Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FTC Wins Huge $7.5 Million Penalty Against "Do Not Call" List Violator

Posted by samzenpus on from the pay-up dept.

coondoggie writes "The Federal Trade Commission today said it has won a $7.5 million civil penalty – the largest ever — against Mortgage Investors Corporation, one of the nation's biggest refinancers of veterans' home loans for allegedly violating 'Do Not Call' requirements. According to the FTC’s complaint, Mortgage Investors Corporation called consumers on the Federal Trade Commission’s National Do Not Call Registry, failed to remove consumers from its company call list upon demand, and misstated the terms of available loan products during telemarketing calls."

14 of 136 comments (clear)

  1. Very nice by cbhacking · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now, if they could just get those "This is an automated message from account services... Press one if you would like to lower your interest rates to as little as..." assholes, that would be great...

    --
    There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  2. I guess it was worth it then... by An+dochasac · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Surely Mortgage Investors Corporation pulled in far more than $7.5 Million with this fraud. And they certainly caused more than $7.5 Million in damages to their victims and the rest society by blowing phone spam into the property bubble. What's to stop them or anyone else from doing it again? This should have been a criminal case. Prison for the CEO and board of directors would be more of a deterrent for corporate crimes.

    1. Re:I guess it was worth it then... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      they should have been fined 101% of their total gross income, since the start of the company.

      don't take SOME of their money. take ALL of it.

      if you don't, they still (the generic 'they') will see a profit from their bad behavior.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:I guess it was worth it then... by cbhacking · · Score: 4, Informative

      That works, but I agree that violating DNC should carry very heavy pernalties. If I put my number out there specificlaly to say "don't call me", then I damn well don't want to be called.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    3. Re:I guess it was worth it then... by dkf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That works, but I agree that violating DNC should carry very heavy pernalties. If I put my number out there specificlaly to say "don't call me", then I damn well don't want to be called.

      Much as I dislike phone spammers, let's save the very heavy penalties for the fraud and misrepresentation. HOWEVER... They weren't just being annoying asses (not generally illegal, alas) and violating an agreement they'd signed up to (clearly a civil penalty thing), they were also telling lies about the details of what they were selling (assuming TFS is accurate). That's the sort of thing that sounds like it ought to be investigated on a criminal basis.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    4. Re:I guess it was worth it then... by DrXym · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sew their mouth shut instead. "Tell me Mr Mortgage Investors Corporation director what good is a phone call if you are unable to speak?"

    5. Re:I guess it was worth it then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We never want you to call, ever. You shitbags gamed the system by hiding 'please call me' boxes which were auto checked on a hidden iframe, or weaseled it into some tiny print on a statement, or some other shady business.

      I hope that you suffer some great harm. Yes, you, symbolset, I hope that you personally suffer some great harm or negative event in your life for being such a shitbag.

    6. Re:I guess it was worth it then... by Le+Marteau · · Score: 5, Funny

      "I used to deal with guys like you every day and not only could you not remember that you gave me permission to call you - you asked me to. "

      Think about it. You spent your day... you made your living... virtually barging in on people who don't know you, who for the most part don't want to talk to you, and who get "all twitchy" because they can't remember if they ticked off an opt-out box or not.

      You were, in other words, a professional asshole.

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
    7. Re:I guess it was worth it then... by wbr1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here is the problem. We have many, many over-zealous prosecutors willing to swing an excessive charge sledgehammer at any Aaron Swarts that comes along. This is easy to do and holds little risk for them.

      However, when it comes to a corporation that has defrauded^H^H^H^H^HSTOLEN millions, who in the corporation is responsible? The CEO? An upper manager? A cabal of board members? In order to find out, the prosecutor has to do work, and run the gauntlet of that corporations legal department filing every stopping and blocking motion possible, making it less worth their time.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    8. Re:I guess it was worth it then... by mlts · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem is that the scumbuckets doing the calls have a lot of ways to easily thumb their nose at the FCC:

      1: They use shell companies incorporated offshore. The FCC gets a big verdict, the company goes under, but the next day, another company is doing the same exact thing. All their equipment and workers are held and employed by secondary holding corporations (the details are all kept offshore), so the only thing lost might be a name.

      2: With VoIP, it is trivial to forge numbers on Caller ID and run the shop from offshore.

      3: There are so many DNC loopholes. Business "A" can rent out their mailing list, so business "B" can robocall at will, saying that due to the mailing list, they have a business relationship with the victim^Wcallee.

      It is a very lucrative business because there is no real way for someone to block it and still have a usable phone. On landlines, there is no way to shut it off, as call blocking doesn't work on 800/888/866 numbers. iOS, one can use DND mode and only allow contacts (but it doesn't stop them from filling the voicemail up.) Android has Mr. Number which is a decent app, and uses a database of spammers/robocallers to deny calls with a busy signal.

  3. Do Not Call - ANYONE by Dins · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's great to see this and all, but it would be nice if there was an easier way to catch these companies. Most block caller ID, and if they are doing it illegally they're not going to give you their contact info if they sense you are trying to bust them.

    The thing that pisses me off about the do not call list, is the fucking politicians have conveniently exempted political calls. When I say do not call me, I mean everyone - no charities, no politicians - EVERYONE. It gets nuts in the month preceding an election.

  4. Re:Why "allegedly"? by Main+Gauche · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It was a settlement. No guilt was ever established. This may also explain the low dollar figure everyone else is talking about.

  5. Re:Why "allegedly"? by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a continual pattern by the US federal agencies though: When some company is caught with their hand in the cookie jar, they're routinely settling the case for a relatively small fine that just looks like a really big number but is peanuts compared to the profits from the crime. They should, of course, be nailing the company and its officers to the wall.

    And this phenomenon isn't a Democratic thing or a Republican thing - the Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations all have been routinely doing this.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  6. Re:Revenge, Not Fines by Applekid · · Score: 4, Funny

    I shouted "DROP TABLE" a few times into the phone but I don't know if it worked.

    --
    More Twoson than Cupertino