Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

"Do Not Call" Violators Fined $1.2M

Posted by kdawson on from the what-part-of-do-not-call-do-you-not-understand dept.

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."

8 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.

    --
    THL phish sticks
    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 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.

    5. 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.)

  2. 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.
  3. 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!