Slashdot Mirror


"Do Not Call" Violators Fined $1.2M

coondoggie writes "A federal court today spanked two telemarketers with some $1.2 million in civil penalties for violating the Federal Trade Commission's Do Not Call Rule. According to the FTC, the companies called consumers whose phone numbers were on the Do Not Call Registry without having obtained their express written agreement or having an 'established business relationship' with them. One group's telemarketers also allegedly abandoned many calls, by failing to connect the calls to a sales representative within two seconds after consumers answered, as required by law, the FTC stated. The cases were filed by the Department of Justice on behalf of the FTC."

39 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. cost of doing business... by gandhi_2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...don't think the telemarketers didn't factor fines like this in the price they charged clients.

    This is $300 billion/year industry.

    1. Re:cost of doing business... by BradHAWK · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They didn't fine the industry $1.2 million. They fined two companies $1.2 million.

    2. Re:cost of doing business... by mysidia · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They didn't fine the industry $1.2 million. They fined two companies $1.2 million.

      Even so, $1.2 million doesn't seem like very much money to fine a large corporation for.

      Having $1 billion in revenue instead of $300 billion doesn't suddenly make $1.2 million a big sum.

      Oh, I see it makes the fine 0.012% instead of 0.00004%

      If the FTC wants to be noticed, they should set a minimum of 1% of revenue for first time/minor offense of calling a few people on the do-not-call-list

      The fine should be minimum 20% of annual revenue for a pattern of violations.

      And the penalties should be much more severe for repeat violators.

      That would actually encourage companies to obey the rules. A $1 million fine is like a fly buzzing around, that companies can ignore and still go about their dastardly business.

    3. Re:cost of doing business... by furby076 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you don't think 1.2 mil isn't big dollars to a SINGLE business, as opposed to an INDUSTRY, then you are mistaken. If it was a multi-billion dollar company sure - but someone is gonna feel some heat on this.

      Besides - there needs to be reasonable penalties. Just because a company has 100 million in assests/revenue does not mean they need to be fined 100 million for any infraction of any law. That would be prejudicial and wrong. It would be along the lines of how drug laws are racist (cheaper drugs, which tend to be used mroe by low socio-economic people aka minorities, get stiffer penalties then those who use more expensive drugs.)

      So 1.2 million for calling is pretty fair. If they don't stop doing it the next judge can make it 10 million (cumulative penalties), and the judge after that can make it 50, and so forth until they get the message.

      In the top portion of your message you said this was a "speed bump" but in the bottom portion you said we should look the other way because of our economy. These two statements clash. If it is a slap on the wrist the only people to be fired are those responsible for the screw-up...usually a few management. It won't cause massive lay-offs. Also - no we should not look the other way. We should not allow people to break the law because the economy sucks right now. Plenty of people work and make a profit without breaking the law.

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
    4. Re:cost of doing business... by mysidia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      p.s. The FTC also needs the right to decide revenue on their own, bypass any tricks by the company's accounting department.

      And also include the revenues of associated companies.

      And levy fines against "holding companies" or other related companies artificially constructed to try to insulate profits or related orgs from liability arising from illegal business practices.

    5. Re:cost of doing business... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you accept the premise that most telemarketing, especially most shady telemarketing, is for rip-offs and other kinds of crap, then "looking the other way" as you suggest, is just a variation on the broken-window fallacy.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    6. Re:cost of doing business... by pjt33 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There should also be other remedies available, such as prohibiting the CEOs of these companies from holding any company office for five years. That's the kind of penalty which sets an example to make other companies think twice about what they're doing, and I don't think it's disproportionate.

    7. Re:cost of doing business... by digitig · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yup, this fine is just a speed bump. The fact that the Do Not Call registry made the law abiding companies change their business tactics or drop out of the race gives these companies that would rather take the hit less compitition.

      Which is useful information in itself. I'm on the UK DNC list, and if I get a call it means that the company calling me is either incompetent or is employing shady, if not crooked, business practices. I always ask them which it is, and they tend to find it hard to return to script.

      Here's something else to think about. Provided these are American owned companies, employing Americans, would it be better to just look the other way unless we're out of financial dire straights? As shady as telemarketing is, it's supporting and employing thousands of Americans every year.

      Hey, so does organised crime, maybe you want to cut that some slack, too? Anyway, most marketing calls I get here in the UK seem to originate outside the UK (judging by the accents, which I realise isn't 100% reliable) because that avoids the UK law so there is no redress. Don't be surprised if the calls you get are from outside the USA, for just the same reason.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    8. Re:cost of doing business... by mpe · · Score: 5, Funny

      There should also be other remedies available, such as prohibiting the CEOs of these companies from holding any company office for five years.

      Or maybe have to publish their own phone number(s) for 5 years.

    9. Re:cost of doing business... by Main+Gauche · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Granted, I've been telemarketed by my fair share from across the globe, but as far as domestic telemarking goes, it's not THE worst thing that could be going on with the strength of the dollar and the unemployment rate like it is.

      I really hope that's not what got you modded up.

      When the harm you cause others is greater than the benefit you create for yourself, that is textbook economic inefficiency. It should be illegal. That's why we have laws against pollution. That's why we have laws against speeding. That's why we have countless laws against many things that a selfish individual would want to do, but which would harm others.

      Yes, telemarketing falls in that class: a failed marketing call has inconvenienced the person who answered the phone. The marketer does not bear this cost.

      And the state of the economy does not mean we should throw this principle out the window.

    10. Re:cost of doing business... by fafaforza · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And you expect the government to know all that? They can't even see red flags when someone claims to trade 1 million stock options on an exchange that at most does 200,000 trades in a day. (numbers approximated)

    11. Re:cost of doing business... by gandhi_2 · · Score: 3, Funny

      So...a heard of wildebeest looses two members, that's not really much of a deterrent to the thousands.

      And the two wildebeest didn't even die...they just got injured.

      On the bright side...the $1.2 mil in fines will help the government pay for a telemarketer industry bailout.

    12. Re:cost of doing business... by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As shady as telemarketing is, it's supporting and employing thousands of Americans every year.

      I call strawman on that.

      With the same argument, you'd have to make drugs legal, all of them. Or child porn. Or concentration camps. They all do or could do the same - employ people.

      The fact is: The "it offers jobs" argument is entirely hollow. If we made computers illegal today, sure there would be a couple million unemployed people tomorrow. They'd have different jobs by next week, when we find out that we still need work to be done, and people to do it.

      The "jobs" argument is a pseudo-argument that pretends to look at things from a higher perspective. What it really does, however, is cover up the proper higher perspective, which is: What is the value for the local/national/global economy?

      Telemarketing sells stuff. It does not create any additional value. It does have a negative economic impact through the damage it does to people who don't want to be called (time is an economic commodity, even if it's nominally spare time). I've not run the numbers, but I dare to say it at least equals out, given how many people's evening the telemarketers have to ruin in order to make one sale.

      On the whole, telemarketing almost certainly provides a negative contribution to the local/national/global economy. Just like drugs or concentration camps, so it needs to go the same way - outlawed.

      Footnotes:
      a) I'm aware "drugs" is a very high summary here and not all drugs fit equally
      b) I've not made nor do I intend to make an economic "analysis", however rough, on the topic of child porn, that's why it's missing in the second enumeration

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    13. Re:cost of doing business... by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 5, Interesting

      When a person violates motor vehicle laws badly enough, they lose their license to use a motor vehicle for some duration.

      When a lawyer violates the Bar rules badly enough, they lose their license to practice law in that state for some duration (or forever, if you do the types of things Jack Thompson did.)

      When a company violates telemarketing laws badly enough, they should lose the ability to telemarket for some duration. Prevent them from calling any customers (without the customer's explicit request -- if someone leaves your company voicemail asking you to contact them, that's okay) for a week for the first offense, doubling with each subsequent offense. Make it so that the punishment sticks even if they try to do some sort of corporate shell game ("No we're not HyperGlobalMegaCompuTech, we're GlobalCompuHyperMegaTech. See our freshly painted sign?") Eventually they'll learn (or be barred from calling customers for long enough that they'll go out of business before regaining the ability to telemarket.)

    14. Re:cost of doing business... by bdenton42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you don't think 1.2 mil isn't big dollars to a SINGLE business, as opposed to an INDUSTRY, then you are mistaken. If it was a multi-billion dollar company sure - but someone is gonna feel some heat on this.

      Westgate Resorts http://www.westgateresorts.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=about_us.show_about_us was fined $900,000. They claim that they have "Over 10,000" employees, which means that the fine is less than $90 per employee (about a day and a half's pay at minimum wage). Just a small slap on the wrist for a company that size IMO.

    15. Re:cost of doing business... by PalmKiller · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They should be automatically tax audited and that used to determine the amount, and charge them extra for the untimely audit. Plus that will add to their pain, if we break the rules, we get audited.

    16. Re:cost of doing business... by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fine for serious violations should be the greater of 20% of annual revenue for each year the violations occurred or 150% of the revenue that came from the violations.

      For added fun, charge the phone equipment with assisting in the violation of the do-not-call list and take it in a forfeiture. Yes, even if it's rented.

      Penalties that don't even add up to the value of the crime are better defined as taxes. Imagine if stealing a new car off the lot was a $1000 fine (and you get to keep the car). Suddenly stealing a new car would be the new national sport.

      If civil fines for individuals were scaled to the corporate fines, a speeding ticket would cost $2 or so and wouldn't affect your insurance rate. No need to waste time paying in cash at the courthouse, just mail a check.

    17. Re:cost of doing business... by SydShamino · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Remember, companies have all the rights as people in the US.*

      * except when it could inconvenience the company.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    18. Re:cost of doing business... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Companies ALSO have RESPONSIBILITIES that people do not have. Trucking companies are responsible for $1million liability (usually through insurance policies), far in excess of any liability the average citizen is required to carry. Companies working with petro- and/or hazardous chemicals have responsibilities the average citizen doesn't imagine - UNTIL an accident happens. Nuclear plants have TREMENDOUS responsibility. And, no, companies do NOT enjoy all the same rights as individuals. They don't have the right to vote, for instance. Instead, they just buy proxy votes by giving away free jets to politicians.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    19. Re:cost of doing business... by DinDaddy · · Score: 2, Funny

      "I call strawman on that."

      We are going to have to ask you for proof of a pre-existing business relationship with strawman, as his number is on the DNC list.

    20. Re:cost of doing business... by BradHAWK · · Score: 2, Funny

      According to Westgate Resorts' website, their annual revenue is "more than $400 million". They were fined $900,000, so that's about .2%. So in just three posts we've gone from .00004% to .012% to .2% - if we keep this thread going we can run them right out of business.

  2. Thats good to hear. by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Many judges are not sympathetic towards people who report the "Do Not Call" violators. They see the people who do report them as whiny people who are abusing the judicial system for money.

    Telemarketing, Spamming, and even Billboards, are what I call bad advertising. They advertise without giving any advantage to the community or benefit to the end user, or costs them in some ways.

    Advertising that helps offer free services, or reduced cost services are good advertising, wither or not this happens is at the ethics of the person giving the service, but not the advertiser.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Thats good to hear. by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Funny

      Many judges are not sympathetic towards people who report the "Do Not Call" violators. They see the people who do report them as whiny people who are abusing the judicial system for money.

      Many Slashdot posters are inclined to make vague, sweeping populist statements without a shred of evidence to back them up. [Citation needed]

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    2. Re:Thats good to hear. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They may be "vague sweeping populist statements" to you, but if you had been paying attention here over the years, you would see that just about every report of such cases that has made its way to slashdot has played out pretty much exactly as claimed. Try reading up on Bennett Haselton and his efforts to use the law to punish do-not-call violators.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  3. Spanking's too good by biscuitlover · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If anyone deserves a repeat spanking it's these people. I have to deal with enough marketing crap coming via my inbox & letterbox without having people call my phone all the time too. It's especially galling when people have explicitly indicated that they don't want to be called in the first place, as they have here.

    I wish the whole concept of telemarketing would just die a horrible death. Who really wants to deal with persistent salespeople when they're trying to chill out at home and enjoy the precious little time that isn't spent staring at their work PC?

    More spanking please.

  4. Blow to "Fine print" contracts? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From what I can tell, this decision is actually a blow to so-called "fine print" "privacy policies" and "terms and conditions" so prevalent on websites these days. In the article, it says that they were convicted even though their "fine print" said the consumers would receive marketing calls. It sounds like to me that those types of one-sided "fine print" contracts are not being upheld in court.

    The Westgate defendants purchased the telephone numbers of consumers who answered travel-related survey questions, such as "Select your favorite travel destination," on Brandarama.com's online form, the FTC stated. Many of these telephone numbers were on the DNC Registry. The Brandarama.com Web site did not refer to Westgate or notify consumers that they would receive telemarketing calls, except in language buried in its "terms and conditions" or "privacy policy" pages, the FTC stated.

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  5. Phone Spam by bornagainpenguin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have a Virgin Mobile that I've been using now for nearly a year and I still get calls from all sorts of telemarketers who refuse to stop calling me, claiming I owe money or that my car warranty is about to expire. I recently made a report on one of these companies whose robo calls filled up my voice mail, only to recieve a letter back saying the report was 'unfounded' and wishing me a nice day. So while I'm happy to see there has been some action taken here against some of these companies I wish they'd be more consistent in enforcement.

    The other thing that bothers me is the increasing frequency of these types of calls coming over VOIP and their increasing similarity to spam. My fear is that unless we get consistent in enforcement we're going to end up with today's situation with email repeated on cellphones, just as it was on faxes and landlines.

    --happy one

    --
    Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
    1. Re:Phone Spam by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have a Virgin Mobile that I've been using now for nearly a year and I still get calls from all sorts of telemarketers who refuse to stop calling me, claiming I owe money or that my car warranty is about to expire. I recently made a report on one of these companies whose robo calls filled up my voice mail, only to recieve a letter back saying the report was 'unfounded' and wishing me a nice day.

      I'm not a lawyer, but I'm guessing that the law focuses on phone number and not on phone owner. So, since a business relationship was established with your phone number from the previous owner of the number, you might be screwed until some possible time-out period.

    2. Re:Phone Spam by RulerOf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's illegal for telemarketers to call cellphones

      No it's not.

      My company runs at least two dialing campaigns that go to cell phones. In order for the call to be legal, you probably need a prior business relationship (though I'm not certain) and you do need to do what's called "preview dialing," where someone is actually on the line the entire time, from the moment the line starts ringing and until the customer hangs up.

      You may not like it, but should you ever get solicited on your cell phone, chances are good it was legal.

      --
      Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
    3. Re:Phone Spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258164A1.pdf (warning pdf - it was either this or a word .doc)

      "Telemarketing to cell phone numbers has always been illegal in most cases and will
      continue to be so."

      "FCC regulations prohibit telemarketers from using automated dialers to call cell phone
      numbers. Automated dialers are standard in the industry, so most telemarketers are
      barred from calling consumers on their cell phones without their consent."

  6. enlightening by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

    >>> failing to connect the calls to a sales representative within two seconds after consumers answered, as required by law,

    This happens to me a LOT, but I didn't realize it was required by law to answer. That's good. There's nothing more annoying than running to get the phone, and only hearing a bunch of clicks and nobody answering. Stupid corporations should be forced out of business, not just fined. With workers being fired left-and-right, maybe a few of these law-breaking corporations should be "fired" too.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  7. And that's what fraction of the profit? by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Unless those 1.2m are a sizable portion of the revenue (read: enough to make it unprofitable), it is just a cost factor, not a fine. A fine has to discourage. Unless the fine is actually high enough to make the illegal business unprofitable, it will not stop people doing this kind of business.

    Example: You run a scam that cheats people out of 100 bucks each. When you get caught, you have to pay 50 bucks per person scammed as a fine. Question: Do you stop scamming, or is those 50 bucks just the cost factor to take into account for your next run?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. Re:Why Telemarketers? by Canazza · · Score: 2, Funny

    If bugging people on the phone at dinner time is a crime then my gran owes me ALOT of money then :)

    --
    It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
  9. Here's the challenge and the problem by RaigetheFury · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most of the "really guilty" companies use VOIP with callerid spoofing. It's illegal but almost impossible to prove on a sweeping scan of the industry. You have to watch one company to catch them doing it and most of these guys switch their names, change location etc... and often times aren't even in the United States and thus, not under their jurisdiction.

    - I don't want the Government to be able to wiretap companies without a warrant.
    - I don't want the telephone companies / ISP's filtering content.
    - We can't punish the companies who use them because it could easily be used as a bankrupting tool for innocent companies (company A wants to bankrupt company b and "hires" telemarketing company as company A).
    - I refuse to pay my telephone company or the government more money for something that should be happening in the first place

    So how do we stop these guys especially when we can't prosecute them under our laws?

    Solutions
    1) Filters - You can have automatic private/unknown block. I know two people who have private numbers who would have trouble calling me. This is flawed because you block people you want to talk to and callerID spoofing bypasses the rest. If it comes to traffic identification that means ISPS are scanning traffic... uh NO. No matter what you basically you hurt yourself here.

    2) Fines - won't work on the really bad ones outside the US. A pointless endeavor except to inside the US.

    Sure the above two work to deter it within our Country... however I think jail-time of the company owners should be mandatory. That would pretty much stop it within the US. However... it's pretty minor here. Most calls you get are from out of country.

    Here is my solution... but its easier said than done due to difficulty of implementation. The requirements are the follows

    1) Create a complaint system where users can do *123 (or something) that identifies that call as an unwanted sales call.
    2) Users who have access to this feature must be on the DO NOT CALL LIST
    3) This system must be profitable for all those involved or negligible in cost or it's a pipe dream.
    4) There has to be a bit of leeway because lists are purchased and occasionally even the best companies screw up.

    When a caller identifies a call by hitting *123 it flags that call for the telephony company. It stores the data of that caller in a database. This database is given to a US agency who runs reports identifying repeat offenders or "areas" of the world where it comes from the most (including the US).

    This helps the US target those areas and identify the companies that relay those calls, or that companies VOIP id's etc. From this information we can block them entirely. Like all blacklists there has to be a measure of care taken before someone is placed on it.

    Good exploiters of the system are constantly moving, constantly changing to not be identified. Here's what the cherry in my plan comes from. When telemarketers like this are identified, it's almost a shoe in to identify the companies that do business with them. Begin to fine those companies. WHY?!?

    When companies begin to get hit with fines, and the threat of being identified as "bad marketers" receiving bad media... you bet your ass they'll start looking for more reputable marketing groups. You'll see a SHARP decline in the number of unwanted calls that occur.

    Unfortunately this is a long term solution and would take over a year to begin culling the data and identifying trends. Except one thing...

    AT&T, Sprint and several others have been doing this for years. They have the data, they know who it is... all they need is little push from a Governmental agency dedicated to spam! The fines and such would self manage this agency. When fines are high this agencies focus is here... when it's low this agency can focus on other issues.

    The best part is that when this problem becomes small... so will the governmental agency.

    My perfect world i guess...

  10. Re:Just use spam filters by cduffy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I do that on my home phone line (actually even simpler than that -- "Press 1 to continue in English"), and it works quite well.

  11. Car Warranty by Provos · · Score: 2

    Now if they can just get the idiots that call me and tell me my car warranty is about to expire on a regular basis, despite me repeatedly telling them to take me off their list AND my phone number being on the do-not-call registry, I'd be happy.

    --
    I toggled a toggle and buttoned a button, but when I got done, I was done doin' nothin'.
  12. anyone else get calls from "credit card services"? by e40 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I get them a couple of times a week. They're robo calls, with the usual "press 1 to ..." and they all start with the claim to help you with your CC rates and that this is "your last chance".

    Once, I played them. I pressed 1. Said I was interested. Was asked if I had "at least $4000 in CC debt." Once I passed that test, I was handled off to the closer, a really slick asshole who asked for my CC#'s. I stalled. He waited. I acted dumb and said I'd look for my statements. I just set down the phone. 10 minutes later I hung up. I immediately got a call back. At first, he thought I accidentally hung up, but I hung up again. He called back again and before I hung up again I hear "you'll be sorry..." The next 5 rings were people that asked to be taken off their list. I had to take the phone off the hook for 30 minutes.

  13. He said it was robocalls by danaris · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...and I've gotten robocalls on my cell, too, saying my car warranty was going to expire.

    If, as you say, you have to have someone actually on the line, then no, they're not legal.

    Dan Aris

    --
    Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
  14. This is your second notice by Cracked+Pottery · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is your second notice that the warranty on your annoying telephone scam is about to expire.