Federal Trade Commission

July 2008

Annual Report 

to Congress for FY 2007

Pursuant to the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act

on Implementation of

the National Do Not Call Registry
Federal Trade Commission

William E. Kovacic, Chairman

Pamela Jones Harbour, Commissioner

Jon Leibowitz, Commissioner

J. Thomas Rosch, Commissioner
Table of Contents

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II. Analysis of the Effectiveness of the National Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Ensuring the National Registry is Operational Throughout the Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Ensuring that the System Can Enroll Large Volumes of Consumer Telephone Numbers. . . . . . . . . . 4

Reducing the Number of Unwanted Telemarketing Solicitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

III. Number of Consumers Who Placed Their Telephone Numbers on the National 

Registry as of the End of FY 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

IV. Number of Entities Paying Fees for Access to the National Registry During 

FY 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

V. Analysis of Progress Coordinating the Operation and Enforcement of the 

National Registry with State Do Not Call Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

VI. Analysis of the Progress of Coordinating the Operation and Enforcement of 

the National Registry with the FCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

VII. Review of the FTC’s Enforcement Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

VIII.Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Implementation of the National Do Not Call Registry



I. Introduction

The National Do Not Call Registry (“National Registry” or “Registry”) is, 

by virtually every available measure, an effective consumer protection initiative. 

By the end of FY 2007, there were more than 145 million telephone numbers on 

the National Registry. The available data show that compliance with the National 

Registry provisions of the Amended Telemarketing Sales Rule (“Amended 

TSR”)1 is high and that, as a result, consumers are receiving fewer unwanted 

telemarketing calls.

The Do-Not-Call Implementation Act (“DNCIA”),2 signed into law on March 

11, 2003, mandates, inter alia, that the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or 

“Commission”) and the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) each 

transmit to Congress an annual report on the National Registry for fiscal years 

2003 to 2007, inclusive. Specifically, the DNCIA requires that the FTC’s annual 

report provide the following information: 

an analysis of the effectiveness of the National Registry; 

the number of consumers who have placed their telephone numbers 

on the National Registry; 

the number of entities paying fees to access the National Registry and 

the amount of such fees; 

an analysis of the progress of coordinating the operation and 

enforcement of the National Registry with similar registries 

established and maintained by various states; 

an analysis of the progress of coordinating the operation and 

enforcement of the National Registry with the enforcement activities 

of the FCC; and 

a review of the FTC’s enforcement proceedings under the Amended 

Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 310.

This Annual Report from the FTC provides an overview of the operation of 

the National Registry through the end of FY 2007.3

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)
Federal Trade Commission

The National Registry, which continues to provide consumers with an 

effective means to limit unwanted telemarketing calls, received over 19 million 

new registrations during FY 2007. Approximately 66,000 sellers, telemarketers, 

and exempt organizations accessed the National Registry during the fiscal year, 

with over 6,000 of those entities paying fees totaling more than $21.5 million. 

The FTC initiated three new cases alleging violations of the National Registry and 

resolved or added defendants to eight cases that were filed before FY 2007 but 

were still pending. 

II. Analysis of the Effectiveness of the 

National Registry

During FY 2007, the Commission continued to use the following measures to 

judge the performance of the National Registry program: 

ensuring that the National Registry remained fully operational 

throughout the year; 

ensuring that the National Registry could enroll large volumes of 

consumer telephone numbers; and 

reducing unwanted telemarketing calls to consumers who sign up for 

the National Registry, which continues to be the ultimate goal of the 

Registry. 

Each of these measures is discussed in turn below.

Ensuring the National Registry is Operational 

Throughout the Year

The National Registry was built to accomplish four primary tasks: 

to allow consumers to register their preference not to receive 

telemarketing calls at registered telephone numbers; 

to allow telemarketers and sellers to access the telephone numbers 

included in the National Registry and to pay the appropriate fees for 

such access;

1)

2)

3)

1)

2)
Implementation of the National Do Not Call Registry



to gather consumer complaint information concerning alleged do not 

call violations automatically over the telephone and the Internet; and 

to allow FTC, state, and other law enforcement personnel access 

to consumer registration, telemarketer access information, and 

complaint information maintained in the Registry.

Consumers can register their telephone numbers through two methods: either 

by calling a toll-free number from the telephone number they wish to register, or 

over the Internet. The process is fully automated, takes only a few minutes, and 

requires consumers to provide minimal personally identifiable information.4

Telemarketers and sellers can access registered telephone numbers and pay 

the appropriate fee for that access, if any, through an Internet website dedicated 

to that purpose. The only information about consumers that companies receive 

from the National Registry is the registered telephone number. Those numbers 

are sorted and available for download by area code. Companies also may check a 

small number of telephone numbers at a time via interactive Internet pages.

Consumers who receive unwanted telemarketing calls can register a 

complaint via either a toll-free telephone number, using an interactive voice 

response system, or via the Internet. To conduct investigations, law enforcement 

officials also can access data in the National Registry, including consumer 

registration information, telemarketer access information, and consumer 

complaints. Such access is provided through Consumer Sentinel, a secure Internet 

website maintained by the FTC, to the law enforcement community throughout 

the United States, Canada, and Australia.5

Since its implementation in 2003, the National Registry has continuously 

served several functions: providing consumers with the ability to register their 

preference not to receive telemarketing calls and file complaints; providing 

telemarketers with the ability to subscribe to the list, download registered 

telephone numbers, and request help; and providing thousands of law enforcement 

personnel with access to data maintained in the Registry. The National Registry 

remained fully operational throughout FY 2007.

3)

4)
Federal Trade Commission



Ensuring that the System Can Enroll Large 

Volumes of Consumer Telephone Numbers

Since inception, the National Registry has time-and-again proven to be 

capable of handling massive numbers of consumer registration requests. Within 

four days of the initial launch, more than 10 million telephone numbers were 

registered. After the first 40 days of operation, more than 30 million numbers 

were registered. By the end of FY 2003, a mere 13 weeks after the opening 

of registration, more than 51 million telephone numbers were included on the 

National Registry. By the end of FY 2004, more than 64 million telephone 

numbers had been registered on the National Registry; by the end of FY 2005, 

there were more than 107 million registered telephone numbers; and by the end of 

FY 2006, over 132 million numbers had been registered. 

The National Registry’s capability to enroll large numbers of consumer 

telephone numbers continued in FY 2007. In fact, in FY 2007 the Registry 

received over 19 million new registrations. During the most active period in FY 

2007,6 the Registry received more than six million consumer registration requests 

in a single month and more than two million in a single week. In FY 2007, there 

were seven weeks with over one million registrations. Since its inception, the 

Registry has experienced no outages and has continued to provide consumers with 

an uninterrupted mechanism by which to register their telephone numbers.7 As a 

result, by the end of FY 2007, there were over 145 million telephone numbers on 

the National Registry.8

Reducing the Number of Unwanted 

Telemarketing Solicitations

The Commission believes that the fundamental goal of the National Registry 

— to provide consumers with a simple, free, and effective means to limit 

unwanted telemarketing calls — has been achieved. A recent independent survey 

conducted in October 2007 demonstrates that the National Registry continues to 

be an effective means for consumers to limit unwanted telemarketing calls. Harris 

Interactive® surveyed over 2,500 adults and found that of the 72% of Americans 

who had registered their telephone numbers for the “Do-Not-Call Registry,” 18% 

reported that they currently received no telemarketing calls, 59% reported that 
Implementation of the National Do Not Call Registry



they still received some, but far fewer than before they signed onto the Registry, 

and 14% said they received some, but a little less than before they registered. 

In addition, when asked about renewing their registrations, 25% of registered 

consumers had already renewed and 71% were planning to renew.9 Thus, like the 

results of the prior Harris Interactive® and Custom Care Alliance surveys,10 the 

results of the October 2007 survey illustrate that the National Registry is a success 

in terms of registration volume and reduction of unwanted telemarketing calls.

The National Registry complaint data also demonstrate the effectiveness 

of the Registry. During FY 2007, the FTC received 1,297,865 complaints from 

433,065 unique registered telephone numbers, which constituted approximately 

0.3% of the total number of registered telephone numbers at the end of FY 

2007. This indicates both a high degree of compliance by telemarketers and a 

meaningful reduction in unwanted calls for consumers who have registered their 

telephone numbers.

III. Number of Consumers Who Placed Their 

Telephone Numbers on the National 

Registry as of the End of FY 2007

Americans continue to enthusiastically embrace the National Registry. As 

previously stated, in the first four days following the launch of the Registry on 

June 27, 2003, more than 10 million numbers were registered. As of September 

30, 2003, a total of 51,968,777 telephone numbers had been registered. By the end 

of FY 2004, the number of registered telephone numbers reached 64,288,175; by 

the end of FY 2005 that number had increased to a total of 107,440,316 registered 

telephone numbers; and by the end of FY 2006, there had been 132,219,163 

registered telephone numbers. As of September 30, 2007, there were 145,498,656 

telephone numbers on the National Registry.
Federal Trade Commission



IV. Number of Entities Paying Fees for Access 

to the National Registry During FY 2007

In FY 2007, a total of 6,242 entities paid fees totaling $21,602,003 for access 

to the National Registry.11 Since the Registry’s inception, a total of 18,197 unique 

entities have paid fees for access to the National Registry. The total amount of fees 

paid by all entities since the inception of the National Registry through the end of 

FY 2007 is $80,629,778. 

In addition, certain entities can access data from the National Registry without 

having to pay a fee. These include entities that access five or fewer area codes of 

data in a year, as well as entities that are exempt from the do not call requirements 

of the Amended TSR, but that voluntarily access the National Registry in order to 

avoid calling consumers who do not wish to receive calls.12 In FY 2007, 59,337 

entities accessed five or fewer area codes at no charge, and 801 entities claiming 

“exempt organization” status obtained free access. Since the Registry’s inception, 

a total of 205,732 entities have accessed five or fewer area codes at no charge, and 

3,076 entities claiming “exempt organization” status have obtained free access.

V. Analysis of Progress Coordinating the 

Operation and Enforcement of the National 

Registry with State Do Not Call Lists

At the time the FTC announced its intention to create a National Registry, 

more than two dozen states had some form of a do not call list. As noted in the 

Statement of Basis and Purpose for the Amended TSR,13 the FTC has worked 

diligently with the states to further the goal of creating a single National Registry. 

Such a National Registry allows consumers to effect their preference not to receive 

telemarketing calls by going to a single governmental agency and streamlines the 

process for businesses, allowing them to have a single point of contact to obtain 

the list of all consumer telephone numbers that they should not call.

The dialogue with states regarding coordination of do not call efforts 

continued throughout FY 2007. Since the inception of the program, eight states 

that had established state do not call lists have stopped collecting consumer 
Implementation of the National Do Not Call Registry

registrations at the state level.14 Instead, they have relied upon the National 

Registry to enforce their state laws. Another ten states that did not have a state 

registry in place at the time enacted laws that “adopt” the National Registry as the 

state registry for state law purposes.15 In addition, eighteen states that operated or 

continue to operate do not call lists contributed their data to the National Registry, 

with over 11.6 million telephone numbers transferred by those states to the 

Registry as of the end of FY 2007.16 As of the end of FY 2007, seven states still 

have not shared their state lists with the National Registry.17

The FTC also assists states with their law enforcement investigations by 

enabling law enforcement officials to access data in the National Registry 

through the Consumer Sentinel website. Consumer Sentinel contains searchable 

information on registered phone numbers, organizations accessing the National 

Registry, complaints of registry violations, and top violator reports for each state. 

(See also supra note 5.) 

VI. Analysis of the Progress of Coordinating 

the Operation and Enforcement of the 

National Registry with the FCC

The FTC and the FCC have worked closely to coordinate their efforts to 

enforce the National Registry. Since inception of the program, the two agencies 

have worked closely together to (1) ensure efficient enforcement of their 

respective do not call rule provisions, (2) avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, 

and (3) promote cooperation in investigations. During FY 2007, coordination 

has continued with regular meetings to discuss issues pertaining to do not call 

enforcement, including review of the agencies’ respective enforcement priorities. 

This close cooperation, in combination with active enforcement efforts at each 

of the agencies, has sent a strong message to industry regarding the FTC’s and 

FCC’s commitment to mandating compliance.
Federal Trade Commission



VII. Review of the FTC’s Enforcement 

Proceedings

Although compliance with the National Registry has been high, the FTC 

actively investigates and prosecutes violators. National Registry enforcement 

protects the success of the National Registry in safeguarding consumer privacy. 

The FTC also works with its enforcement partners at the U.S. Department of 

Justice (“DOJ”), the FCC, and the states to enforce the National Registry rules.

Violating the National Registry subjects telemarketers to civil penalties of 

up to $11,000 per violation. Civil penalty actions are filed by the DOJ on behalf 

of the FTC. Some violators of the National Registry also engage in fraud or other 

law violations. In these fraud cases, the Commission seeks equitable relief in 

federal court, such as injunctions against future violations, consumer redress, and 

disgorgement of profits.

As of September 30, 2007, the FTC had filed 25 cases alleging violations of 

the National Registry and had reached settlements in 22 of these cases, obtaining 

injunctive relief in all 22 cases. In 13 of the resolved cases, defendants paid 

civil penalties totaling more than $8.7 million. In the remaining resolved cases, 

defendants paid redress and/or disgorgement for other violations, totaling more 

than $8.4 million.

During FY 2007, based upon a review of do not call consumer complaints in 

Consumer Sentinel and based upon other investigative activities, the FTC initiated 

three new cases alleging violations of the National Registry. Additionally, the 

FTC resolved or added defendants to eight cases that were filed before and were 

pending into FY 2007. The following is a summary of these cases:

USA Home Loans, Inc.: This case against a mortgage services company 

and four related co-defendants alleged various violations of the Amended 

TSR, including calling telephone numbers listed on the National Registry and 

failing to pay the required fee for access to the Registry. The complaint was 

filed concurrently with a stipulated permanent injunction that prohibits future 

violations and that required defendants to pay a $35,000 civil penalty.

18

Randall Leshin d/b/a Express Consolidation: The FTC’s complaint alleged 

that a scheme, led by Florida attorney Randall Leshin, used a nonprofit company 
Implementation of the National Do Not Call Registry



doing business as “Express Consolidation” to violate telemarketing rules. In 

addition to call-abandonment and do not call violations, the complaint alleged 

that Express Consolidation is a sham nonprofit company, created to sidestep 

telemarketing rules (which exempt legitimate nonprofit entities). The complaint 

also alleged that the defendants violated the FTC Act and the Amended TSR by 

misrepresenting the cost of services: that the services would result in estimated 

savings of a specified amount, typically several thousand dollars, and that the 

services would reduce the consumer’s monthly payment or total debt, or would 

improve their credit rating. The complaint also alleged that the defendants 

violated the Amended TSR by failing to disclose the program’s total costs, and by 

telling consumers that certain payments were refundable without disclosing all the 

limitations of the program’s refund policy.19 

Fusion Telekom: The FTC’s complaint charged that the defendants, 9131-

4740 Quebec, Inc. (doing business as Fusion Telekom), JPE Holdings, Inc., 

Jean-Pierre Brault, and Eli Foner, violated the FTC Act and the Amended TSR 

through misleading and fraudulent practices. The complaint also alleged that 

defendants called consumers whose numbers were on the National Registry, and 

that defendants never paid the fee required to access the Registry. Defendants 

allegedly marketed phone cards from Canada to U.S. citizens. Defendants’ 

telemarketers posed as consumers’ banks or credit card companies and promised 

that for $1 they would send a long-distance calling card for a trial period. 

However, defendants did not send the cards, but instead billed consumers’ 

accounts on a monthly basis.20

The Broadcast Team: The Broadcast Team (“TBT”), on behalf of various 

clients, allegedly violated provisions of the Amended TSR by causing more than 

64 million calls to be abandoned. The 2005 complaint also alleged that more 

than 250,000 calls were abandoned in delivering recordings soliciting ticket 

sales, and more than 200,000 calls in delivering recordings soliciting charitable 

contributions. Additionally, TBT called telephone numbers listed on the Registry. 

Named as co-defendants with TBT were TBT’s owners, Robert J. Tuttle and 

Mark S. Edwards. The case was resolved in February 2007 with the entry of a 

permanent injunction against defendants requiring payment of $1,000,000 in civil 

penalties.21
Federal Trade Commission

10

Bezeredi: The FTC’s complaint alleged that John Bezeredi, doing business 

as Dominion Investments (Dominion), Eurobond Fidelity Ltd. (Eurobond), 

and Imperial Investments (Imperial), violated both Section 5 of the FTC Act 

and the Amended TSR by telemarketing fake foreign bonds to U.S. consumers. 

Specifically, this Canada-based group misrepresented that consumers who bought 

from, or paid fees to, Dominion, Eurobond, or Imperial would receive regular 

cash payments, would be entered into monthly drawings to win cash prizes, 

or were highly likely to receive cash winnings. Further, the FTC charged that 

Bezeredi failed to disclose to consumers that importing and trafficking in foreign 

lotteries is a crime in the United States, and that the bond scheme he was pitching 

constitutes such a lottery. Finally, the complaint charged Bezeredi with violating 

the do not call provisions of the Amended TSR by calling, or causing other people 

to call, numbers on the National Registry, as well as by failing to pay the required 

fees for access to telephone numbers in the area codes he and his telemarketers 

called. The Court entered a summary judgment order against the Bezeredi 

defendants in April 2007 that includes strong injunctive relief and a consumer 

redress payment of $4,755,363.22

FMFG Inc.: FMFG did business as American Adjustable Beds, Tranquility 

Adjustable Beds, and California Sleep Research, and allegedly violated various 

provisions of the Amended TSR by calling consumers under the guise of taking 

a survey of consumers’ sleep habits. FMFG defendants then made a sales pitch 

to consumers. (While genuine survey calls are exempt from the do not call 

provisions of the Commission’s Amended TSR, sales calls are not.) In May 2007, 

the Court entered a default judgment against FMFG and its principal, Kurt Cuddy, 

requiring that they stop violating the Amended TSR, among other prohibitions, 

and requiring payment of a $900,000 civil penalty.23

Debt Solutions, Inc.: The FTC obtained a settlement in this case, originally 

filed in March 2006, that includes strong injunctive relief, but, based on inability 

to pay, no redress payment. According to the FTC and the state of Washington’s 

complaint, Debt Solutions, Inc., and seven co-defendants violated various 

provisions of the Amended TSR through telemarketing a debt elimination 

program. The complaint alleged that the defendants violated the Amended TSR by 

calling phone numbers listed on the Registry; failing to pay the required annual 

fee for access to do not call listed numbers; and calling persons who had asked 
Implementation of the National Do Not Call Registry

11

them to stop calling. According to the complaint, defendants falsely represented 

to consumers that they would be assigned a financial consultant whose special 

relationships with creditors would enable the consultant to negotiate substantially 

lower interest rates, saving consumers thousands of dollars, reducing their 

monthly payments, and paying off their debts three to five times faster — all 

without higher monthly payments. The complaint states consumers who 

purchased the program typically did not have their interest rates lowered at all, 

and, if they did, the reductions were rarely more than one percentage point.24

Srikanth Venkataraman, d/b/a Scorpio Systems, Ltd.: At the FTC’s 

request, DOJ added defendants Software Transformations, Inc. (a successor 

corporation to Scorpio Systems, Ltd.) and Sridhar Bhupatiraju (an officer of 

Software Transformations, Inc.) to its 2006 complaint that alleged that Srikanth 

Venkataraman violated various provisions of the Amended TSR. According to 

the complaint, Venkataraman called numbers on the National Registry to hawk 

mortgage loans, refinancing, and other products and services to consumers. 

Additionally, Venkataraman failed to transmit its telephone number and name 

to consumers’ caller identification service, and failed to pay the fee required to 

access the Registry. The telemarketer transmitted either no caller ID or a phony 

caller ID and, as a result, consumers were unable to contact the telemarketer to 

stop unwanted telemarketing calls.25

Centurion Financial Benefits: The FTC obtained settlements in FY 2007 

from several of the twenty-one defendants in this action, originally filed in 2005 

against a Canada-based common enterprise that allegedly telemarketed advancefee credit cards and stored-value cards. The complaint also alleges that defendants 

called numbers on the Registry and failed to pay Registry access fees. Final orders 

were entered by the Court against certain defendants on several dates in FY 2007 

(and one date in FY 2008). The orders contain strong injunctive relief against all 

of the corporate defendants and many of the individual defendants and require 

payment (as yet not collected) of $9,894,514.26

Del Sol, LLC: In December 2006, the FTC obtained a settlement of this 

2005 action that required defendants to pay consumer redress of $236,261 and 

to stop violating the Amended TSR and the FTC Act. The complaint alleged that 

defendants, preying largely on Spanish speaking consumers, misrepresented 

material aspects of the goods and services that defendants telemarketed, that they 
Federal Trade Commission

12

called numbers on the Registry, and that they failed to pay the Registry access 

fee. Defendants, using a deceptive prize-promotion door opener, told consumers 

that they would have to purchase brand-name items at a deep discount, to obtain 

their prizes. Consumers who purchased defendants’ purported brand-name goods 

received cheap “knock-off” goods from defendants instead.27

DirecTV: The final two telemarketers who had not settled in the 2005 

case against DirecTV agreed to permanent injunctions that required payment, 

collectively, of $100,000 and that contained strong injunctive relief.28

VIII. Conclusion

Since its inception, and without interruption, the National Registry has 

successfully accepted consumer registrations and complaints, allowed businesses 

to obtain access to Registry data, and provided law enforcement with the tools 

and information that they need to investigate complaints and bring enforcement 

actions. During FY 2007, the National Registry managed large volumes of 

consumer registrations without incident and, as of the end of the fiscal year, 

more than 145 million telephone numbers were on the Registry. As a result of 

the recently enacted 2007 DNCIA, consumers whose registrations would have 

expired in summer 2008 no longer need to re-register their numbers.29

To promote the ongoing success of the National Registry, the FTC continues 

to pursue an active enforcement program, with numerous ongoing non-public 

investigations, which, as of the end of FY 2007, have resulted in twenty-five 

cases being filed, twenty-two of which have settled, bringing significant relief to 

consumers. Even though the FTC pursues an active enforcement program, data 

from surveys and analysis of complaints about do not call violations strongly 

suggest that compliance with the National Registry provisions of the Amended 

TSR is high and that consumers are receiving fewer unwanted telemarketing calls.
Implementation of the National Do Not Call Registry

13

Endnotes

16 C.F.R. Part 310. 

Pub. L. No. 108-10, 117 Stat. 557 (2003).

On February 15, 2008, Congress passed the Do-Not-Call Registry Fee Extension Act of 2007 (Pub. 

L. No. 110-188, 122 Stat. 635 (2008)) (“Fee Extension Act”), establishing the fees that entities 

accessing the National Registry will be required to pay beginning FY 2009, and the Do-Not-Call 

Improvement Act of 2007 (Pub. L. No. 110-187, 122 Stat. 633 (2008)) (“2007 DNCIA”), eliminating 

the automatic removal of registered numbers. These Acts include provisions outlining future 

reporting requirements the Commission must satisfy. 

In the case of registration by telephone, the only personal information provided is the telephone 

number to be registered. In the case of Internet registration, a consumer must provide, in addition 

to the telephone number(s) to be registered, a valid e-mail address to which a confirmation e-mail 

message can be sent. Once the confirmation is complete, however, the e-mail address is hashed and 

made unusable. Thus, only consumers’ telephone numbers are maintained in the National Registry.

In addition to National Registry complaints and registry information, Consumer Sentinel contains 

millions of fraud and identity theft complaints that can be accessed by law enforcement officials. 

Other Consumer Sentinel tools include: (1) an “alert” function that allows users to flag companies, 

suspects, and identity theft victims that are part of an investigation in order to inform other law 

enforcers using Consumer Sentinel; (2) an “auto query” function that will periodically scan the 

database for new complaints relating to the user’s interest and notify the user via e-mail if it finds 

any new complaints meeting his/her criteria; (3) top violator reports that allow users to identify 

companies or individuals receiving the most complaints; (4) consumer fraud and identity theft trend 

reports prepared by FTC data analysts; (5) an index of taped, allegedly fraudulent telemarketing sales 

pitches available from the National Tape Library; (6) a list of all registered Sentinel law enforcer 

users with contact information; (7) a library of reference materials and website links, how-to manuals 

for investigating different types of fraud, and periodicals; and (8) the ability to add complaints on 

behalf of consumer fraud and identity theft victims, that are then entered into Consumer Sentinel.

The most active period was in fall 2007. 

The Registry accepts registrations from both land-line and cell phones. The FTC has circulated a 

press release titled “The Truth about Cell Phones and the Do Not Call Registry,” which addresses the 

false statement made by a re-circulating e-mail claiming that cell phone numbers will be released to 

telemarketers. The press release is available at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/10/dnccellphones.htm.

The FY 2004, FY 2005, and FY 2006 totals represent the total number of unique telephone 

numbers that were registered at any time since the National Registry’s inception. For FY 2007, the 

Commission is reporting the number of active registrations, which excludes those telephone numbers 

that have been deleted by consumers or eliminated as part of the Commission’s removal process. 

A telephone number that was registered more than once between FY 2003 - FY 2007 is counted 

only once in these totals. The total number of registrations for FY 2007 includes 11,646,230 unique 

telephone numbers that were transferred by states to the National Registry as of the end of FY 2007. 

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)
Federal Trade Commission

14

After this poll was taken, the 2007 DNCIA was passed, eliminating the need for consumers to reregister their numbers every five years.

In January 2004, Harris Interactive® surveyed nearly 3,400 adults and found that 92% of those who 

signed up for the National Registry had received fewer telemarketing calls since signing up, and 

25% stated that they had received no telemarketing calls. Customer Care Alliance surveyed 850 

adults nationwide between February and April 2004. In this survey, the 60% of respondents who 

had registered their primary home telephone number on the National Registry reported that they 

had experienced an 80% reduction in the volume of telemarketing solicitations since registration. In 

September 2005, the Customer Care Alliance performed a two-question follow-up study. The survey 

found that approximately 73% of those who responded to the poll had registered their primary home 

telephone number on the National Registry, a 19.7% increase in registrations from the prior year. In 

its December 2005 survey, Harris Interactive® found that 76% of all U.S. adults had registered for the 

National Registry compared to 57% in 2004, a one-third increase in registrations. The survey again 

found that 92% of U.S. adults who had placed their numbers on the registry reported receiving fewer 

telemarketing calls. 

In FY 2007, the annual fee per area code was $62 (with the first five area codes provided at no cost) 

with the maximum annual fee for accessing the entire National Registry being $17,050. See 71 Fed. 

Reg. 43048 (July 31, 2006). At the beginning of FY 2009, the annual fee per area code will become $54 

(with the first five area codes again provided at no cost) with the maximum annual fee for accessing the 

entire National Registry decreasing to $14,850. See the Fee Extension Act. 

Such “exempt” organizations include entities that engage in outbound telephone calls to consumers 

to induce charitable contributions, to raise funds for political purposes, or to conduct surveys. They 

also include entities engaged solely in calls to persons with whom they have an established business 

relationship or from whom they have obtained express written agreement to call, pursuant to the 

Amended TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B)(i) or (ii), and who do not access the National Registry 

for any other purpose.

68 Fed. Reg. 4580, 4638 (Jan. 29, 2003).

Those states are Alabama, Connecticut, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, New York, Oregon, and Vermont.

Those states are Arizona, California, Illinois, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Nevada, New 

Mexico, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

The states that have transferred registrations to the National Registry are as follows: Alabama, 

Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, 

Massachusetts, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania. 

Those states are Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

United States v. USA Home Loans, Inc., et al., No. JFM 06 CV 2850 (D. Md. filed Oct. 31, 2006). The 

permanent injunction is available at 

http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0423148/061031usahomeloansstlmnt.pdf.

FTC v. Randall L. Leshin, et al., No. 0:06-cv-61851-WJZ (S.D. Fla. filed Dec. 12, 2006). The 

complaint is available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0523146/061212expressconsilidationcmplt.pdf. 

9)

10)

11)

12)

13)

14)

15)

16)

17)

18)

19)
Implementation of the National Do Not Call Registry

15

FTC v. 9131-4740 Québec, Inc., et al., No. 1:07-cv-02242 (N.D. Ohio filed July 25, 2007). The 

complaint is available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0523081/070725fusiontelekomcomplaint.pdf.

United States v. The Broadcast Team, Inc., et al., No. 6:05-cv-01920-PCF-JGG (M.D. Fla. filed Dec. 

29, 2005). A stipulated permanent injunction was entered on February 2, 2007, available at

http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0523025/0523025.shtm. 

FTC v. Bezeredi, et al., No. 2:05-cv-01739-MJP (W.D. Wash. filed Oct. 17, 2005). The permanent 

injunction, entered on April 3, 2007, is available at

http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0423152/070403bezeredifinaljdgmnt.pdf. 

United States v. FMFG, Inc., et al., No. 3:05-cv-00711 (D. Nev. filed Dec. 29, 2005). The complaint 

is available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0423155/051229calsleepresearchcmplt.pdf. 

FTC and State of Washington v. Debt Solutions, Inc., et al., No. 2:06-cv-00298-JLR (W.D. Wash. 

filed March 6, 2006). The permanent injunction, entered June 18, 2007, is available at

http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0523002/070522debtsolustipfnljdgmnt.pdf.

United States v. Venkataraman, et al., No. 06-1928 (MLC) (D.N.J. filed April 25, 2006). The 

Commission authorized the filing of an amended complaint on August 10, 2007 (see

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/08/scorpio.shtm).

FTC v. Centurion Financial Benefits LLC, et al., No. 05 C 5442 (N.D. Ill. filed Sept. 21, 2005). 

Permanent injunctions are available at 

http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/centurion/070525centurioncorpdefsstipfnl.pdf, 

http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/centurion/070921centurion-bellissimostipfnl.pdf, 

http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/centurion/070919centurion-andreopoulosstipfinl.pdf, 

http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/centurion/071022centurfinanmarchewkastipfnl.pdf, 

http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/centurion/070525centurionhouttinstipfnl.pdf, 

http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/centurion/070425centurionstipfnlcholette.pdf, 

http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/centurion/070424centurionstipfnlmarchese.pdf, and 

http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/centurion/070525centurionhouttinstipfnl.pdf.

FTC v. Del Sol LLC, et al., No. CV 05-3013 GAF (RCx) (C.D. Cal. filed Dec. 8, 2005). The 

permanent injunction, entered on December 6, 2006, is available at

http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0523020/061206delsolstipfinal.pdf.

United States v. DirecTV, et al., No. SA CV 05-1211 DOC (ANx) (C.D. Cal. filed Dec. 12, 2005). 

Stipulated permanent injunctions against Global Satellite, et al. and D.R.D., Inc., et al., entered on 

December 11, 2006, are available at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/12/directv.shtm. 

In the DNCIA, the registration expiration date was five years from the date of the most recent 

registration; the 2007 DNCIA included a provision eliminating the automatic removal of registered 

numbers.

20)

21)

22)

23)

24)

25)

26)

27)

28)

29)
1-877-FTC-HELP FOR THE CONSUMER

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ftc.gov