Before the

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

# Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of )

)

Get-Aways, Inc. ) File No. ENF-99-TC-001

)

Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) NAL/Acct. No. X3217-001

## NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

Adopted: December 15, 1999; Released: December 15, 1999

By the Commission:

## INTRODUCTION

1.  By this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL), we find
    that Get-Aways, Inc. (Get-Aways)[^1] apparently willfully or
    repeatedly violated section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934,
    as amended (Act), and the Commission's rules and orders, by sending
    unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines.[^2]
    Based on the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent
    violations, we find that Get-Aways is apparently liable for a
    forfeiture in the amount of \$4,500 for each of the 19 unsolicited
    advertisements sent to telephone facsimile machines, resulting in a
    total forfeiture amount of \$85,500.

## BACKGROUND

2.  On July 12, 1999, in response to several consumer letters indicating
    that Get-Aways faxed unsolicited advertisements to consumers'
    telephone facsimile machines, the Enforcement Division of the Common
    Carrier Bureau (Division) issued a citation to Get-Aways, pursuant
    to section 503 of the Act.[^3] Specifically, the Division cited
    Get-Aways for allegedly using a telephone facsimile machine,
    computer, or other device, to send an unsolicited advertisement to
    another telephone facsimile machine, in violation of section 227 of
    the Act and the Commission's rules and orders.[^4] The citation,
    which was served by certified mail, return receipt requested,
    informed Get-Aways that subsequent violations could result in the
    imposition of monetary forfeitures of up to \$11,000 per violation
    and included copies of six consumer letters that formed the basis
    for the citation.[^5] The citation informed Get-Aways that it could
    request a personal interview at the nearest Commission field office
    within 21 days of the date of the citation, or could provide a
    written statement responding to the citation within 21 days. The
    Commission received the signed return receipt card from Get-Aways on
    July 22, 1999, indicating that Get-Aways received the citation on
    July 19, 1999.[^6] Get-Aways neither requested a personal interview
    nor provided a written response after receiving the citation.

3.  Despite the citation's warning that subsequent violations could
    result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures, the record
    indicates that Get-Aways continued to fax unsolicited advertisements
    in violation of the Act and of the Commission's rules and orders.
    Specifically, after issuing the citation, the Commission received
    several consumer letters stating that Get-Aways continued to engage
    in such conduct.[^7] Our action here is based on consumer letters
    sent to the Commission alleging that Get-Aways sent unsolicited
    advertisements to telephone facsimile machines in violation of the
    Act and the Commission's rules and orders since July 19, 1999, the
    day Get-Aways received the Commission's citation.[^8]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
I.  THE CONSUMER LETTERS

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
4.  [The Clarkson Conceptual Planning, Inc. Letter]{.underline}. Mr.
    Peter Clarkson, owner of Clarkson Conceptual Planning, Inc. (CCPI),
    asserts that Get-Aways faxed two unsolicited advertisements to CCPI
    in May 1999.[^9] Mr. Clarkson stated that each fax offered an
    identical vacation package to Florida. On August 26, 1999, after
    receiving two additional unsolicited facsimile advertisements from
    Get-Aways, Mr. Clarkson sent a letter requesting Commission
    action.[^10] Mr. Clarkson states that on August 19, 1999, he
    telephoned Get-Aways and requested that it stop sending these faxes.
    Despite his request, Get-Aways sent CCPI another unsolicited
    facsimile advertisement on August 25, 1999.[^11] Mr. Clarkson states
    that at no time did he or anyone at CCPI give Get-Aways permission
    or invitation to send these faxes. Mr. Clarkson further states that
    CCPI does not have an established business relationship with
    Get-Aways.[^12]

5.  [The Incon Research Letter]{.underline}. On September 1, 1999, Mr.
    Roth, principal of Incon Research, filed a letter requesting
    Commission action and stating that Get-Aways faxed an unsolicited
    advertisement to Incon Research on September 1, 1999, offering a
    "New Disney Daytona Adventure Getaway pkg."[^13] On September 2,
    1999, Incon Research received an identical unsolicited facsimile
    advertisement from Get-Aways. Mr. Roth states that after receiving
    the fax on September 2, 1999, he contacted Get-Aways to inquire why
    it sent the advertisement. Mr. Roth states that Get-Aways terminated
    the telephone call without providing a response.[^14] Mr. Roth also
    states that Incon Research received an unsolicited advertisement via
    fax on September 9, 1999. Mr. Roth further states that neither he
    nor anyone else at Incon Research ever gave Get-Aways permission to
    send advertisements to Incon's fax machine. Mr. Roth further states
    that he does not have a prior business relationship with Get-Aways.

6.  [The Gulf Star Realty Letter]{.underline}. On June 11, 1999, Ms.
    Dorothy Thieneman, Co-Owner of Gulf Star Realty (GSR), filed a
    letter requesting Commission action, asserting that Get-Aways faxed
    unsolicited advertisements to GSR on several occasions.[^15] In her
    statement supporting her complaint, Ms. Thieneman states that she
    contacted Get-Aways on several occasions both by phone and by fax to
    request that GSR be removed from Get-Aways distribution list.[^16]
    Ms. Thieneman states that despite these requests, Get-Aways
    continued to fax unsolicited advertisements to GSR. In particular,
    even after receiving the citation on July 19, 1999, Get-Aways faxed
    several additional unsolicited advertisements to GSR on the
    following dates: (1) August 27, 1999; (2) September 15, 1999;
    and (3) September 16, 1999.[^17] Ms. Thieneman states that neither
    she nor anyone else at GSR authorized Get-Aways to send these faxes.
    Ms. Thieneman further states that GSR does not have an established
    business relationship with Get-Aways.

7.  [The remaining consumer letters]{.underline}. The remaining consumer
    letters supporting this NAL are factually similar to the allegations
    in the consumer letters described above.[^18] In each case, the
    consumer states that Get-Aways used a telephone facsimile machine to
    send an unsolicited advertisement to the consumer's telephone
    facsimile machine. The majority of the consumers attempted to
    contact Get-Aways to put a stop to the unsolicited facsimile
    advertisements, but were unsuccessful.[^19] For example, at least
    one consumer states that the Get-Aways representative terminated the
    call in mid-conversation.[^20] In other instances, consumers
    requested that Get-Aways remove their fax number from Get-Aways
    distribution list, but continued to receive the unsolicited
    facsimile advertisements.[^21]

## DISCUSSION

A.  Violations Evidenced in the Letters.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
8.  The letters described above appear to establish a disturbing pattern
    of disregard for the requirements of the Act and of the Commission's
    rules and orders. Section 227(b)(1)(B) of the Act prohibits any
    person from using "a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other
    device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile
    machine."[^22] In enacting section 227 of the Act, Congress gave the
    Commission jurisdiction to promulgate rules and regulations in
    accordance with the Act and the authority to enforce such rules and
    regulations.[^23] Accordingly, mirroring the language in section
    227, the Commission adopted section 64.1200(a)(3) of its rules,
    prohibiting any person from using a "telephone facsimile machine,
    computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a
    telephone facsimile machine."[^24] An unsolicited advertisement is
    defined as "any material advertising the commercial availability or
    quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to
    any person without that person's prior express invitation or
    permission."[^25] Each facsimile transmission upon which this NAL is
    based offers a similar "Disney Daytona Vacation Get-A-Way Pkg." The
    facsimile states, "your vacation begins with five days four nights
    in the vacation capital of the world." The packages are offered at
    either \$149 or \$198 per person. Get-Aways provides a number of
    ways in which to reserve a spot on the trip and states that a 5%
    discount will be given on all American Express and Discover
    purchases.[^26] These facsimiles offer vacation packages for sale
    and thus clearly fall within the definition of an advertisement.

9.  Moreover, these facsimile transmissions appear to be unsolicited,
    because Get-Aways appears to have sent each facsimile transmission
    without the prior express invitation or permission of the recipient.
    By definition, an unsolicited advertisement is an advertisement that
    "is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express
    invitation or permission."[^27] In discussing when advertisements
    can be sent via facsimile, in the *TCPA Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, the Commission explained that the "existence of an
    established business relationship establishes consent to receive
    telephone facsimile advertisement transmissions."[^28] The
    Commission further stated, however, that the mere distribution or
    publication of a telephone facsimile number does not confer express
    invitation or permission to transmit advertisements to a particular
    telephone facsimile machine.[^29]

10. Record evidence indicates that none of the consumers at issue had an
    established business relationship with Get-Aways. For example, in
    his declaration in support of his complaint, Mr. Partrick of
    Partrick Insurance Agency, Mr. Clarkson of CCPI, and Mr. Roth of
    Incon Research all specifically state that his company does not have
    an established business relationship with Get-Aways,[^30] and that
    they did not authorize Get-Aways to send these advertisements.
    Furthermore, evidence on the record indicates that Get-Aways
    continued to send faxes to companies that specifically had requested
    to be removed from Get-Aways' distribution list.[^31] Such evidence
    demonstrates that Get-Aways did not have prior express permission or
    invitation to send the facsimile transmissions.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
B.  Forfeiture Amount.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
11. Get-Aways apparently willfully or repeatedly violated the Act and
    the Commission's rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile
    machine to send unsolicited advertisements to other telephone
    facsimile machines. Get-Aways apparently did not cease its unlawful
    conduct even after the Commission issued a citation warning that
    Get-Aways was engaging in unlawful conduct and could be subject to
    monetary forfeitures.[^32] Accordingly, a proposed forfeiture is
    warranted against Get-Aways for its apparent willful or repeated
    violations of section 227 of the Act and of the Commission's rules
    and orders regarding the faxing of unsolicited advertisements.

12. Section 503(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a
    forfeiture of up to \$11,000 for each violation of the Act or of any
    rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act by
    a non-common carrier or other entity not specifically designated in
    section 503 of the Act.[^33] In exercising such authority, we are to
    take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such
    other matters as justice may require."[^34]

13. Although the *Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement* does not
    establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the prohibition on
    using a telephone facsimile machine to send unsolicited
    advertisements, the guidelines do state that " . . . any omission of
    a specific rule violation from the . . . \[forfeiture guidelines\] .
    . . should not signal that the Commission considers any unlisted
    violation as nonexistent or unimportant."[^35] The Commission
    retains the discretion, moreover, to depart from the guidelines and
    issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general
    forfeiture authority contained in section 503 of the Act.[^36]

14. A company's practice of using a telephone facsimile machine to send
    unsolicited advertisements to a telephone facsimile machine, in
    particular after being warned by the Commission that such conduct
    violates the Act and the Commission's rules and orders, demonstrates
    a blatant disregard for the Act and the Commission's rules and
    orders. The Division's July 12, 1999 citation specifically warned
    Get-Aways that its conduct appeared to be unlawful. Despite this
    citation, Get-Aways continued to fax unsolicited advertisements in
    violation of the Act and the Commission's rules and orders.

15. In addition, Get-Aways' conduct has caused consumers to incur costs.
    In prohibiting unsolicited advertisements by fax, Congress noted
    that a consumer who has received an unsolicited advertisement via
    fax bears the costs of advertising that should be borne by the
    sender.[^37] Recipients of fax advertisements assume the cost of the
    paper used, and the cost associated with the recipient's inability
    to send or receive faxes when its machine is tied up with the
    unsolicited advertisement.[^38]

16. Each of the 19 unsolicited faxes constitute a separate violation.
    Applying the criteria outlined in the Commission's forfeiture
    guidelines, and weighing the facts before us, including the fact
    that Get-Aways continued its unlawful conduct after a warning by the
    Commission, we propose to assess a forfeiture in the amount of
    \$4,500 for each of the 19 violations. We find that this amount is
    appropriate, in part, because it balances the interests of
    protecting consumers and deterring subsequent violations of the Act
    against the potentially legitimate interest of companies. This
    results in a total forfeiture of \$85,500. Get-Aways shall have the
    opportunity to submit evidence and arguments in response to this NAL
    to show that no forfeiture should be imposed or that some lesser
    amount should be assessed.[^39]

### CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES

17. We have determined that Get-Aways apparently violated section 227 of
    the Act and the Commission's rules and orders by using a telephone
    facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send 19 unsolicited
    advertisements to the eight consumers identified above. We have
    further determined that Get-Aways is apparently liable for
    forfeitures in the amount of \$4,500 for each such violation
    resulting in a total forfeiture amount of \$85,500.

18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act,
    as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(5), section 1.80 of the Commission's
    rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.80, that Get-Aways, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of
    an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of \$85,500 for
    willful or repeated violations of section 227 of the Act and the
    Commission's rules and orders in the paragraphs described above.

19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission's
    rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.80, that within thirty (30) days of the release
    of this Notice, Get-Aways, Inc. SHALL PAY the full amount of the
    proposed forfeiture[^40] OR SHALL FILE a response showing why the
    proposed forfeiture should not be imposed or should be reduced.

20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent
    Liability for Forfeiture SHALL BE SENT by certified mail to
    Timothy F. Deinhard, President, Get-Aways, Inc., 400 Mobile Avenue,
    Suite D-11, Camarillo, California 93011.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

[^1]: Get-Aways, Inc., a/k/a GetAways Travel Services and GetAways
    Travel Network, is headquartered at 400 Mobile Avenue, Suite B-9,
    Camarillo, California 93010. According to Dun & Bradstreet Business
    Information Report, Get-Aways, a California corporation, began
    operations in 1986 and serves as a travel agency. The president of
    Get-Aways owns 100% of capital stock. Get-Aways employs four people,
    including its officers. *See* Dun & Bradstreet Business Information
    Report, Sept. 10, 1999.

[^2]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 227; 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(3); s*ee also Rules
    and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
    of 1991, Report and Order*, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8779, para. 54 (stating
    that section 227 of the Act prohibits the use of telephone facsimile
    machines to send unsolicited advertisements) (*TCPA Report and
    Order*). *See* *also* 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1). The Commission has the
    authority under this section of the Act to assess a forfeiture
    against any person who has "willfully or repeatedly failed to comply
    with any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule, regulation,
    or order issued by the Commission under this Act . . . ." *See also*
    47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(5) (stating that the Commission has the authority
    under this section of the Act to assess a forfeiture penalty against
    any person who is not a common carrier so long as (A) such person is
    first issued a citation of the violation charged; (B) is given a
    reasonable opportunity for a personal interview with an official of
    the Commission, at the field office of the Commission nearest to the
    person's place of resident; and (C) subsequently engages in conduct
    of the type described in the citation.). A party need not have known
    that it was acting unlawfully to support a finding of willfulness
    under section 503(b) of the Act. That section requires only a
    showing that the party knew it was doing the acts in question. *See
    Southern California Broadcasting Co.*, 6 FCC Rcd 4387 (1991).

[^3]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(5) (authorizing the Commission to issue
    citations to non-common carriers for violations of the Act or of the
    Commission's rules and orders).

[^4]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 227. For simplicity, this order will use the
    term "telephone facsimile machine" to incorporate by reference, a
    telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device as those
    terms are used in section 227(b)(1)(C), 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C).
    *See also* 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(3) (stating in pertinent part that
    no person may "\[u\]se a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or
    other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone
    facsimile machine.").

[^5]: The following consumer letters requesting Commission action were
    attached to the citation: (1) Clarkson Conceptual Planning, Inc.
    (CCPI), Request for Commission Action, IC-99-07095 (May 3, 1999)
    (stating that CCPI received two unsolicited advertisements via
    facsimile from Get-Aways in May); (2) A.O. Smith Water Products,
    Request for Commission Action, IC-99-07089 (Apr. 26, 1999) (stating
    that A.O. Smith Water Products received a facsimile that contained
    an unsolicited advertisement from Get-Aways on April 19, 1999); (3)
    Selection Resource Inc., Request for Commission Action, IC-99-07098
    (May 3, 1999) (stating that SRI received an unsolicited
    advertisement via fax on February 21, 1999 and again April 14,
    1999); (4) Daniel K. Moller Law Offices, Request for Commission
    Action, IC-99-07099 (Apr. 20, 1999) (stating that her office
    received an unsolicited advertisement via fax from Get-Aways on
    April 4, 1999 and again on April 20, 1999); (5) Davern, McLeod &
    Pezalla, Request for Commission Action, IC-99-07094 (Mar. 25, 1999)
    (stating that his office received an unsolicited advertisement via
    fax from Get-Aways on March 24, 1999); and (6) Gulf Star Realty
    (GSR), Request for Commission Action, IC-99-07092 (June 8, 1999)
    (stating that GSR received an unsolicited advertisement via fax from
    Get-Aways on March 29, 1999).

[^6]: Each unsolicited facsimile advertisement provided an address at
    which Get-Aways could be reached. This address was verified by Dun &
    Bradstreet reports and by Commission staff. *See supra* note 1.

[^7]: *See* (1) Refugee and Immigration Services (RAIS), Request for
    Commission Action, IC No. 99-08155 (Aug. 26, 1999) (stating that
    RAIS received unsolicited facsimile advertisements from Get-Aways on
    August 24, 1999 and again in September 22, 1999); (2) Duo Graphics,
    Request for Commission Action, IC No. 99-08153 (Aug. 26, 1999)
    (stating that Duo Graphics received an unsolicited advertisement by
    fax from Get-Aways on August 25, 1999); (3) Incon Research, Request
    for Commission Action, IC No. 99-08148 (Sept. 1, 1999) (stating that
    Get-Aways used a telephone facsimile machine to send unsolicited
    advertisements to Incon Research on September 1; September 2; and
    September 9, 1999); (4) Knowledge Systems Inc, Request for
    Commission Action, IC No. 99-08149 (Sept. 8, 1999) (stating that
    Get-Aways faxed unsolicited advertisements to Knowledge Systems on
    August 27, 1999); Declaration of John Koch, Knowledge Systems Inc.
    (Oct. 22, 1999) (stating that KSI also received an unsolicited
    advertisement via fax on September 28, 1999); (5) Declaration of
    Dorothy Thieneman, Gulf Star Realty (Sept. 24, 1999) (stating that
    Gulf Star Realty received unsolicited facsimile advertisements from
    Get-Aways on: August 25; August 27; September 15; and September 16,
    1999); (6) Clarkson Conceptual Planning, Inc. (CCPI), Request for
    Commission Action, IC No. 99-08154 (Aug. 26, 1999) (stating that
    CCPI received unsolicited advertisements by facsimile from Get-Aways
    on August 11 and August 25, 1999); (7) Partrick Insurance Agency,
    Request for Commission Action, IC No. 99-08151 (Oct. 8, 1999)
    (stating that Partrick Insurance Agency received unsolicited
    facsimile advertisements from Get-Aways on: August 11; August 26;
    October 4; and October 21, 1999); and (8) Davern, McLeod & Pezalla,
    Request for Commission Action, IC No. 99-08150 (stating that Davern,
    McLeod & Pezalla received an unsolicited facsimile advertisement
    from Get-Aways on August 23, 1999).

[^8]: For purposes of completing this enforcement action, the Commission
    established a cut-off date of November 1, 1999, for reviewing
    consumer letters received against Get-Aways. Thus, this NAL is based
    on those consumer letters processed between July 19, 1999---the date
    Get-Aways received the Commission's citation---and November 1, 1999.
    We note that consumer letters received after November 1, 1999
    complaining of unlawful conduct by Get-Aways may form the basis of
    subsequent enforcement action, if appropriate.

[^9]: *See* Clarkson Conceptual Planning, Inc., Request for Commission
    Action, IC No. 99-07095 (May 26, 1999).

[^10]: *See* Declaration of Peter Clarkson, Clarkson Conceptual
    Planning, Inc. at para. 2. (Sept. 22, 1999).

[^11]: *See id.* at para. 5 (CCPI also received an unsolicited facsimile
    advertisement from Get-Aways on August 11, 1999.).

[^12]: *See id.*

[^13]: *See* Incon Research, Request for Commission Action, IC No.
    99-08148 (Sept. 1, 1999).

[^14]: *See* Declaration of Martin P. Roth, Principal, Incon Research,
    Inc., IC No. 99-08148 (Sept. 16, 1999).

[^15]: *See* Declaration of Dorothy Thieneman, Gulf Star Realty at para.
    2 (Sept. 24, 1999) (stating that Gulf Star Realty received
    unsolicited facsimile advertisements from Get-Aways prior to the
    Commission issuing the citation on: April 27, 1998; July 25, 1998;
    and March 29, 1999).

[^16]: *See id*. at para. 5.

[^17]: *See id.* at para. 3.

[^18]: *See supra* note 7 (listing the consumer letters that form the
    basis for this NAL).

[^19]: *See, e.g.,* Declaration of Martin P. Roth at para. 3;
    Declaration of John Koch, Knowledge Systems Inc. at para. 3 (Oct.
    22, 1999).

[^20]: *See* Declaration of Martin P. Roth at para. 3.

[^21]: *See, e.g.,* Declaration of Jim Partrick, Partrick Insurance
    Agency at para. 3 (Oct. 22, 1999); Declaration of Peter Clarkson,
    Clarkson Conceptual Planning, Inc. at para. 5 (Sept. 23, 1999).

[^22]: 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C). Section 227 defines a telephone
    facsimile machine as "equipment which has the capacity (A) to
    transcribe text or images, or both, from paper into an electronic
    signal and to transmit that signal over a regular telephone line, or
    (B) to transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronic signal
    received over a regular telephone line onto paper." 47 U.S.C. §
    227(a)(2). This blanket prohibition applies to all unsolicited
    advertisements transmitted by telephone facsimile machines. The Act
    does not permit unsolicited advertisements by facsimile to either
    business or residential telephone facsimile machines.

[^23]: *See TCPA Report and Order*, 7 FCC Rcd at 8779 n.87 (stating that
    "\[i\]n banning unsolicited facsimile advertisements, the TCPA
    leaves the Commission without discretion to create exemptions from
    or limit the effects of the prohibition . . . thus, such
    transmissions are banned in our rules as they are in the TCPA.").

[^24]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(3).

[^25]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(5).

[^26]: *See, e.g.,* Incon Research, Request for Commission Action, IC
    No. 99-08148 (Sept. 1, 1999) (attaching copies of the unsolicited
    advertisements it received from Get-Aways) (note: there are slight
    variations among the vacation packages offered in the unsolicited
    advertisement sent by Get-Aways).

[^27]: 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(4).

[^28]: *TCPA Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 10 FCC Rcd at 12,408, para.
    37.

[^29]: *Id.*

[^30]: *See* Declaration of Jim Partrick, Partrick Insurance Agency at
    para. 4; *see also supra* notes 10 & 12. Similarly, each of the
    consumer letters and supporting declarations that formed the basis
    of this NAL stated that he or she did not have a business
    relationship with Get-Aways. *See supra* note 8.

[^31]: *See* Declaration of Jim Partrick at para. 3; *see also*
    Declaration of Dorothy Thieneman, Gulf Star Realty at para. 5.

[^32]: *See supra* para. 2 (stating that the Commission received the
    return receipt card indicating that Get-Aways received the
    citation); *see also supra* note 6 (stating that each Get-Aways'
    unsolicited facsimile address provided an address at which Get-Aways
    could be reached and that the Commission staff verified the
    address).

[^33]: Section 503(b)(2)(C) provides for forfeitures up to \$10,000 for
    each violation by cases not covered by subparagraphs (A) or (B),
    which address forfeitures for violations by licensees and common
    carriers, among others. *See* 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
    The Commission amended its rules by adding a new subsection to its
    monetary forfeiture provisions that incorporates by reference the
    inflation adjustment requirements contained in the Debt Collection
    Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-134, Sec. 31001, 110 Stat.
    1321), enacted on April 26, 1996. Thus, the statutory maximum
    pursuant to section 503(b)(2)(C) increased from \$10,000 to
    \$11,000. *See Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules*,
    12 FCC Rcd 1038 (1997).

[^34]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D); *Commission's Forfeiture Policy
    Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate
    the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 17,087,
    17,100-01, para. 27 (1997).

[^35]: *Id.* at 17,099, para. 22.

[^36]: *Id.*

[^37]: *See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer
    Protection Act of 1991, Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 10 FCC Rcd
    12,391, 12,405, para. 29 (1995) (*TCPA Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*) (citing H.R. Report No. 317, 102^nd^ Cong. 25 (1991)).

[^38]: *See id.*

[^39]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(4)(C); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f)(3).

[^40]: The forfeiture amount should be paid by check or money order
    drawn to the order of the Federal Communications Commission.
    Reference should be made on Get-Aways, Inc.'s check or money order
    to "NAL/Acct/ No. X3217-001." Such remittances must be mailed to
    Forfeiture Collection section, Finance Branch, Federal
    Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois
    60673-7482.