via SMS, does that mean I can sue for normal spam?

    On the other hand, I've seen arguments here that this is because SMS is a paid service (e.g. a quantifiable cost, unlike email). But what if I only get my email through my cell phone?

    Cingular charges by the k for data use, so suddenly there's a quantifiable cost for my email. Does this mean that the door will open here for normal spam?

    Though frankly, I won't really be happy until Congress rewrites drug laws into spam laws. Possesion with intent to distribute (SPAM) gets you 10-20 sort of a thing.

    --
    "Not one shred of evidence points to the notion that life is serious" -- Samuel Clemens, aka Mark Twain
    1. Re:So does this mean... by macdaddy · · Score: 2, Informative
      If my email inbox is forwarded to my phone via SMS, does that mean I can sue for normal spam?

      Nice idea but I'm afraid not. The intended recipient is your email address, which is where delivery takes place. Forwarding mail to your cell phone is one of your own actions. It's like forwarding your home phone to your cell. Telemarketers can't call your cell but they can call your home (unless you tell them not to or sign up for the DNCL). It's not possible for the telemarketer to know that his call to your home ends up getting forwarded to a restricted number, your cell. Just like it's not possible for a telemarketer to know that a number they dial that's not on the DNCL will be forwarded to one that is. The forwarding is your own action and not the fault of the sender.

    2. Re:So does this mean... by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      I sent my reply to soon. I forgot to say that I recall a ruling in a state spam case where the recipient tried to sue under one state's spam law because they automatically forwarded their mail from another provider in another state without spam laws to the state with the spam law. The judge through it out.

  6. That's all well and good, by np_bernstein · · Score: 1

    but most providers provide an email->sms mapping. If we can't crack down on spam coming from the check republic, what exactly makes anyone think that they will be able to crack down on spammers who send email to sms addresses?

    --
    RandomAndInteresting.comdefending the world from stupidity since 1979
    1. Re:That's all well and good, by clambake · · Score: 1

      but most providers provide an email->sms mapping. If we can't crack down on spam coming from the check republic, what exactly makes anyone think that they will be able to crack down on spammers who send email to sms addresses?

      You must be a spider, posting your sms email address on weblogs, message boards, anywhere, and waiting for some american company to walk into your trap. Gooooold mine!

  7. my cell # is 559.240.7625 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spam away...

  8. The *other* TCPA? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else think of the other TCPA when they read this article?

    --
    May we never see th
    1. Re:The *other* TCPA? by yeremein · · Score: 1

      Did anyone else think of the other TCPA when they read this article?

      You mean there's another TCPA besides that one?

      Time to write my representatives again...

  9. And the rest...? by maximilln · · Score: 1

    We concluded that this encompasses both voice calls and text calls, including Short Message Service (SMS) text messaging calls, to wireless phone numbers

    Yet it's still perfectly legal for salesmen to call my home telephone?

    The telemarketing lobby must be getting slow.

    --
    +++ATHZ 99:5:80
    1. Re:And the rest...? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It isn't if you were smart enough to put your number on the Federal DNC list- I haven't had a *sales* call since last October, on either home or cell.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    2. Re:And the rest...? by Danse · · Score: 1

      I dislike being taxed just to have the privacy that I should have in the first place. They should have made a Federal Please Call Me and Offer Me Whatever Stupid Crap You Have to Sell List so all those people that the marketers claim exist and want their offers could get them, frequently, relentlessly even. The DNC list is just the wrong solution.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    3. Re:And the rest...? by yRabbit · · Score: 1

      Spam should be the same way. Or like this:
      One central spam website. All spammers could post their crap there, rather than sending email to people. If someone wants to see 100+ advertisements for products a day, they could visit the central spam site. Easy as that.

    4. Re:And the rest...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naturally, it would cost $0.00 to enforce a universal ask-first system, because the existence of fines will act as a deterrent to all illegitimate businesses; that's why there are hardly any fly-by-night scam companies in, say, construction or civil engineering fields.

    5. Re:And the rest...? by Danse · · Score: 1

      I'm not opposed to paying for law enforcement. We have to pay to enforce the law against people that violate the DNC list anyway.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  10. Sweet! by clambake · · Score: 1

    I'm thinking my spam trap is going to be getting my phone's email address soon.

  11. We have worse shit in the UK to deal with. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    My dad got hit by a scam that basically pulls money out of your account if they send you a message. It was £3 per message, and it went on for weeks. He eventually got a complete refund, but after tons of phone calls and letters.

    The "service" provider is SMS Digital Future, and here are the fucking scaming bastards

  12. Free Reception by CaptainZapp · · Score: 1
    In Europe you usually don't pay for incoming SMS, not even when roaming.

    That doesn't mean however that I welcome such crap. SMS spam is by its nature far more intrusive then email spam.

    --
    ich bin der musikant

    mit taschenrechner in der hand

    kraftwerk

    1. Re:Free Reception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia,

      SMS spam pays for You!