Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FTC Announces Crackdown on Do Not Call Violators

Posted by samzenpus on from the no-means-no dept.

Tech.Luver writes "The Federal Trade Commission today announced a law enforcement crackdown on companies and individuals accused of violating the requirements of the National Do Not Call Registry, resulting in six settlements collectively imposing nearly $7.7 million in civil penalties, along with an additional complaint that will be filed in federal district court. The actions, brought by the Department of Justice on the FTC's behalf, are against companies ranging from adjustable bed seller Craftmatic Industries, to alarm-monitoring provider ADT Security Services and lender Ameriquest Mortgage Company. To date, consumers have put more than 145 million numbers on the Registry, indicating they do not want to receive calls from telemarketers at home."

13 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. Re:5 Year Limit by Jaster82 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Thanks for the heads up! I'll have to actually write a good old fashioned snail mail letter to my senator here in Colorado... Stick it to 'em! Remember people, if you want to be taken seriously, snail mail is the only way to go.

  2. Freedom by SamP2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The freedom of speech includes the freedom not to listen.

  3. These lists are good, but.. by eniac42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Have one important drawback - they tend to apply only within the host country. Some of these scam^h^h^h^h telesales-marketing companies operate from oversees (ie. from Canada calling EU countries)..

    --
    "A nation that forgets its past is doomed to repeat it." - Churchill
    1. Re:These lists are good, but.. by MollyB · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Another bummer: these registries only apply to marketers. Charities use the same tactics (Out of Area in CallerID, call more-or-less daily, and won't leave a message). I don't care who is bothering me for cash. All they get is a request to be removed from the call list.
      (I have nothing against NGOs/charities. If I wish to donate, I can find my own suitable organization without prodding.)

    2. Re:These lists are good, but.. by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If I wish to donate, I can find my own suitable organization without prodding


      I'd take that a step further. If I wish to donate, its to a charity that won't be spending my money paying someone to coldcall people to whore for donations.
      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
    3. Re:These lists are good, but.. by cjb-nc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Do-Not-Call list is one of the biggest publicity stunt Congress has pulled in a decade.
      The second being this event here. Look everyone, we caught *FIVE* big ticket offenders. See? It works! Really. We're doing our job. Never mind that each and every one of you has probably had to report five different companies for ignoring the list. They just weren't big enough to bother to go after.
  4. Why not just ban all telemarketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unless one specifically indicates to -one- firm at a time that they don't mind and might even like to be called about their latest news/offers (ala email/newsletters)?

    NO ONE wants to be called by -random- telemarketers at home, selling what usually amounts to nothing but a flat out scam. It's preposterous we continue to accept it as a 'part of the market' or whatever it is that makes us keep allowing it to happen at all.

  5. Almost there... by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To date, consumers have put more than 145 million numbers on the Registry, indicating they do not want to receive calls from telemarketers at home.

    Now if only they'd remove the exemptions for charities and politicians, I'd call this a job well done.

  6. US government served us well in this case. by Morky · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The government saw telemarketing was a growing problem, and for all intents and purposes, fixed it. Taking a decision that results in lost jobs is usually antithetical to US politicians, but they did it anyway. Thanks for representing the people!

    1. Re:US government served us well in this case. by ucblockhead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know that I'd say "fixed it". I know I still get annoying calls, especially from "charities" or people "doing surveys". More like they took a stabbing pain and turned it into a dull ache. This is typical government: mediocre half-action which is, at least, better than nothing.

      --
      The cake is a pie
  7. A clasic response: by ubrgeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    TM: Hi, would you be interested in switching over to TMI long distance service.

    Jerry Seinfeld: Gee, I can't talk right now. Why don't you give me your home number and I'll call you later.

    TM: Uh, I'm sorry we're not allowed to do that.

    Jerry Seinfeld: Oh, I guess you don't want people calling you at home.

    TM: No.

    Jerry Seinfeld: Well now you know how I feel.

    --
    Bark less. Wag more.
  8. Re:5 Year Limit by The+Only+Druid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Prior restraint issues, among others, would appear. If companies were preemptively prevented from calling people, that amounts to a prior restraint without sufficient justification. However, with an opt-out list, companies are only prevented from calling those people who have explicitly requested such treatment. This way, the government hasn't restrained the companies a priori.

    --
    "Stumble before you crawl"
  9. Re:5 Year Limit by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Remember people, if you want to be taken seriously, snail mail is the only way to go. No. Post-911, Anthrax scare, etc. the best option is ALWAYS to call or fax, especially for the federal government. If you snail mail, your letter sits in communication purgatory where it is treated as if it is filled with explosives or toxins. Once it's been cleared, it could be weeks. I think GP's point was more in the direction of not using email if you want to be taken seriously.