Time Warner Cable Owes $229,500 To Woman It Would Not Stop Calling

HughPickens.com writes: Reuters reports that a Manhattan federal judge has ruled Time Warner Cable must pay Araceli King $229,500 for placing 153 automated calls meant for someone else to her cellphone in less than a year, even after she told them to stop. King accused Time Warner Cable of harassing her by leaving messages for Luiz Perez, who once held her cellphone number, even after she made clear who she was in a seven-minute discussion with a company representative. Time Warner Cable countered that it was not liable to King under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a law meant to curb robocall and telemarketing abuses, because it believed it was calling Perez, who had consented to the calls. In awarding triple damages of $1,500 per call for willfully violating that law, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein said "a responsible business" would have tried harder to find Perez and address the problem. While Time Warner argued that they were unaware King ever asked to be on the company's "do not call list," Hellerstein determined, "there is no doubt King made this revocation." He wrote that the company "could not be bothered" to update King's information, even after she filed suit against TWC in March of 2014. The judge said 74 of the calls had been placed after King sued and that it was "incredible" to believe Time Warner Cable when it said it still did not know she objected. "Companies are using computers to dial phone numbers," says King's lawyer Sergei Lemberg. "They benefit from efficiency, but there is a cost when they make people's lives miserable. This was one such case."

Comments

The cost of doing business

[schwit1]

They will just pass this cost and its legal costs onto the consumer. And then take both as an expense tax deduction.

Re:The cost of doing business

[Holi]

I seriously doubt this would be considered a tax deductible expenditure. U.S. Code 162 - Trade or business expenses penalties or fines paid to any government agency or instrumentality because of a violation of any law are not deductible.

Re:The cost of doing business

[Anonymous Coward]

And what makes Mrs. King a "government agency or instrumentality"?

In other words - they're paying these fines to a specific person, so I don't see why that law would apply.

Re:The cost of doing business

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it was a court imposed penalty for violating a federal law. It just so happens the fine is to be paid to an individual, but it is still a court imposed fine due to violation of law.

Re:two certainties in life...

[Khyber]

Settlements and court awards are generally not taxable as income.

I certainly didn't have to pay taxes on any insurance settlement I got into from accidents. I didn't have to pay taxes on the check EA cut me when I sued their ass.

Each time, I asked the lawyer "Do I need to claim this on taxes?"

"No." was the answer I got in return.