DirectTV to Pay $5.4M in Privacy Fines

abscissa writes "Remember the do-not-call registry? DirecTV is in big trouble for violating the list, and faces the largest civil assessment ever obtained of $5.4M for harassing people over the phone at home and ignoring the registry. Although it looks like DirecTV was outsourcing all their telemarketing (obviously), the FTC recieved 1.4 million complaints, the biggest category of do-not-call violations ever recieved." From the article: "Majoras was quick to emphasize that the most important part of the settlement is that it sends a warning to companies that they cannot hire telemarketers and then turn their backs on whether or not the rules are followed."

Comments

The First?

[mysqlrocks]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the first actual lawsuit for violating the Do-Not-Call Registry law?

Re:The First?

[Anonymous Coward]

For some odd reason, I'm thinking this is the 2nd.

Re:The First?

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't AT&T get socked with quite a fee a while back?

Re:The First?

[ch-chuck]

there was a famous case with ATT but it looks more like an FTC fine than a lawsuit.

Re:The First?

[mikkom]

I think there has been at least one made by FTC before this one.

Re:The First?

[tabbser]

You obviously didn't read the article then, did you ?

Re:The First?

[Saxophonist]

Here's another one, but this time, the fine proposed was the $11,000 per violation maximum.

Makes you wonder why DirecTV is getting off so easy...

Re:The First?

[daun3507]

OK, You are wrong

Re:The First?

[c0n0]

FTFA "Prior to the DirecTV settlement, the biggest penalty levied over unsolicited calls was a $500,000 penalty against a company called Flagship."

Drop in the Bucket

[Maizdog]

Unfortunatly, it was probably worth it for them if they are only going to be fined $5.4M. That is a proverbial drop in the bucket that they will have made back by their tactics. The one hope, of course, is that there is some sort of brand name damage. Of course, I dont think consumers care quite enough to give up DirectTV so it is mostly a moot point.

Re:Drop in the Bucket

[misleb]

I know companies such as DirecTV move a lot of money, but $5.4M seems it would be a lot more than a drop in the bucket of what they might have made through the tactics.

-matthew

Re:Drop in the Bucket

[harrypelles]

DirecTV: "Hello, me name am Job at DirecTV".
Target: "What? Who is this?"
DirecTV: "I say, 'me name am Job'. I am DirecTV would have service by Who now?"
Target: "Let me talk to your supervisor!"
...
Supervisor: "Yes, this is Mike, How can I help you?"
Target: "I'm on the DNC $%#!!!"
Supervisto: Lets see, that's nine-hundred seventy-eight thousand, three-hunred twenty-five..., "I see, let me put you through to our Customer Care Agent Job. He'll be able to assist you with anything you need. Thank you. Bye."

Re:Drop in the Bucket

[StupidHelpDeskGuy]

Actually, I am considering cancelling my installation scheduled for this Friday.

Re:Drop in the Bucket

[afaik_ianal]

Sure, it is hardly a small fine, but it only works out to abou $3 per complaint. That is not much money. I imagine it would cost considerably more than that to handle each complaint (IANAA, so I don't know what's involved, but it seems quite plausible)

Re:Drop in the Bucket

[sd_diamond]

Actually, I am considering cancelling my installation scheduled for this Friday.

Do it. Immediately. And if you don't, take my advice: NEVER use their online payment service. DirecTV is, IMO, a criminal organization. Last year, they issued an unauthorized double-charge on my account (I had paid that month's bill electronically on their web site) to the tune of $300. My wife and I spent two weeks on the phone with them trying to get the money back. They kept assuring us that it was going to happen, but the date kept slipping back. Worse, they wouldn't even let us speak directly with their finance department -- only clueless customer "service" reps. I finally had to go to my Credit Union and issue a Stop Payment to get my money back. Bad service is one thing; stealing money is in another category altogether. I wish the aforementioned settlement had a few more zeroes on the end; I would like nothing more than to see these scumbags sued into oblivion.

Re:Drop in the Bucket

[Anonymous Coward]

The DIRECTV statement indicates that most (not all) of the calls were placed by independent retailers who sell DIRECTV. Circuit City, Best Buy, and a number of small independent retailers sell DIRECTV for commission, but I don't know which violated the DNC list. In the interests of full disclosure, I work for DIRECTV. I've pasted a copy of the statement below.

----
DIRECTV has reached a voluntary agreement with attorneys general from 22 states, who consolidated their issues into a multi-state Task Force, to settle allegations made by the states that certain DIRECTV advertising did not make clear disclosures to consumers. DIRECTV denied the allegations and believes that at all times it has complied with advertising disclosure requirements and all applicable laws. The agreement with the Task Force acknowledges that DIRECTV did not violate any federal or state law.

Most of the advertising that prompted the states' allegations was prepared by independent retailers and not DIRECTV, and as a result, DIRECTV has agreed to more closely monitor the advertising practices of the independent companies with whom it does business.

Under the terms of the agreement, DIRECTV has agreed to pay $5 million to the 22 states to cover the costs of the Task Force - no portion of this amount has been designated as a fine. DIRECTV will also implement a complaint resolution and restitution program for customers in the 22 states.

Re:Drop in the Bucket

[misleb]

I don't think it makes sense to compare the fines to how much it costs to handle a complaint. The question is, how much does it cost DirectTV to make the telemarketing calls in the first place? And how much do they stand to make from it? I can see $5.4M seriously damaging their net profit in such a way that it would be been better to have followed the rules. And that is what matters.

-matthew

Re:Drop in the Bucket

[pappy97]

"Of course, I dont think consumers care quite enough to give up DirectTV so it is mostly a moot point."

They would if there was enough bad PR that the NFL wanted out of its NFL-DirecTV exclusive Sunday Ticket Deal and that the NFL had a way get out of the contract.

We can only hope...

Re:Drop in the Bucket

[Anonymous Coward]

exactly, it's just another cost of doing business.

Re:Drop in the Bucket

[SkyDude]

For the other side: I've been a DTV customer since 1997 and have never had a billing issue. I have always had them bill American Express and it's always been smooth going. I will say the "service" reps are clueless, but then again, if they were to hire real engineering talent to answer phone, the monthly invoice might be five times it current size.

When I read stories like this, I know there's something being left out.

Re:Drop in the Bucket

[Brian360]

In all fairness I have been a DirecTV subscriber since they took over Primestar. I have used their online bill pay, manually each month, for at least the past 2 years. I have never had a problem with a "double-charge" or any other form of unauthorized charge to my credit card. Any issues I have had (service issues, installation, outages) have always been prompty handled by customer service and resolved above my satisfaction. One example was replacing a Hughes receiver I owned that stopped functioning and was well out of warranty -- they shipped, for free, a new receiver and a label to send the old one back. Couldn't have been more painless.

Its unfortunate that you appear to have had some serious issues with them. One trick I've heard from people is to call their customer retention department directly (1-800-600-8977) -- they'll do almost anything it seems to keep you as a valued customer!

Now if they would just get some decent HD channels :)

Re:Drop in the Bucket

[sd_diamond]

When I read stories like this, I know there's something being left out.

Then perhaps you should re-acquaint yourself with the definition of "know".

Nothing is being left out. What happened is exactly what I described. I am glad you have not had such an experience, but that doesn't mean that I am being dishonest about mine.

Re:Drop in the Bucket

[sd_diamond]

In all fairness I have been a DirecTV subscriber since they took over Primestar. I have used their online bill pay, manually each month, for at least the past 2 years. I have never had a problem with a "double-charge" or any other form of unauthorized charge to my credit card.

As with the other poster, I'm glad to hear that.

Don't get me wrong; I am not claiming, and I do not believe, that they deliberately overcharged me. I'm certain that that was an honest mistake, and I understand that that can happen. What was infuriating to me was that they seemed completely and totally unconcerned about fixing their mistake. If they had corrected it within a day or two (which is all it should have taken) I would have been very understanding. They chose to jerk me around, and as a result, they will be losing my business when my contract expires.

Re:Drop in the Bucket

[loraksus]

Come now, 1.4 million people COMPLAINED to the feds. Many, many others were also called and some people bought whatever they were selling - and seeing as this is directv - a great deal of money changed hands as a result of this telemarketing effort.

Re:Drop in the Bucket

[afaik_ianal]

It makes lots of sense to compare them. You don't want a situation in which a rogue company can perform an effective denial of service attack against the authorities by misbehaving on a larger scale. By ensuring the guilty party pays to clean up the mess, you allow the authorities to scale their response.

"Sorry, we can't actually take action against DirecTV, because we just blew this years budget answering the damn telephones."

Re:Drop in the Bucket

[macdaddy]

I couldn't agree more. They scammed my parents back in the late 90s after cable TV came to town and my folks switched to that. About a year after terminating DTV service the started getting duns from DTV for over $300 for some ultra-fancy sports channel package that they didn't order. My mother would never fall for such a trick via phone or snail mail and my father defers everything like that to my mother so I'm sure they didn't actually sign up for it that way. They also couldn't have ordered it via the satellite because it was a one-way system that required a phone line to order anything. I conviently never ran the drop for the voice line. DTV wouldn't listen. Originally they claimed that the order was placed about 6 months after my parents returned all the DTV hardware to the local dealer. When they pointed this out to DTV they change the order date to a time when my parents still had DTV service. Nice, eh? It was turned over to a collection agency shortly thereafter. They never have made a mark on my parent's credit rating. If they ever do then I can nail them with the FCRA. Until that time they just screen their calls and ignore mail from collection agencies. I agree that DTV more closely resembles a criminal organization that a legitimate business.

1.4 million complaints

[OYAHHH]

If,

It takes 1.4 million complaints to get action over the DNC list then I would say the DNC list is somewhat of a failure.

Personally, anything over about 500 complaints is where I would set the limit.

Re:1.4 million complaints

[GGardner]

If the FTC wants to go after DNC list violators in number-of-complaints-received order, that's fine by me.

Re:1.4 million complaints

[no reason to be here]

500 is a little low. DirecTV outsourced this to another company, that company could have hundred of people manning the phones. The typical telmarketing call doesn't last that long, so once could easily exceed that 500 mark by lunch time. The point? That could very easily be a simple abberation in how strictly they follow the rules. If management (of either company) pays attention, they should be able to catch the abuse by day's end. Certainly, they would in a week, at which point, you'd have several thousand possible complaints logged.

Qunatity of calls, I think, is the wrong way to look at it. The decision to levy fines for violating the DNC list should be based on a pattern of behavior. A company that consistently violates the list, even if they have a very small call volume, needs to be fined just as much as DirecTV is. For those opperations that are very large (like DirecTV) scale up the fine appropriately.

Re:1.4 million complaints

[Billosaur]

Theoretically speaking, shouldn't one complaint be sufficient? The idea is to keep companies from calling people who do not want to be called. If you're number is on the list, you're not supposed to be called.

From the Do Not Call Registry website: The National Do Not Call Registry gives you an opportunity to limit the telemarketing calls you receive. Once you register your phone number, telemarketers covered by the National Do Not Call Registry have up to 31 days (starting January 1, 2005) from the date you register to stop calling you.

Mind you it says "telemarketers covered by" -- local non-profits and political organizations are exempt.

Re:1.4 million complaints

[shotfeel]

I'm not sure if, or how you figured in two factors. One, that only a certain % of calls would be to people on the DNC list, and, two, what % of people on the DNC list who were called, actually filed a complaint.

I also wonder how a telemarketing company that does that volume of business could accidently do this. It says in one case DirecTV supplied the list. Didn't the telemarketing company check it agaisnst the DNC list, or did DirecTV give them the list with the understanding that they had already filtered the list? In the cases where telemarketing companies were simply paid a commision (assuming they used their own list of numbers), I would think they would ultimately be responsible (and it sounds like they were held accountable).

Re:1.4 million complaints

[Khashishi]

If 1.4 million people complained, how many people DIDN'T complain?

Re:1.4 million complaints

[Fishstick]

Someone tell Zonk CNN has corrected their article..

Correction: An earlier version of this story overstated the number of complaints that the FTC had received about DirecTV. CNN/Money regrets the error.

The 1.4 million complaints is not mentioned anywhere. I thought I read that the number of total complaints for DNC since it started was over a million.

Interestingly, if you take 5.4 million and divide by the 11k maximum fine, you get what, just under 500?

Re:1.4 million complaints

[DarkBlackFox]

Quantity is an important number when you factor in the methods. [Background] When my company opened it's second location, the phone company assigned us an old residential number. For the first few months of business, we kept getting calls asking for the individual who used to have this number. Besides personal calls, we also recieved a number of unsolicited commercial calls. When the DNC registry went into effect, most of the commercial calls stopped, until recently when we started getting the DirectTV calls.

The problem is, the junk calls we get now are all autodialers. The DirectTV calls especially were computer generated- we'd get at least 2 calls in the course of a day asking if we'd like to lower our TV costs by switching from cable to DirectTV (us being a business without any sort of TV at all, cable or otherwise). So they may only have a handful of people manning the phones at any given time, in the hopes that one of the autodialers gets someone to respond. The autodialers have the capability to dial every number in any given town with no labor cost, so it's not surprising the number of complaints is as high as it is.

Re:1.4 million complaints

[adrianmonk]

500 is a little low. DirecTV outsourced this to another company, that company could have hundred of people manning the phones. The typical telmarketing call doesn't last that long, so once could easily exceed that 500 mark by lunch time. The point? That could very easily be a simple abberation in how strictly they follow the rules.

OK, sure, it could easily be sloppiness rather than true bad intentions. But so what? The mistakes they make cost money. If they receive 500 complaints, and if we assume it takes each person 15 minutes to figure out how to make a complaint and fill out the form, that's 125 hours of time wasted. And that doesn't count the people who were called but who didn't bother to make a complaint.

The organization violating the Do Not Call List is by definition a for-profit organization (since non-profits are exempt), so why shouldn't they have to pay? Even if only 500 people are called who shouldn't be, they're wasting hundreds of hours of people's time, and they should be penalized for that.

By the way, it's not as if it's that hard to figure out how to comply. If you have a whole team of people making outbound calls, then you clearly had to set up a bunch of infrastructure for them already, because you need to have lots of desks with phones. So it shouldn't be that hard to make sure you are paying attention to the Do Not Call List.

For what it's worth, I think the government should base the decision of whether to pursue a set of complaints mainly on whether they'd be spending more for enforcement than they are collecting in fines. And they should add some dithering too, so that there is no set number of calls below which a telemarketer knows they won't see consequences. For example, organizations with 1000 complaints are always investigated, ones with 500 have a 50% chance of being investigated, 250 complaints means you have a 25% chance, etc.

Also, not every investigation would result in punishment. If the company can give a good reason why it was totally an honest mistake, then that's OK. For example, maybe they accidentally loaded an outdated copy of the list into their dialing system. In that case, they shouldn't be penalized.

Re:1.4 million complaints

[CffnDwllr]

I take a far far dimmer view of telemarketers. (Henceforth to be known as Scumbags of the Earth). I put my name on the list, as well as that of anyone else who asked me to, back when they 1st began letting people sign up. That way, when the list went online, we were there on day one. I STILL recieve calls from telemarketers to this day. Yes, I file a complaint each and every time. Yes, each and every time, the scumbags tell me that they comply with the list and try to give me the song and dance routine about how long you have to be on the list before it's effective and/or tell me that the 'current version' of the list doesn't have my name/phone number on it. All the while, trying to hang up before giving me the information needed to file a complaint. I've even had them give me area codes/addresses that didn't match. Then try to say that I misheard them when they gave me the area code. Lyingpieceofcraplooserseverylastoneofthem.

500 is WAY too high. Any single complaint should result in the telemarketers company being instantly shut down. If the call was an honest mistake, the company may resume operations. If not, then the company should be liquidated, the owners assests confiscated, and the proceeds be distributed to various relief agencies like the Red Cross. As for the company who hired the scumbags, the penalty would not need be so steep. Say, an amount equel to their previous years Gross. Not net, gross. No "Pattern of Behavior" or "abberation" BS either. Can I get away with a robbery or a murder based on my "Pattern of Behavior" or some other "Abberation"???

Perhaps such measures would encourage companies to obey the law.

So the message is...

[gid13]

It costs less than $4 per COMPLAINT (not even per person) to advertise this way. I guess it's better than free, but is this really a harsh enough punishment to do anything?

Re:So the message is...

[Anonymous Coward]

per COMPLAINT (not even per person)

If every single person who was called didn't complain, there's no reason to count them. I think the only legal conclusion we could make is that they must not have cared enough to report the violation. To do otherwise would be like counting the votes for people who stayed home on election day in the way that we assume they would have voted.

Re:So the message is...

[sgt scrub]

I agree it isn't enough. I also think the company names, phone numbers, and fax numbers of the companies doing the telemarketing should be released so people can block them. I want a public register of these numbers as a prerequisite of getting a license to be a telemarketing firm.

We shouldn't be the ones having to list our numbers they should!

Re:So the message is...

[gid13]

Uh... Have you been smoking crack? They obviously cared because they put themselves on the DNC in the first place, which is entirely opt-in. It is not at all like an election, where we don't have a clear indication what someone would do.

If people on the DNC list stop complaining, the logical assumption is not that they don't care, it's that they don't believe the system will work (they particularly might think this since they're still getting unwanted calls) or possibly they don't consider a $4 fine worth their time to report it.

Re:So the message is...

[NanoGator]

"I guess it's better than free, but is this really a harsh enough punishment to do anything?"

I doubt the stockholders were happy to hear about TiVo's shenanigans on the radio this morning.

Re:So the message is...

[Anonymous Coward]

[QUOTE]It costs less than $4 per COMPLAINT (not even per person) to advertise this way.[/QUOTE]

That's a little misleading because it wasn't free to begin with.

1.4 million complaints about DirectTV!?

[mindaktiviti]

"Majoras said the DirecTV case accounted for 1.4 million complaints, the single biggest category of do-not-call violations the commission has ever received."

Good lord that's a huge number.

United States -- Population: 295,734,134

So roughly 1/200 people (not taking into account that each household is probably 2-6 people) in all of the US took the time out of their lives to look up the FCC's phone number and complain. Yeah. I'd say they deserve to get fined.

Re:1.4 million complaints about DirectTV!?

[metternich]

Fined? More like thrown in jail! Until CEOs start to personally suffer for the illegal actions of their companies, violating the law will simply be a business decision. (Expected Profit > Expected Penelty) -> Break Law.

Re:1.4 million complaints about DirectTV!?

[Pxtl]

Why the CEO? Stop the buck at the top. End unlimited liability and go after the CEO's boss - the shareholders.

Re:1.4 million complaints about DirectTV!?

[VickiM]

Not necessarily. If I kept getting calls from DirecTV after being on the list and telling them not to call me, I'd lodge a complaint after every call they made to me. Can't guestimate how many times a single person would complain, though, so I can't rework the numbers.
Not that they didn't deserve to get fined.

Re:1.4 million complaints about DirectTV!?

[metternich]

Indeed. As Ambrose Bierce said:
CORPORATION, n.
An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.

Re:1.4 million complaints about DirectTV!?

[AndersOSU]

This is a terrible suggestion every time it comes up.

Corporations are set up specifically to limit the liablility of the investors. It's management's and the board of director's responsibility to keep the company practices ethical and legal while maximizing share-holder value.

Feel free to criticize the idea of a corporation, but you can't change the rules in the middle of the game. If you choose to criticize the corporation bear in mind how hard it would to start a company if every one who wanted to give you money was on the hook for corporate debts. Say for instance you are mislead into investing in Enron (hey it could happen) and the company goes under. Enron's creditors now come after your property to pay Enron's debts.

Whenever money is at stake there will be abuses, and no system is perfect, but corporations help our economy more than hurt it. Now, if corporations could see value in something other than quarterly earnings, had to stand on their own merits, and not be propped up or bailed out by the government we'd be making progress.

Re:1.4 million complaints about DirectTV!?

[shotfeel]

Theoretically, that's where the fine comes in. Profits for the quarter just dropped $5.3 million and the stock price went down a bit, "down $0.06 to $13.71" from TFA.

Re:1.4 million complaints about DirectTV!?

[Pxtl]

Fine. End limited -legal- liability. Just not -fiscal- liability. Allow a judge to fine the shareholders directly. Thus, if a business is an abysmal failure, then the shareholders maintain their economic condom. Conversely, if a corporation behaves in a manner that could only be described as criminal and destructive, then a judge can hold accountable it's financiers.

Re:1.4 million complaints about DirectTV!?

[Prophet of Nixon]

I like this, and while we're at it, make the fines based upon % of sales, instead of small fixed figures.

Re:1.4 million complaints about DirectTV!?

[nyrk]

"Corporations are set up specifically to limit the liablility of the investors."

And there in lies the problem. Quite frankly our government, or any government for that matter is not set up to deal with corporations. Look at the constitution. It is well designed, and outlines the repsonibilities of the government, and the rights of the individual. A corporation is a collection of individuals, in the same manner that a government organization is a collection of individuals. Instead of defining limits, and granting the individual rights that supercede the rights of the corporations, our laws "limit the liability" of the corporation.

In all fairness corporations did not exist during the framing of the constitution (ok, they did, but were charters of the monarchy, so they were not distinct from the government). But they have become a dominant power, as such they need to be formally integrated at a fundamental level into our government.

"Whenever money is at stake there will be abuses, and no system is perfect, but corporations help our economy more than hurt it"

I agree up to a point. But in their current state they server to accumulate the wealth to the upper caste of shareholders. How different is this from nobility levying taxes on the masses? You may say that we have freedom of choice of what to buy, but when ultimately bulk of your purchases benefit a small number of large corporations, with a small number of majority share holders, you grant these people an enormous amount of power, and oportunity to abuse.

Sadly, it will probably take another series of revolutions to change this, in the same way that the transition from fudalism to representitive government.

Re:1.4 million complaints about DirectTV!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever money is at stake there will be abuses, and no system is perfect, but corporations help our economy more than hurt it.

Actually, no one has ever shown that corporations help more than hurt. The corporation is historical phenomenon, the descendent of the joint-stock company and other prerogative companies who derived their immunity from royal grant. Like the oft-stated assertion that patents encourage innovation, the assertion that limited-liability business organizations are of net benefit to the economy is simply assumed to be true, but that assertion is never closely analysed.

In fact, there is some reason to believe that there are those who are fully aware that limited liability is not a net social benefit. If you check your local laws, you may discover that professionals are not allowed to limit their liability for malpractice through the corporate form. That is, when lawyers or accountants form corporations or limited liability companies, they can limit their liability as to everything EXCEPT their own professional negligence. If you think about it, this is a concession that allowing professionals to avoid the consequences of bad decision-making hurts the public more than it helps, even if that discourages some people from taking up the profession.

The point here is that the corporate form does something that is very undesirable. It decouples personal responsibility for decisionmaking from profit. That's bad, and it is just as bad when non-professionals commit torts as when professionals do. Don't even get me started on how often the corporate form is used to commit frauds and shield the perpetrators by driving up the costs of litigation to get at the wrongdoers.

Re:1.4 million complaints about DirectTV!?

[BigBuckHunter]

If Investors were to be held accountable for the actions of the companies that they (partially) own, we wouldn't have had an Enron in the 1st place.
 
BBH

Re:1.4 million complaints about DirectTV!?

[AndersOSU]

Bullshit. Investors are held accountable for the actions of a company, but their liability is limited to the purchase price of the stock. Perhaps you forgot that lots of people lost lots of money on Enron, especially employees. Tell them they weren't accountable.

Unscroupulous insiders will be able to decieve the investors regardless of the level of accountability of the investors. So you would have it that employee investors would loose not only their retierment, but now their house as well, AND be facing jail time. All because the board pulled the wool over their eyes.

Misspelling?

[Lithgon]

Isn't it DirecTV, not DirectTV?

Re:Misspelling?

[meatflower]

Correct! Though apparently DirecTV owns not only http://www.directv.com/ but http://www.directtv.com/ as well in case you didn't figure out their oh so clever name!

They were just trying to give that girl her pony

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya know, in the commercial, she... never mind.

Let's talk Math

[matr0x_x]

$5.4 mil fine
divided by 1.4 mil complaints
times ratio of people who complain ~1/100
equals $.035 = 35 cents per call! They're still making money calling "do not call" people!!!

Re:Let's talk Math

[eric_brissette]

Yeah, it sucks. Hopefully lots of people were pissed enough to go after their $500 for the violation.

Re:Let's talk Math

[woolio]

And the DNC registry provides a centralized list for doing so!

Re:Let's talk Math

[slavemowgli]

equals $.035 = 35 cents per call!

Actually, while we're talking math... let me point out that that's 3.5 cents per call, not 35 cents.

Yeah, but -

[Anonymous Coward]

How much money did they make off the telemarketing? More than the fine?

Re:Yeah, but -

[NanoGator]

"How much money did they make off the telemarketing? More than the fine?"

How many people are aware of their abuse now that the mainstream media has picked up the story? Dunno about where you are, but here in Los Angeles I heard all about it on the way in. I doubt they'd pay so little money to brand themselves as an obnoxious tele-marketer.

Re:Yeah, but -

[loraksus]

Of course they made more money. They had 1.4 million complaints - and no doubt most people didn't file a complaint and bought whatever they were selling.

why so long?

[rootedgimp]

the do not call registry has always gotten trampled all over like it wasnt even there.

the FTC recieved 1.4 million complaints

should it really take 1.4 million complaints to alert them that the law was being violated?

Recorded messages are quite common

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh? It's not legal to have a computer call you and play recorded messages? I get 2-3 every day, things like "Jazz 97" telling me I've won a free trip.

Anything that can be done about it? Only if they piss off a million people.

Re:Recorded messages are quite common

[MrDoh1]

Even worse, only if they piss off a million people on the do-not-call list.

Re:Recorded messages are quite common

[Anonymous Coward]

The best thing I did recently was cancel my POTS service altogether and get a skype-in number. The quality of my life has vastly improved without jerks calling me whenever they feel like it. I was getting stupid calls in the middle of the night with somebody trying to send me junk faxes (on my voice only phone).

Whenever anybody demands my home phone I just give them my skype in number. The can either leave me a message or get lost.

But, they weren't telemarketing calls...

[The I Shing]

I can see DirecTV defending itself... "Oh, no, they weren't telemarketing calls... those were all people that we suspected had purchased smartcards over the internet, and we were just calling to threaten them..."

Re:But, they weren't telemarketing calls...

[MrNougat]

Maybe they could reduce the fine by determining that some percentage of the people called are non-paying customers. I imagine that could demonstrate an existing customer relationship.

To Shower Re:Drop in the Bucket

[hackwrench]

I'm not a lawyer, but it may be possible for DirectTV to then turn around and sue the telemarketers they hired for damages, thus putting the telemarketers out of commission for hiring.

Re:To Shower Re:Drop in the Bucket

[e_slarti]

Possibly, but I'm pretty sure DirecTV was aware of the calls just by all the money they paid for all the million + calls made. If they're like any other firm that outsources their call center work, they do quality assurance assessments. The telemarketing firm could just bring up the QA sessions as evidence DirecTV was aware of and approved of the calls.

On a side note, I believe a company (one call center located in West Valley City, Utah) called Convergys http://www.convergys.com/ does a good deal of telemarketing and technical support for DirecTV.

Numbers don't add up...

[sholden]

Majoras said the DirecTV case accounted for 1.4 million complaints, the single biggest category of do-not-call violations the commission has ever received.

and

The investigation into the case took about two years, according to Majoras. Large numbers of complaints began rolling into the FTC in November 2003

and

And Majoras confirmed that as more phone numbers are added to the registry, the FTC receives more complaints, currently between 2,000 and 3,000 a day.

2*365*3000 = 1.46 million

Are they seriously saying that 96% of all complaints for a two year period were about DirecTV?!?

Re:Numbers don't add up...

[ergo98]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171089&cid=142 50238

This is filler text to avoid the lameness filter.

Re:Numbers don't add up...

[Anonymous Coward]

2*365*3000 = 1.46 million

Um, check your math.

Re:Numbers don't add up...

[sholden]

So I made a typo. 2000 not 3000. (it's been increasing over time and we are talking about the past so we use the lower end of the daily range).

Fact jumble

[ergo98]

It takes 1.4 million complaints to get action over the DNC list then I would say the DNC list is somewhat of a failure.

I'm going to guess that CNN jammed together some facts - this article makes some guesses at the number of people on the list that were called, saying "in the thousands". Certainly not in the millions. And of course it's doubtful many of the people called bothered to file a complaint, which is why the FTC just arbitrarily assessed a penalty of the maximum penalty per call per day.

The article implies that the entire program has received 1.4 million complaints overall, which seems reasonable.

Re:Fact jumble

[abirdman]

from the article: Correction: An earlier version of this story overstated the number of complaints that the FTC had received about DirecTV. CNN/Money regrets the error.

Good call! CNN published a correction of their numbers, reducing it from 1.4 million complaints to maybe a few thousand. In fact, on rereading the article, there's now no reference to the number of complaints received. Probably hushed up in the settlement terms.

That's a significant reduction! Of course, no one really cares-- Direct TV is out a few million (cost of goods sold), a couple of sub-contractors will have their wrists slapped (find new customers in second mortgages or credit cards), any illegal activity will disappear behind the terms of the legal settlement, and you and me and granny still have their dinner interrupted by those idiot calls. I guess it's better than nothing, but it could be so much better if someone would just clear out the corporations from the halls of Congress.

suing the wrong company

[brontus3927]

IANAL, but I've been helping a law student study torts. Unless there is proof that DirecTV knew that the telemarketing company they hired was not complying with the DNC or other relevent laws and made no action, DirecTV is not liable for the outsourced company's damages. This suit should be directed at the company that actually broke the law.

Re:suing the wrong company

[loggia]

"But Majoras was quick to emphasize that the most important part of the settlement is that it sends a warning to companies that they cannot hire telemarketers and then turn their backs on whether or not the rules are followed."

Re:suing the wrong company

[gcw1]

Yup... I worked as IT tech for a Telemarketing company that did sales for companies like Mcafee, Crystal Reports, and Citrx. The telemarketing company was liable for not complying with the DNC... NOT the companies it was calling for. Although this company started their calls stating "We are calling on behalf of McAfee... " not "This is so and so calling from McAfee". Maybe that made the difference. *Shrug*

Re:suing the wrong company

[hurfy]

Do they have a marketing company that follows the laws?

Half of all illegal phone calls i get are from DirecTv, leaving the rest of the world for the other half. Oddly enough half of the rest are for their competitor!

I've thought about satelite since i've a grudge against the cableco, but they strike me as at least as sleazy so i have neither :(

I bet i have gotten dozens of automated marketing calls from them...WA state is supposed to be 100% live callers.

Re:suing the wrong company

[gstoddart]

IANAL, but I've been helping a law student study torts. Unless there is proof that DirecTV knew that the telemarketing company they hired was not complying with the DNC or other relevent laws and made no action, DirecTV is not liable for the outsourced company's damages.

If I was a lawyer, I'd cry bullshit here.

If you hire someone to do something, they are acting as an agent on your behalf, no? You're still responsible for what they do, because, effectively it's still you doing it.

I find it exceedingly unlikely that you can clear yourself of any and all responsibility for everything just merely by hiring a sub-contractor.

For the same reason that when an outsourced overseas person steals confidential information, the company who violated the privacy laws by giving it to them is still liable. If you hand over my credit card information which you were entrusted with, you do not get absolved of all blame if the oursourced person robs me blind.

If that is the case, you'll probably see a lot of companies start paying "Bud's Toxic Waste Disposal" shockingly small sums of money to get rid of such stuff. Then when the stuff turns up on a beach someplace, they can just sound shocked and unsure of how it got there, but they'll be off the hook because they hired a third party.

Your description sounds completely irrational. ( Then again, we're talking about law here, which can be irrational in places I'm told. )

Re:suing the wrong company

[brontus3927]

I see your point. I'll have to check with my friend who is acutally learning this stuff, mostly I just throw out actual tort cases I've read about and see if he can determine the decision and an explanation. So in a sense, I'm learning tort law 3rd hand. And he's only gotten through one semester. But I'll call him and get back to this tommorrow. But based on my understanding, if the company knew or had reason to know that its agent was breaking the law, then their liable. But common sense has a surprisingly small role in torts.

Re:suing the wrong company

[brjndr]

Respondeat Superior

Re:suing the wrong company

[Anonymous Coward]

IAAL, and you're wrong. Look up "willful ignorance" sometime.

Re:suing the wrong company

[Locke2005]

Right... so if I hire "Luigi" to take care of "this little problem I've been having with my neighbor", and Luigi then shoots my neighbor, then unless there is proof that I knew Luigi wss actually going to use violence to solve the problem, I'm not liable?!? If I donate money to Hamas for humantarian help for the Palestinians, and they then use the money to make bombs, I'm not liable?!? I'm sorry, DirecTV hired this company specifically to call people up and nag them into subscribing and gave them strong incentives to sign up as many people as possible; they should be held completely responsible for any results of the telemarketer's actions.

Re:suing the wrong company

[SkyDude]

Unless there is proof that DirecTV knew that the telemarketing company they hired was not complying with the DNC or other relevent laws and made no action, DirecTV is not liable for the outsourced company's damages. This suit should be directed at the company that actually broke the law.

The telemarketing company is acting as an agent and/or an employee of DTV. Without that relationship, the TM firm would not have made the calls for DTV.
If I hire a truck driver to move a load of my merchandise, and he turns out to be unlicensed, drives without proper permits and ends up injuring or killing someone, my company will be sued, since he would most likely not have been driving had I not employed him. That's tort law, son. Read it again.

Re:suing the wrong company

[Dhalka226]

More than likely, DirecTV can be sued for it, but they can then turn around and sue the company they contracted in an attempt to recover the damages.

Re:suing the wrong company

[brontus3927]

The issue is whether you have vicarious liability over the company/person you contract. If a specific law (the DNC registry in this case) says you do, you do. If the contract says you do, you do. Otherwise, you do not have any vicarious liability over a contractee.

Re:suing the wrong company

[brontus3927]

the law states in this case "knew or had reason to know" When the police arrest you for hiring someone to kill a person, that's exactly what the state is doing in court, trying to proove that you knew or had reason to know that it would happen.

Re:suing the wrong company

[parasonic]

That is actually gay.

Two thoughts

[suitepotato]

First, that they are going to make more money even with this fine than otherwise having followed the list and...

Second, every other company is doing this as well. Know the bit about collection agents not being able to call you at work? Surprise, Indian call centers for collection companies in the US call with total abandon, harassing all day long. Everyone in my family has gotten such calls. And since India is on the far side of the planet, they will call at two in the morning as if it was nothing; round the clock calls.

Companies largely do figure they aren't responsible for the acts of their contractors. DirecTV certainly does, both with this and with installations. Comcast sure DOESN'T and will fire contractors in an instant for screwing up in any way the breaks regulations or laws. If I was looking for TV service and Comcast didn't violate the no-call and DirecTV did, I'd not be going with DirecTV but arse-end-up world this is, you can bet thousands of those called did go with DirecTV to spite the cable operator that didn't violate the do not call list.

Re:Two thoughts

[alphax45]

Somneone calls me at 2 am; they get the boat airhorn in the phone!

Re:Two thoughts

[Locke2005]

Everyone in my family has gotten such calls. Hmm... perhaps the people in your family should consider actually paying their bills on time?

Don't be so sure this was worth the fine

[loggia]

The damage to their brand image is considerable. It's easy to wave that off (re: people's short memories) but they are spending $30 million *just* for their new DVR ad campaign. And they're not doing that on a lark.

Believe me, this hurts them. It's not about the fine. It's about the black eye.

Only $3.85 per complaint

[Facekhan]

They should have been fined much more. 1.4 Million Complaints x $11,000 (the maximum fine per incident) = $15.4 Billion. Now that may be a bit excessive but the only message they are sending here, is "don't worry, you'll only be assessed the absolute minimum. After all $5.4M is only $3.85 per complaint. The time it takes me to file a complaint is worth more than that.

Re:Only $3.85 per complaint

[Mooshi]

So... when can I expect my check for $3.85?

+5 ARTICLE CORRECTION

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm reading it the same way. The 1.4 million is the number of complaints the entire FTC program has received about any solicitor. Not specifically for DirecTV.

Sounds Fair to me/Poetic justice

[Bodysurf]

DirecTV getting fined $5.4M is like all the endusers DirecTV sued for ~$4K.

And the "crime" is about the same: Getting a little free TV is no better/worse than getting called by a telemarketer in the middle of dinner.

The difference is DirecTV isn't going bankrupt because of this and DirecTV can write this off, unlike the endusers.

Government mercantilism fails again!

[dada21]

Whenever I received calls I didn't want, I'd spend a few seconds finding out what company ordered the call. Then I'd spend a few minutes calling the company's 800 # until I received a few employees. I figured the waste of my time probably incurred a few bucks loss on the company's books.

The DNC registry is very pro-megamarketer. They know how they can get around it, but they also know thatthe DNC registry keeps the new marketers out of the market. This is mercantilism at its finest: government sets rules that new companies can not meet, but the old ones who wrote the rules make sure that they have loopholes.

Don't think the DNC registry can be fixed -- it can only be fixed in the same way that boxing matches were fixed -- for both parties to profit more. The two parties here? The megamarketers and the government that panders to them.

Get a phone call you don't want? Call the company back and make sure you do it for double the damage you incurred. If 1.4 million people called DirecTV a few times each, they'd far exceed the measley "fine" that was charged.

Re:Government mercantilism fails again!

[shotfeel]

Get a phone call you don't want? Call the company back and make sure you do it for double the damage you incurred.

I'd always thought, if it had been done early enough, this could have killed SPAM. Imagine if everyone who received a Viagra SPAM called the company's toll-free number to say they didn't want to order anything? Or visited their web site and left a few messages. Heck, even have a SPAMmer of the day on /., where every /. reader was encouraged to "visit" the site of the day. Put the power of /.'ing to good use.

Re:Government mercantilism fails again!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, your philisophical rantings about idealized markets about as interesting as watching paint dry. For most of us, the DNC is a very nice service. I don't get called by every damn credit card company in America while I'm eating dinner, the scummy fake charities don't call and my phone line remains free for me to use as I please. So take your libitarian bullshit and stuff it.

Re:Government mercantilism fails again!

[dada21]

I'll do that.

As for my household, I added a phone company (free market) provision that filters all unknown callers. No need for any government mandates there.

For the few calls I do get that report their phone number, I have all I need to track down an 800# and make it more costly for them to continue calling.

Re:Government mercantilism fails again!

[Rude Turnip]

"Whenever I received calls I didn't want, I'd spend a few seconds finding out what company ordered the call. Then I'd spend a few minutes calling the company's 800 # until I received a few employees. I figured the waste of my time probably incurred a few bucks loss on the company's books."

It must be nice having all that time on your hands. The rest of us don't. I don't give a rat's ass about "incurring a few bucks loss on the company's books"...that is petty and only serves to waste my time further while having no material effect whatsoever on the perpetrator. I don't want to be bothered in the first place and an $11,000 fine per offense should sting quite well.

Overseas calls?

[kresjer]

The "Do Not Call Registry" states that

33. Are telemarketing calls from overseas covered?

Yes. Any telemarketers calling U.S. consumers are covered, regardless of where they are calling from. If a company within the U.S. solicits sales through an overseas professional telemarketer, that U.S. company may be liable for any violations by the telemarketer. The FTC can initiate enforcement actions against such companies.

But I wonder how they are going to force that to an non-U.S. company?

Re:Overseas calls?

[TheRaven64]

There is no point calling someone in the US unless you wish to do business with them (from a telemarketing perspective). They can fine an overseas company and, if they do not pay, bar them from doing business in the US. In the case of a telemarketing firm, this would prevent them from working for any US companies. If a US company (or the US-branch of a non-US company) decided to employ them anyway, then they would be liable for prosecution.

Re:Overseas calls?

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends on what you mean by a non-US company. Do you mean a company with no assets (offices, stores, etc) in the US or do you mean a company that is a foreign company but still has a major presence in the US. Assuming neither the telemarketing company nor the company that hired them have any assets in the US you are right, it can't be enforced. However, as long as the company has assets in the US (like Sony does) they can enforce it by siezing those assets if necessary. Since most large companies have a good amount of assets in the US, it is possible to enforce those laws against them.

Re:Overseas calls?

[Anonymous Coward]

What this clause means is that if DirecTV hires a call center in India to do the telemarketing, that DirecTV is legally liable for DNC violations, and that the Indian company is not.

Re:Overseas calls?

[steve_l]

hey it cuts both ways. We in the EU get spam telemarketing junk from US companies. Do you think the DNC list made all those telemarketers give up their careers and switch to spamming people for "OEM" software? No, they just take advantage of voip and low cost international dialling to annoy us Europeans.

And no, there isnt really anything we can do about it either. The best bet is to put them on speaker phone and have a long and fruitless conversation. If you argue they hang up, but if you sound interested but distracted by local crises (small children, kitchen fires, etc), they go on hold for a bit. The trick is to get their hopes up before you put them on hold.

Re:Overseas calls?

[Lead Butthead]

33. Are telemarketing calls from overseas covered?
 
Yes. Any telemarketers calling U.S. consumers are covered, regardless of where they are calling from. If a company within the U.S. solicits sales through an overseas professional telemarketer, that U.S. company may be liable for any violations by the telemarketer. The FTC can initiate enforcement actions against such companies.

People reading engineering specs all day would quickly noticed that may and shall mean very different things.

Re:Overseas calls?

[Frenchy_2001]

But I wonder how they are going to force that to an non-U.S. company?

A non-US company that advertise in the US would better have some business in the US, otherwise, the advertisement would be a waste of money. If they do business in the US, they can be hit with fines and lawsuits in that same country or be banned there. If they dont do business here, why the hell would they call you? Just for the fun of it?

Attention Slashdot editors: Edit is a verb.

[Radak]

...the FTC recieved 1.4 million complaints, the biggest category of do-not-call violations ever recieved.

That's "receive." Remember the "except after E" part?

This is the cost of doing business....

[8127972]

..... As it makes zero difference to them. Consider the following:

1. Their stock value barely moved today.
2. They made $95 Million in the third quarter (vs a loss of $1.01 Billion in the previous year).
3. They added 263000 customers in the third quarter.

(All figures taken from their financial statements located at http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/12/ 127160/pdf/Q32005EarningsRelease.pdf)

Net result. They'll pay the fine and move on. Breaking the law clearly has served it's purpose.

Re:Attention Slashdot editors: Edit is a verb.

[harrypelles]

I thought it was "I before E except after C"??

You know what would make this easier to enforce?

[ShatteredDream]

A follow up statute that adds "conspiracy to commit" as a penalty. Either make it a civil penalty that adds an extra twenty five to fifty percent cost to the fine to the true offending party, in this case DirecTV, and then fines the hell out of the outsource party or make it a criminal penalty with a charge of something like five minutes in prison for every complaint upon conviction. Yes, I know that in this case it'd send someone to prison for about thirteen years, but who cares?

The federal government should make it so that if foreigners contract out to do this sort of sleezy work, and then are caught on US soil that they are arrested and prosecuted immediately.

Lucky USA

[matt me]

Lucky you. In the UK we have something similar, but it's has to relevance. It's completely ignored, we get phone calls tridaily at least, there haven't been any lawsuits or anything it's complete anarchy it's like spam email.

Re:Lucky USA

[TheRaven64]

In the UK, it doesn't cost to receive mobile telephone calls. It does, however, cost a lot for a telemarketing firm to make them, since calls to mobiles are not covered by the standard packages they buy. If you give out your mobile number, instead of a land-line, to anyone you think might call you, then you will not get any telemarketing calls.

Re:Lucky USA

[Anonymous Coward]

but it's has to relevance.

WTF?

tridaily

I do not think that means what you think it means.

Maybe the UK is catching up in ignorance.

The real question

[Jakuta]

Just wondering how fast the rate hikes will be in effect for DirectTV customers to pay the settlement?

DirecTV = Thousands of Complaints, Not Millions

[akiy]

This fine article states that although "More than 1 million people have complained to the Federal Trade Commission that annoying telemarketing calls haven't stopped -- even after they've registered with the do-not-call registry, [...] FTC Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras said that "thousands" of consumers complained that they received telephone solicitations for DirecTV."

The CNN article linked originally above states, "Majoras said the DirecTV case accounted for 1.4 million complaints."

I'm thinking that the CNN article got its facts wrong here...

Re:DirecTV = Thousands of Complaints, Not Millions

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? Last time I checked "1.4 million" was "[m]ore than 1 million". Unless you are trying to imply the disagreement between US "-illions" and British "-illions", but I don't think that applies to this story...

No, they got it right.

[eddy]

The law should say that whoever is advertised as being the originator of "the message", no matter who they contracted to do the dialing, they're still responsible for how their contractor behaves in their name. Now, if there's a problem, the original company pays the fine, and if they're not happy with it they get to go after their contractor in court (and if they subcontracted, they get to do the same, all the way down the chain).

This closes the whole "set up shell company and fuck people over in the name of holy capitalism" loop-hole quite nicely, don't you think?

Re:No, they got it right.

[sukotto]

Maybe it does... until some company starts calling people on behalf of a competitor. Thus earning their competitor a fine and negative publicity.

The only trick would be to figure out how to sound like a legit call without actually offering any real benefit to the callee.

Re:No, they got it right.

[elhedran]

So prove your competitor is ruining your good name and sue them both for the fine you got and the damage to your reputation. Should be pretty easy..

""Your honor, see how records from the tele-marketer is being billed to our competitor, not us, see how the amounts and times paid matches their transactions in that month, but not ours. Yes, damages are the amount we were fined plus loss revenue over the amount of time it will take to regain our reputation. Why yes, we think the state should investigate that company for fraud charges"

Re:No, they got it right.

[sukotto]

You assume they would be dumb enough to hire a company within subpoena-range.

How about
"We're sure our competitor is defaming us. However, the company hired to do the calling is in India, subcontracted through China, and we can't prove a direct connection between the Chinese company and our competitor."

*shrug*

Re:No, they got it right.

[elhedran]

you assume bank records and internal memo's can be taken out of subpoena range. You also assume the indian company and government wouldn't cooperate. In fact you seem to be assuming a great deal of incompetence in the legal system as a whole.

Of course the whole reason to go after the company instead of the telemarketer is the exact reason you have given, the telemarketer might be out of the jurisdiction. The company, if it wants to sell to your residents, is much more likely to be within reach.

All the calls I get from overseas telemarketers are for companies in my country, the reverse has never occurred. I'll take the current target of the legislation over the unlikely fringe case you are presenting any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Re:Attention Slashdot editors: Edit is a verb.

[Radak]

I thought it was "I before E except after C"??

Christ I'm an idiot. Is my face red? Of course it is after C... :)

The Homer punishment

[tobiasly]

They would probably learn their lesson better if they had to call back everyone they had hassled and apologize.

Re:The Homer punishment

[sik puppy]

Expand on this a little bit - if the CEO had to personally call back everyone - better to use his very high $$$$$ time than a bunch of minimum wage drones. That would sting far more.

Re:The Homer punishment

[mzwaterski]

We're calling during your dinner time to apologize for calling during your dinner even though you asked us not to call at all...

So What?

[8127972]

It will make zero difference to them. Consider the following:

1. Their stock value barely moved today.
2. They made $95 Million in the third quarter (vs a loss of $1.01 Billion in the previous year).
3. They added 263000 customers in the third quarter.

(All figures taken from their financial statements located at http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/12/ 127160/pdf/Q32005EarningsRelease.pdf [corporate-ir.net])

Net result. They'll pay the fine and move on. Breaking the law clearly has served it's purpose.

Fine money

[ls -la]

I seem to remember seeing years ago that if you asked a telemarketer not to call you and they called again, then you could sue them for harassment. The FTC site seems to imply that they'll just be fined, and I won't see any of the money. Does anyone know whether I could still sue telemarketers for harassment and get the money, or if the FTC fines supercedes the old lawsuits?

I'll bet Tookie isn't laughing now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hot enough for 'ya down there? Make room for Jacko and OJ.

Hmm

[certel]

And I thought the Do Not Call list was a joke because nothing had really taken place since it's inception.

Re:Hmm

[tuxette]

Well, if it's true that this company made $95M in the third quarter, and the fine was a mere $5.4M, then don't be afraid to stop thinking that the Do Not Call list is a joke...

Two ironic words...

[bugnuts]

GAME OVER

Fiting with their current ad campaign

[XBoyAdv]

Their current advertising campaign is called Somebody Up There Loves You. Find it creepy when I first heard of the jingle now it is fitting.

Why sue?

[Sir_Cockalot]

Just speak to the cold caller in a whisper. Continue this way until you think he's turned up the volume on his headset to a rather loud level. Then take your air horn and let'em have it. Ok.. So I'm a little evil.

Re:Why sue?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no reason to use an air horn as there is a built in limit to how loud sounds sent through the phone system can be. The only way you can really make yourself louder on the phone is to get the person at the other end to amplify the sound more by turning up their headset volume. Once you have done that it doesn't matter if you use an air horn or just yell into the phone, it will be the same volume either way.

Re:Why sue?

[Phroggy]

Just speak to the cold caller in a whisper. Continue this way until you think he's turned up the volume on his headset to a rather loud level. Then take your air horn and let'em have it. Ok.. So I'm a little evil.

A little?

This will not accomplish anything, beyond hurting some poor Indian's ear. DirecTV won't even hear about the incident.

Re:Why sue?

[Sir_Cockalot]

and you took me seriously.. wow

A variation of the Steve Martin punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

In the movie, "The Jerk", Steve Martin was sued for one million dollars in a clsas action suit. He had to hand-write over 900,000 checks for $1.09.

Re:Attention Slashdot editors: Edit is a verb.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're forgiven... you don't have the ability to edit.

Wow ... FCC just got richer.

[h0nk3y]

The FCC is getting paid, but how about the people who complained? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to have DTV send all of those people an apology letter and a little bit o' cash to pay them for their time? I think it's great they are trying to stick it to these guys who ignore the DNC list, but it needs to be a larger fine and part of it should go to the people who were annoyed. $5.4 million for 1.4 million complaints ... that's less than 4 bucks per call.

Re:Wow ... FCC just got richer.

[ClearlyPennsylvania]

Perhaps... but that's a lot of overhead cost and probably not worth it.

2 minutes before the injection

[Anonymous Coward]

*Ring* *Ring*

"Hello?"
"Yes, may I speak to Mr. Williams please?"
"One moment..."
"'Dis Tookie. Who 'dis?"
"Mr. Williams, I'm calling to inform you that you've won our Hawaiian vacation giveaway. All you need to do to claim this fabulous vacation is stop by our offices to speak with one of our sales associates. Are you familiar with the benefits of time share ownership?"

*click*

Re:Attention Slashdot editors: Edit is a verb.

[MegaThawt]

I thought it was "I before E except after C"??
That is counterfEIt rule, and not a sCIEntific one.

Re:You know what would make this easier to enforce

[Artifakt]

The federal government can already make it so that any foreign corp that contracts for this sort of work, in actual violation of the U.S. law, has its employees and owners put on the personal-non-grata lists, if it wants to. They become not eligble for visas, can't fly through the U.S. carriers, and so on. That doesn't sound like much of a big deal for some people, but the U.S. forwards the lists to any and all allied or neutral governments so it can widely restrict the person's ability to travel or do business just about anywhere - worse, what they don't include is a qualification; that is, there's usually no markings that say person A is a suspected terrorist, and person B is only a violator of the do-not-call regulation.
          I have heard of one case where a British employee of a minor publisher got placed on the lists for an in-absentia libel (that is, the evidence supported the claim he libeled someone under U.S. law, but not under British law's different standards for libel, and he was in Britain at the time, so no actual charges could be filed, a fact he was apparently counting on.). He has since aledged that MI-5 are the people who broke down his door at 2 am, and smashed out three of his teeth in a 'brisk' personal Q&A session. Unless the marketers are themselves a big corporation, DirecTV sized or so, getting on the non-grata lists can really suck, and it's not like the USA is responsible if some other government 'over-reacts'.

In other news...

[wombert]

In other news, today DirecTV created the new "Do Not Complain" list for companies who do not want their violations reported to the FTC.

question here is

[c0n0]

So...is any of those $5.4M going to the ppl who actually received the call?
I mean, the fine is $5.4M, but they now should reveal who they called, and give away something as an apology.

So the FTC benefited from them breaking the law, but what about the victims that devoted their time to sign up for a DNC list only to find themselves answering the phone?

IMHO the fine is not enough. They should be forced to apologize in some way, or maybe the fine should be divided with some chunk going to the FCC and the rest split it among the victims.

Federal government should follow Florida's lead

[Original Buddha]

I had a major problem about two years ago where a company selling for DirecTV would call every day and multiple times a day. I eventually got to speak to a human being and found out their company name. I reported them to the state and within a month I was send an affidavit to fill out. Not too long after submitting that I was informed that the company was fined for not adhering to Florida's do not call list.

Re:Federal government should follow Florida's lead

[anti206]

I have been fighting telemarketers for 5 months now and its great to see the FTC finally get involved.My main problem came from telemarketers using a 206 area code. A Seattle phone company, Marathon Communications (800 919 1000), provides phone numbers and acts as a buffer for the telemarketers. They use a fake name on caller ID (TMC,card services,Sat.inc etc) and a fake number you can't call back (206 415 8940,206 415 8880, 206 415 8547 etc). When you call Marathon they won't give you the identity of the business that called you unless you subpoena them, which is what my Attorney General did. One company was Guardian Communications (309 277 1222) 3322 38th.ave Moline IL.61265. They called people on the DNC list,used illegal recorded messages,and called cell phones.They sold the numbers they got to DirecTV and Dish Network. North Carolina sued them for this two weeks ago. Calls from illegal telemarketers is a huge problem and the DirecTV case is just the tip of the iceburg. Visit http://www.anti206.blogspot.com/ for more info. or to join the antitelemarketer fight.

No, a private person (me) had the first.

[TCPALaw]

I brought what was the first action (AFAIK) for violations of the national do-not-call list back in February 2004. However, the defendant settled with a nondisclosure agreement. But a number of other have brought such cases, and they are public. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227 lets the individual consumer take people to small claims court for violating the do-not-call list, sending junk faxes, and making other illegal telemarketing calls. You get $500 to $1,500 per violation.

A list of TCPA court cases regarding the national do-not-call list (as well as junk faxes and prerecorded telemarketing call) is at http://www.tcpalaw.com/free. FWIW, both the FTC and the FCC have jurisdiction here, but the FCC law 47 U.S.C. 227 lets the individual consumer sue in addition to the FCC going after the perps.

oops

[Fishstick]

Correction: An earlier version of this story overstated the number of complaints that the FTC had received about DirecTV. CNN/Money regrets the error.

nowhere in the article do they say anything about 1.4 million complaints anymore. Someone else said that is the number of total complaints for DNC.

Recorded message are illegal, and you get paid.

[TCPALaw]

Recorded sales message (unsolicited advertisements as defined by the statute) are illegal when made to residences in the USA. 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(B). The law lets the individual consumer sue for a mandatory minimum of $500 per violation, in addition to the FCC going after the perps.

Go down to your local small claims court and sue the bastards. It is a very rewarding experience!

Re:Recorded message are illegal, and you get paid.

[Technician]

For a good how-to, check out junkbusters

Re:Recorded message are illegal, and you get paid.

[George Tirebuyer]

A more effective way would be to punch something like say *68 into the phone when you get a junk call and get a $10 credit on your phone bill. Make the phone company collect the $10 from the calling number. I bet this technology is do-able without a lot of money being spent.

Devil's Advocate asks...

[Anonymous Coward]

So who gets all this $$$. The Feds who never fielded a single call from the teledrones, or are the funds going to be distributed to those who were actually pestered by the calls?

Justice is supposedly supposed to compensate those affected, not ignore them and enrich the system by collecting fines for itself.

Study agency law, not torts.

[TCPALaw]

You need to study agency law... not torts. If a company learns its independant telemarketers are breaking the law, and does not "repudiate" those acts, the company is held liable.

By failure to repudiate, they have thereby ratified the marketer's actions on their behalf. In this context, ratification is defined in Section 82 of the Restatement (Second) of Agency (1957):

Ratification is the affirmance by a person of a prior act which did not bind him but which was done, or professedly done on his account, whereby the act, as to some or all persons, is given effect as if originally done by him.

Id. Ratification may be express or implied, and affirmance may be inferred from the failure to repudiate an unauthorized act, from inaction. "An affirmance of an unauthorized transaction can be inferred from a failure to repudiate it." Id. at 94. Receipt of the benefits of the advertising campaign by the advertisers (i.e. the sales of their goods and services sold by the telemarketer) is also ratification. See Id. at 98-99. Ratification by the advertisers of the agent's acts in this manner is thus an estoppel to Defendants' argument against liability of the advertisers. They benefitted, and failed to repudiate the marketer's actions. Each advertiser is thus liable for the marketing "as if originally done by him." Id. at 82.

Another branch of agency law holds you liable if you had the ability to control, and did not do so. DTV had that ability (according to the DTV contracts I have seen), and did not exercise it. That makes them liable.

I've litigated this many times against various telemarketing perps like DTV and won.

Re:Study agency law, not torts.

[brontus3927]

But the telemarketing company is not an employee of DirecTV, but a contractee. The link you posted was specific about applying to employer-employee relations. Now, through my previous attempt at business I know that, the fundamental difference between an employee and a labor contractee is whether you have control over the actions of the person. If you can control how someone performs a task designated to them, you are their employee. If you do not have control over how a task is performed, then you have contracted them to perform the task.

Re:Study agency law, not torts.

[TCPALaw]

What you describe is an "independant contractor" under tax law, and this is a frequent misunderstanding of the role of independant contractor in agency law.

In *general* agency law, a principal is not liable for the tortious acts of an independant contractor. One big exception is when you become aware of those acts by your independant contractor, and do not "repudiate" them. If you accept the benefits of even an independant contractor's illegal acts, then you can be held liable for them. The way you excape liability is when you find out about the illegal acts, you sue the contractor, terminate the contract, and "disgourge" all income or other benefits that contractor garnered for you.

Another is the "right" to control... if you have the "right" to control the contractor, even if you do not exercise that right, then they are not an "independant" contractor. For the contractor to be independant, you must not have the right to tell them how to accomplish the task delegated to them.

Another misconception is that the agency law concept of an "independant contractor" is totally unrelated to the same term used in tax law.... a lot of people confuse them. Someone can be an IC for tax purposes, and not an IC for legal liability purposes.

Re:Study agency law, not torts.

[brontus3927]

In general, it sounds like we're saying pretty similar things. In my original post I started out with qualifying that I thought that DirecTV would only be liable IF they knew that the telemarketing company was breaking the law. You are saying that DirecTV was aware of the telemarketer's actions. Ergo, DirecTV is indeed liable.

Correction notice now posted

[Doc Scratchnsniff]

The bottom of the article now has the following:

Correction: An earlier version of this story overstated the number of complaints that the FTC had received about DirecTV. CNN/Money regrets the error.

The sentence which previously stated DirecTV had 1.4 million complaints now says "thousands of complaints"

Got an unsolicited call from them just today....

[Quevar]

Just hours after I read the article this morning on CNN, I got an automated call from them. (You know, the ones with the recorded voice that says the stuff and "Press one to sign up for service.") Well, I pressed one and got a live person who asked: "Would you like to sign up for DirectTV?" I said: "No and please put me on your do not call list." I'm not entirely sure when, but I think she hung up around the time I said "please put." Needless to say, I was quite irritated with them. That is rude on two accounts: 1) the unsolicited call with a robotic person and 2) she hung up on me.

Easy...

[TCPALaw]

You don't enforce it on the overseas telemarketer.... you enforce it on the US Company that hired them to sell their products. That's what agency law is all about... vicarious liability. You hire someone to do it, you are liable for what they do on your behalf. Respondeat Superior.

Yes, you can sue them.

[TCPALaw]

The confusion comes from the fact that two separate laws relate to telemarketing.

The Telemarketing Sales Rule gives the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) authority to regulate telemarketers. But a consumer can't generally sue under this law.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) gives the Federal Communications Commission similar authority, and expands it to junk faxes and prerecorded calls. It is this law, the TCPA, that also gives the consumer the right to sue the bastards in your local small claims court for $500 to $1,500 per violation.

Can we use this judgement to fight SPAM?

[Sir_Dill]

Many legal precedents are started with similar but not identical cases.

This case sets a precident not only for Telemarketing but it could also be applied to SPAM. How many spammers have used the "The company I hired broke the law not me" argument? I could care less about the actual particulars of the ruling (How many violations and how much its going to cost them that is).

I am more interested in the ways that this can be used to take people like Soloway and any new wannabe Ralsky's out of the SPAM business. So many of them have been hiding behind the ignorance defense and hopefully this ruling will negate that tactic.

Re:Got an unsolicited call from them just today...

[johnny cashed]

I got the same treatment. I pressed one, and the first thing I said after the salesman introduced himself was: "please put me on your do not call list" CLICK! "hello, hello?" He had just hung up. I didn't complain, but now I wish I had. It was very rude.

close

[c0n0]

Damn...for one reason or another I never get to test the anti-telemarketing Counterscript

IT ISNT OUTSOURCED

[a_greer2005]

Directv has many call centers (a 3rd party outfit that they pay to makecalls) here in Indiana, one in Lafayette, one in Terre-Hote and some others arround the state, they hire High School students for $7.00/hr and give lotto tickets as prizes for top sellers

I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP...I WORKED THERE IN HS (for 6 weeks)

Re:IT ISNT OUTSOURCED

[lgw]

a 3rd party outfit that they pay to makecalls

That's pretty much the definition of outsourced. What did you think the word meant?

Re:IT ISNT OUTSOURCED

[a_greer2005]

On this site, in referance to call centers, It usually refers to call centers in India... Not INDIANA

Re:IT ISNT OUTSOURCED

[wootest]

Outsourcing is letting a third party handle something in your or your company's place. Offshoring is outsourcing something to other countries, including India, and China. So the call centers are outsourced, but not offshored.

Re:Attention Slashdot editors: Edit is a verb.

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean there are rules in the english language?

Where's the money go?

[TallMatthew]

Can we go slaughter more Iraqis? I hope I hope!

Now that Howard's moved to satellite, I guess they had to make their yacht payments somehow.

They have nothing on Dish...

[Malor]

I have hard records that Dish called me over SEVEN HUNDRED TIMES over about six weeks, despite my begging and pleading and yelling at them to stop. The 'supervisor' I talked to in their telemarketing division so didn't care that he was rendering my phone useless. About every twenty minutes, during their business hours (roughly 10 to 7 or so, tuesday through saturday), for weeks on end, Dish called me. Again. And again. And again.

I had to wait the thirty days for the Do Not Call list to take effect, and gave it another few days ... still the same volume of calls. I then filed a complaint with the donotcall.gov site... and the calls stopped THE NEXT DAY. And I know it wasn't just their slow response coinciding with the donotcall list, because they had just started calling my CELL PHONE ... not with the same volume, but 3 or 4 times a day for a few days. So I filed complaints on both numbers and BOTH numbers stopped the following day.

In other words, they could have stopped calling me any time they wanted, but just didn't give a flying fuck whether they pissed me off or not. So I repeat this story whenever I get a chance, and hope fervently that you won't use Dish for your satellite TV services.

(this WAS Dish themselves doing it, too, not just an outside telemarketing firm or subcontrators... this was all in-house and they knew perfectly well they were being scumbags and DID NOT CARE.)

I work in a call center for DirecTV

[Anonymous Coward]

We call for collections though. We get people who tell us that they don't want what we are selling even though they already have DirecTV. Herd mentality, stupid people.
Most of the people who have directv are on welfare anyway. Makes you wonder if the system is really working if it allows them to have +90 dollar satellite bills each month.

Re:I work in a call center for DirecTV

[beast6228]

This is a two part reply

First, I don't know too many people on welfare that have a credit line. That is one of the requirements to obtaining Directv service (having credit) It didn't used to be that way, but now is. Now Dishnetwork on the other hand requires no credit checks and is actually cheaper than Directv's service ($26 for dishnetwork programming, $41 per month for directv)
By the way, back in 1996 I purchased my first dss system and of course it was Directv. In 1999 I switched to Dishnetwork for 4 years and just recently switched back. Getting back to the part about credit, that is one of the reasons that I kinda hate Directv, They have become so strict. I know they are trying to combat piracy (god I miss the HU card days) but I do understand their motive.

Here comes the second part
In the last two weeks or so, I have recieved 3 calls per week from Directv trying to sell me something. In fact here is an e-mail that I recieved from them on the 11th (I knew nothing about this lawsuit until today)

DIRECTV Customer Service
to me
          Hide options Dec 11 (2 days ago)
From: DIRECTV Customer Service
Reply-To: DIRECTV Customer Service
To: xxxx@whatever.moc
Date: Dec 11, 2005 9:40 PM
Subject: Directv is trying to call for some reason [Incident: xxxxx-xxxxxx]
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Add sender to Contacts list | Delete this message | Report phishing | Show original | Message text garbled?
Dear Mr. X,

Thanks for writing. I'm sorry to hear about any inconvenience this situation has caused. That call you received is probably a promotional call from our outbound agents.

If you wish to know about our promotions you can follow it up by calling the same phone number. You can also call 1-800-531-5000 for further assistance.

Thanks again for writing and stay tuned to DIRECTV.com for the latest news and information about our services.

Sincerely,

Xxxxxx
DIRECTV Customer Service

Original Message Follows:

DIRECTV FEEDBACK MESSAGE

Name: Mr. X
Status: Subscriber
[Account Number: xxxxxxx ]
Email Address: xxxx@whatever.moc
[Topic Selected: Other]
Subject: Directv is trying to call for some reason

Details: Hello, I keep getting calls from Directv and would like to know why this keeps happening. The number that is calling is
1-888-265-3880.

Please e-mail me reguarding this matter.

You both have it wrong...

[TCPALaw]

If you get a call claiming to be on behalf of DTV, you have to prove the caller was DTV itself, or an agent of DTV. The content of the call is not enough (it is hearsay). Also the law does not allow the statement of a purported agent can to be used to prove agency... otherwise anyone can claim they are your agent. So if a competitor was trying to get you in trouble by making calls claiming to be you, you would have no liability unless and until there was proof other than the content of the calls themselves that you were responsible for the calls. So you never have the burden of proving someone is not your agent... the other guy (who wants to sue you for teh calls) has to prove the caller was your agent.

Re:You both have it wrong...

[elhedran]

kool. I was trying to argue the worse case still wouldn't be bad enough but its good to know it doesn't go that far.

It already does

[TCPALaw]

The law already does say that "the party on whose behalf the call is made is ultimately liable" for violations. The FCC has incorporated this into their rules interpreting the act.

Re:You know what would make this easier to enforce

[Khyber]

Sadly, Conspiracy to Committ or Conspiracy to (anything) generally is a felony. Since this is a violation of a civil matter, and not an actual crime, I don't think that adding a felonious charge would so much here. IANAL.

Where does the FINE go?

[sboutwell]

Ok, so where the heck does the money for this FINE go? To the FTC or the poor souls that had to report his enough for someone to do something about it. As one that has been harrased endlessly, I sure would like to know how I can get my some of my Time for answering and being endlessly distrubed by these calls compensated.