UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

YODEL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a limited 

liability company, also d/b/a Yodel Technology 

Services; and 

ROBERT W. PULSIPHER, individually and as an 

officer of Yodel Technologies, LLC, 

Defendants. 

Case No. ____________ 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT 

INJUNCTION, CIVIL 

PENALTIES, AND OTHER 

RELIEF 

Plaintiff, the United States of America, acting upon notification and authorization to the 

Attorney General by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”), pursuant to 

Section 16(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 56(a)(1), for its 

Complaint alleges: 

1. Plaintiff brings this action under Sections 5(a), 5(m)(1)(A), 13(b), and 19 of the 

Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 45(m)(1)(A), 53(b), and 57b, 

and Section 6 of the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (the 

“Telemarketing Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 6105, to obtain monetary civil penalties, a permanent 

injunction, and other relief for Defendants’ violations of the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule 

(“TSR” or “Rule”), as amended, 16 C.F.R. Part 310. 

1 
SUMMARY OF CASE 

2. Americans hate prerecorded telephone messages, also known as “robocalls.” The 

practice of robocalling is a massive problem; in 2021 alone, the FTC received over 3 million 

complaints about robocalls. According to a 2019 survey conducted by AARP, the overwhelming 

majority of adults in the United States find robocalls “annoying” (94%) and “disruptive” (90%). 

3. To sustain this barrage of illegal calls, numerous websites use offers of marketing 

surveys, job search assistance, and other innocuous goods and services to collect personal 

information from millions of consumers. These websites induce consumers into divulging their 

contact information and granting sham consent to receive robocalls and calls to their numbers 

even if on the National Do Not Call Registry (“DNC Registry”). 

4. Defendants are telemarketers who purchase or otherwise acquire this illicitly 

obtained consumer data to make illegal calls to millions of consumers. They have bombarded 

American consumers with over one billion calls, including hundreds of millions of calls that 

either illegally delivered robocalls using a type of robocalling technology known as 

“soundboard” or illegally were placed to phone numbers on the DNC Registry, or both. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337(a), 

and 1345. 

6. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)(1), (b)(2), (c)(2), 

(c)(3), and (d), and 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). 

2 
PLAINTIFF 

7. This action is brought by the United States of America on behalf of the FTC. The 

FTC is an independent agency of the United States Government given statutory authority and 

responsibilities. 15 U.S.C. § 41-58. The FTC enforces Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§45(a), which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. The FTC 

also enforces the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6102, and the TSR, 16 C.F.R. Part 310, which 

prohibits deceptive and abusive telemarketing acts or practices. 

DEFENDANTS 

8. Defendant Yodel Technologies, LLC, also doing business as Yodel Technology 

Services (“Yodel”), is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business 

at 989 Georgia Ave., 1st Floor, Palm Harbor, Florida 34683. Yodel transacts or has transacted 

business in this District and throughout the United States. At all times relevant to this Complaint, 

acting alone or in concert with others, Yodel has initiated outbound telemarketing calls to 

consumers throughout the United States. 

9. Defendant Robert W. Pulsipher (“Pulsipher”) has been the sole owner and Chief 

Operating Officer of Yodel at all times relevant to this Complaint. At all times relevant to this 

Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, he has formulated, directed, controlled, had the 

authority to control, or participated in the acts and practices of Yodel, including the acts and 

practices set forth in this Complaint. His responsibilities with Yodel have included compliance, 

complaint response, and complaint monitoring. Pulsipher resides in this District and in 

connection with the matters alleged herein, transacts or has transacted business in this District 

and throughout the United States. 

3 
COMMERCE 

10. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants have maintained a substantial 

course of trade in or affecting commerce, as “commerce” is defined in Section 4 of the FTC Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 44. 

DEFENDANTS’ BUSINESS ACTIVITIES 

11. From at least 2015 through at least 2021, Defendants have operated a massive 

robocalling enterprise targeting millions of consumers on behalf of clients who sold a variety of 

products and services, including auto insurance, cruises, medical devices, life insurance, credit 

repair, extended auto warranties, health insurance, Medicare supplements, and supposed 

assistance with Social Security benefits. 

12. Defendants have employed a type of software known as “soundboard” that allows 

call center agents to play pre-recorded audio clips using “response keys” to engage consumers. 

Defendants have used these keys to ask automated questions like “Can you hear me okay?” or 

“Sounds great right?” These tactics make it appear as though consumers are talking to a live 

human rather than software. 

13. Defendants’ pre-recorded questions are actually part of a sales pitch intended to 

keep consumers from hanging up until Defendants could transfer the call to any one of their 

stable of clients, whose live telemarketers would then pitch their services. 

14. The scale of this calling operation is massive. Between January 2018 and May 

2021, Defendants have made over 1.4 billion calls to U.S. consumers. In all or a substantial 

amount of these calls, Defendants employed soundboard technology. At times, Defendants have 

initiated over two-and-a-half million calls in a single day. Of the billion-plus calls during this 

4 
time-period, over 500 million went to consumer numbers that were listed on the DNC Registry. 

Consumers have filed over 100,000 consumer complaints with the FTC against telephone 

numbers associated with Defendants. 

I. Defendants have acquired millions of consumers’ contact information from thirdparty lead generation websites that do not obtain consumers’ effective consent to be 

called 

15. In order to sustain this operation, Defendants have obtained millions of sales leads 

from other companies. This sales lead data originated with lead generation websites that induced 

consumers into turning over their personal information and clicking in such a way as to 

purportedly give consent to be robocalled and to receive calls even if their numbers were listed 

on the DNC Registry. The companies who controlled these “consent farm” websites sought this 

consent not on their own behalf, but so that they could package and sell the leads and the 

purported consent to third-party sellers or telemarketers pitching a variety of unrelated products 

and services, such as Defendants. 

16. All told, Defendants have obtained millions or even hundreds of millions of 

consumers’ contact information and purported consent to be robocalled from lead generation 

websites. Defendants have then proceeded to inundate these consumers with illegal robocalls, 

pitching a myriad of products and services offered by their many clients. 

17. Defendants have blasted calls to consumers who submitted personal information 

to many different kinds of lead generation websites, including sites that claimed to help 

consumers to obtain insurance quotes, find employment, get workout videos, vitamins, and 

supplements, obtain a free gift or coupon code for a reduced-price item, obtain rewards, get paid 

for taking surveys, enter sweepstakes, and many other purported goods or services. In many 

5 
 

cases, these websites have made prominent, brightly colored, boldface promises about the goods 

or services they claimed to offer consumers. These websites also often have elicited consumers’ 

personal information, including their names and telephone numbers, based on the representation 

that submitting that personal information was needed to obtain the good or service. These 

websites have disclosed only in fine print that consumers who submitted their personal 

information and proceeded through these websites were purportedly agreeing to receive 

telemarketing calls, including robocalls. These websites have then packaged and sold 

information submitted by consumers to Defendants and other third parties which, in turn, 

bombard them with telemarketing calls. 

A. Quick-Jobs.com 

18. Defendants have made more than 13 million calls to consumers whose contact 

information they obtained from a website called Quick-Jobs.com. All or a substantial amount of 

calls Defendants placed were robocalls, and nearly six million calls went to numbers that were 

listed on the DNC Registry. 

19. Quick-Jobs.com claims to help consumers find jobs by providing them with 

customized, aggregated, third-party employment listings. Consumers begin the process by 

entering a “job title” and zip code, at which point the website presents a form for consumers to 

complete to receive job opportunities. The following is an example of the form: 

6 
found 310 Jobs in 89117! 

Complete the form below to get started! 

*First Name: *Last Name: 

*Email Address: *Phone: 

~ uick-Job.s.com .,..,c ........ 

By dicking the button, I agree Iha! rm a U.S. Resident over the age of 18 and I agree to this sne·s te,ms and ~~-1 also 

agree to be contacted by Quick Jobs, f uentes, or its ~rtners regarding career alerts or other opportunities via text, phone, ema~. 

artificial - messages with an automated telephone dialing system and prerecorded messages. Message ~equency may vary. 

This is not required as a condition of purchasing any goods or services or for employment. I may revoke consent at anytime. 

Messaging and data rates may apply. Text STOP to opt out. Text HELP to receive help. filiP.: Here if you are not interested 

0 Receive Job Alerts via SMS 

Messaging and da~ rates may apply. Text STOP to opt out Text HELP to re<eive help. 

CONTINUE> 

20. This page prominently displays a job search result, for example, claiming that 

“We found 310 Jobs in 89117!,” with bold, red font and an exclamation point. It instructs the 

consumer to “Complete the form below to get started!” The form below includes fields for name, 

email address, and phone number, and uses red asterisks next to each field to designate that such 

information is required. The form therefore makes it appear that the consumer must complete it, 

and that the purpose of completing the form is to view the job search results. The page also 

presents a big, blue “continue” button to indicate to the consumer that they must click the button 

7 
to receive the job search results. 

21. Only in very small print, sandwiched between the prominent contact information 

field and the similarly prominent “continue” button does the website disclose the true 

consequences of clicking the “continue” button in pursuit of job opportunities – specifically, that 

the consumer is giving purported consent to be robocalled by dozens of “partners” selling 

unrelated products or services. The website’s design features overwhelm this disclosure and lead 

the consumer to believe that the purpose of the form and the “continue” button is to pursue job 

search assistance. 

22. Consumers cannot bypass this purported consent except by locating one of two 

small, indistinct, not prominently placed links—a “skip here” link within the small print text or 

the faint, gray “Continue to Results” link at the bottom of the page. These links are not as 

colorful or prominent as the claims about jobs results or the “continue” button. 

23. The “partners” from whom consumers are purportedly consenting to receive 

calls, including robocalls, are not identified on the consent page. Instead, these partners are 

hidden behind a hyperlink, such that consumers can access the list of partners only by clicking 

on or hovering over the “partners” link in the fine print disclosure. This “partners” list typically 

includes dozens of names, many of which are assumed names (“dbas”) for telemarketers or 

sellers, selling a variety of goods or services entirely unrelated to job search assistance, such as, 

for example, energy services, cruises, and insurance. Many of these names are generic dbas that 

do not meaningfully identify a specific telemarketer or seller but instead are used for 

telemarketing campaigns made on behalf of multiple sellers. The following is an example of the 

screen accessible only by the “partners” link: 

8 
We found 823 lobs in 89122! 

Complete the form below to get started! 

*First Name: 

*Email Address: 

email123@gmail.com 

* Last Name: 

*Phone: 

702 537 2872 

By dicking the button, I agree that I'm a U.S. Resident over the age of 18 and I agree to this site's ~ and ~J12Ji~y. I also 

agree to be contacted by Quick Jobs, Fuentes, or Its ~ regarding career alerts or other opportuoities via text, phooe, email, 

artificial voice messages with an automated telephone dialing system and prerecorded messages. Message frequency may vary. 

This is not required as a condition of purchasing any goods or servir,es or for employment. I may revoke consent at anytime. 

Messaging aod data rates may apply. Text STOP to opt out. Text HELP to receive help. filll11:lm ~ you are not interested 

0 Receive Job Alerts via SMS 

Messaging and data rates may apply. Text STOP lo opt out. Text HELP lo receive help. 

CONTINUE> 

quick-jobs.com/hiringjobsqj partners link 

[J v I 

qulck-Jobs.com/hlrl~Jobsqj partners link 

Career Placement Advisors, MyJobHuoter, My Job Group, Home Protectors, Iberdrola, Nordic Energy Services, LLC, America• 

Disability Hel line, United States Disability, Email Magic LLC, Horne Support Group, Heard and Smith, Premier Disability, Advocacy 

Center, nei , Medical Support Group, Home Support Group, Advocalor Group, Citizens Disability, Miami Media, Insurance 

Proz, royal sea cruises, Gerber Life Insurance, Blogly, Transparent Truth, DMS, SOS Team, National Disability, Disability Advisor, 

AiMediaOne, Help Advisors, Debt Help Express, SMG, Follow My Lead, Job Funnel, Insurance Guide, Complete Home Services, 

America• Police Officers Alliance, Fit Funnel, FindCredit, EZLiving, Direct Energy, Discount Power, Eligo Energy, Indra Energy, WGL 

Energy, ntan Gas & Power, Park Power, Utilities Marketing Group LLC, Nexxt. 

24. In the case of Yodel, this webpage uses the dba “Consumer Counsil [sic]” to 

9 
 

ui§l-i com LAS VEGAS, N V • 

W Name, you are almost done. 

Your contact lnfo m,allon wlll be used for providing quotes only, 

Address : 

Phone: e 

By cllclung a., My OUot••· I ~f- 10 ~ Toun• o1 s.,,,..,. end PlfYflcY 

Pollcv 

~ 

•nd 91./~e ~-~0 

\0 oomllCI .,.. ebout eulo ,,._.,_ - ocro.r non-insu,.,nc;e 

o"9,.. Dy t11i.p~ """• 11nd 1e,<1 -~ 10 lh9 nun'Nr I provided •t,o- I "or- 10 •-1- lel•~ellog -U• ""° -•.oorded ...... ~ ...... IHI ~~ Ph- e)'lllem ev.n II my u,koph.,... 

numb9< •••mobile n<.1..- thal 1• our,..,\l'f i,.lM an eny •Ulle. lederel or oorpon111e "Oo Not Cell" 11•1 I ..,,_,..,.,,c m111 my o;,on..,.t la not 111 i>D<><tllW>n ot pu~ or ny QOO(I ■ or ~ '1<1 1n 1 I may ,evoke 

m)' oon...,I •1 any u ..... I und.,,,..U.nd ina• .uanCH•r<J ,.,. .. -.ge end data 

rat••.,...Y•IPPIY 

City, Sta te, Zip Code: 

LAS V E GAS, NV. B91 22 

Email: 8 

Get My Quotes! 

8 Your Info le Safe & a.cu-. 

Wan t to fi nish this over the phone? 

'- 888-237-8786 

92% 

Real Fact 

We've helped 

8 4 , 6 5 2,. 5 6 6 

people save. We can 

help you too. 

~ YourC 

1 , 1998 HYUNDAI Elr.mtm 

~ Co•• ge Su:ue Minimum 

Driver Dl•count• 

,., ~ 

identify Yodel’s clients. “Consumer Counsil” is a generic dba that does not identify Yodel or a 

specific seller. Yodel has used this dba (spelled as “Consumer Council”) for campaigns that are 

entirely unrelated to job searches, including auto insurance. 

B. Bestquotes.com

25. Defendants have made more than seven million calls to numbers obtained from 

bestquotes.com, which claims to offer insurance quotes. All or a substantial amount of these calls 

have been robocalls, and nearly four million calls have been directed to numbers that were listed 

on the DNC Registry. 

26. Bestquotes.com claims to provide consumers with automobile insurance quotes. 

Based on certain vehicle specifications, the website promises to allow consumers to “get my 

quotes.” The following is an example of the “Get My Quotes” page: 

27. This website states in bold at the top that the consumer is “almost done” and 

directs consumers to enter “your contact information,” which, the website assures, “will be used 

for providing quotes only.” Reinforcing that the consumer is close to obtaining quotes, the 

website displays a status bar claiming that the consumer is “92%” complete. The page also 

10 
includes a prominent, brightly colored icon claiming that consumers can “save up to $469/yr” 

and pointing to the portion of the page directing consumers to enter their contact information. 

This page further claims to have helped a number of people save and displays the logos of 

insurance companies it claims are “top” insurance providers in the consumer’s state. 

28. To proceed through the website, the page also displays a prominent, red button 

urging consumers to “Get My Quotes!”. The net impression of the page conveys the message 

that the purpose of submitting personal information and clicking “Get My Quotes” is to get 

quotes for automobile insurance and that consumers must submit this personal information and 

click this button to see the quotes. The webpage presents no clear method to receive quotes 

without pressing the button. 

29. Only in very small print does the website disclose the true consequences of 

submitting their contact information and clicking the button—specifically, that the consumer will 

receive robocalls and other telemarketing calls from “insurance companies, their agents, and 

marketing partners,” and that they will be contacted even if on the DNC Registry. Even this 

small print does not disclose the identity of these “insurance companies, their agents, and 

marketing partners.” Rather, this text is a hyperlink, which the consumer must click on or hover 

over to access a scroll-through list of several dozen dbas. The following screen is an example of 

the hyperlinked text: 

11 
beStl!ll[lli4icom LAS VEGAS, NV ;. 

lit49 W Name, you aro almost done. 

Your cont ct lnformollon w111 be usod for provkflng quot • only 

Addroaa: City, Stato. Zip Codo: 

Phone: e 

ltJ,Cl9< ..... 0..MyO.- 1-0,_IO.._J.,..A( ...... end..._,. 

~-----------­ POky - -• MW«- .JbllL.._.,.,., ............ ....... ~....,.._..- ...... ,.,_......,101'w,_...,I~ .._. ~--~--·~-·....,......,._.. ,...---~--.~----­ -----~_... ..... _....,. ........ ....,._ ......... -----0.NO'ICar ~Ol~Oll.-y~o,,---.-1.....,.........., ... ·~-....,.-------· ....,, __ ....,._ ·~--~,---o,e ......... ra-....,,~ 

• • • Auto ln•u•a.-.ca Con,pan••• I • M + 

LAS VEGAS, NV, 89'122 

Email: • 

Get M y Quotes! 

C ti bontquoto <t.." \·r - e lncogn,10 I tl ! 

aJ Complalad Tasks Q l maol I• T,ollo t=J Docs t:=J Yodel Ul-ll • ,. 

Otreel ()ef,,et .. 

Ow.ct M«tta P•rt"9f• 

0..-ecl Property & C.•u111ty 

0..-.clP,ote,ctSe,cuttty 

04fectW~AdvoftJaJno 

--

o..ooun, ln_.anc:. OuolOi~OPO 

000 Aulo 1navtanc. AQoncy ""--...,.. ... Ofrv. Sf'TWW1 wanon1v 

wont to ntwah thla over the phone? 

\. 888-237-8786 

92% 

Real Fact 

Wo"YohOlped 

8 4 , 8 5 2 1 5 8 8 

people .. ve. W ecan 

hOlpyo,utoo 

I 1999 HYUNOAt Elent,• 

Drh, r Dlaoounta 

, .. 

ff Contoct 

Q 

Top NV Provldors 

.a.state Farm 

II 

,--.. 

.,,,.._,."'Y.,,.._l..,_ID_ _.,,,..-... ___ ............ - ........... _,,._ --_..,.._ 

__ .r.._y-~Cand!!m!':!aOl'._.....,_ ...,_ __ _..,.,_ ~-----...-•--"------ _______ .... ......,. _IObe __ .,,,.,__,...,,,.,....,..lo ....... .......... by-.........-. 

•~-,----...--,...._. ___ ............ O"_~ _, ...... 

.. --

_._.._ -of•-~~_, .......... ._.._""' _ __,___.....,___,,_.,, ...... ...,..., • .,. .......... __ 

30. The phrase “insurance companies, their agents, and marketing partners” is itself 

misleading because it suggests that any calls will be related to insurance. That is not the case. 

The website uses the dba “Disability Advisor” to identify Yodel’s clients. This is a generic dba 

that does not identify a specific seller. Consumers who have clicked on the “Get My Quotes!” 

link on this webpage have had their contact information sold to Yodel and dozens of other 

entities. In turn, Yodel has bombarded them with robocalls from a “Social Security Disability 

Advisor” purporting to offer assistance with obtaining Social Security benefits. 

31. The websites described above and other lead generation websites upon which 

Defendants rely for consent employ a variety of design techniques to induce consumers to 

provide purported consent. Some of these tactics, also known as “dark patterns,” include: 

12 
• using disclosures that are disproportionally small or faint compared to more 

prominent messages and other distractions on the same page; 

• using buttons labeled “continue,” “get my quotes,” or other verbiage that do not 

put consumers on notice of the significance of the actions they are taking; and 

• inducing consumers to believe that they are required to provide consent through 

the use of hidden or non-existent methods of exiting the consent and information 

collection process. 

32. The websites from which Defendants have obtained leads do not evidence the 

willingness of consumers to receive calls delivering prerecorded messages “by or on behalf of a 

specific seller,” as required by the TSR, 16 C.F.R. §310.4(b)(1)(v)(A)(iii) (emphasis added). The 

websites purport to obtain consent on behalf of numerous and varied entities, not a specific 

seller. 

33. Even when the websites list dbas provided by Yodel, these are generic dbas which 

do not identify Yodel or specific sellers by name. Yodel places calls to leads obtained pursuant 

to these generic assumed names on behalf of multiple sellers. Even these generic dbas are often 

buried within a small-print list of dozens of “marketing partners” or hidden behind hyperlinks. 

34. Finally, the consent forms used by these websites do not meet the TSR’s 

requirement that, for calls delivering prerecorded messages, the “seller has obtained from the 

recipient of the call an express agreement, in writing” to receive the call, 16 C.F.R. § 

310.4(v)(A) (emphasis added). 

13 
II. Defendants have knowledge that they have called numbers obtained from lead 

generation websites without consumers’ effective consent 

35. As alleged above, Defendants have bombarded consumers who submitted 

numbers on these “consent farm” lead generation websites with unwanted calls, including 

hundreds of millions of calls delivering prerecorded messages, or to numbers on the DNC 

Registry. Defendants were aware that their soundboard calls delivered prerecorded messages and 

therefore were subject to the TSR’s robocalling provisions. 

36. For example, Yodel received notice by at least mid-2018 of the FTC’s November 

2016 staff opinion letter stating that soundboard contacts would be considered prerecorded 

messages for purposes of enforcing the TSR. Yodel also litigated the issue of whether its 

soundboard technology used “an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message” for 

purposes of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B) of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)— 

which prohibits robocalling without prior express consent— in Braver vs Northstar Alarm 

Services, LLC. The Braver case was filed in 2017 and resulted in an adverse ruling on this issue 

in July 2019. Yodel also petitioned the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) for a 

declaratory ruling that soundboard calls were not covered by the TCPA prohibition in September 

of 2019 and did not prevail. Pulsipher directly participated in this process by meeting with the 

FCC in connection with the petition. 

37. Defendants were also aware of the contents of the websites described above and 

many of the other websites from which they obtained leads—including the features of the 

websites that caused them to be non-compliant with the TSR. Defendants represented to the FCC 

that Yodel reviewed the contents of its source websites on a weekly basis. Frequently, 

Defendants have received inquiries or complaints or have been notified of litigation related to 

14 
their delivery of prerecorded messages, calls to numbers that were registered on the DNC 

Registry, and other telemarketing calls. In response to such inquiries, complaints, and litigation, 

Defendants frequently were required to provide proof of their purported consents. This proof 

commonly included screenshots of the website from which the purported consent was obtained. 

38. For example, USTelecom, a telecommunications industry association, served 

Yodel with “traceback” requests seeking information about specific calls that appear to be illegal 

robocalls. Yodel provided consent website screenshots as part of its responses. Yodel also 

frequently solicited consent information from its lead sources in order to defend itself or seller 

clients against private Telephone Consumer Protection Act litigation filed on behalf of individual 

consumers or classes of consumers—even going so far as to solicit or develop affidavits that 

contained detailed descriptions of the consent flow. Yodel also provided consent website screen 

shots in response to inquiries by attorney general offices. Defendants are well aware that the 

generic dbas they have provided to website operators to purportedly identify Defendants as a 

“marketing partner” do not actually identify them. Further, Defendants are well aware that they 

have used these generic dbas to make calls on behalf of a variety of sellers, such that the dba 

does not correspond to, let alone identify, any one seller. 

39. Based on the facts and violations of law alleged in this Complaint, the FTC has 

reason to believe that Defendants are violating or are about to violate laws enforced by the 

Commission, because, among other things: Defendants have engaged in egregious, continuous 

violations; Defendants continued to engage in such violations after receiving the FTC’s Civil 

Investigative Demand in December 2020; Defendants continued to engage in such violations 

after being contacted by the Federal Communications Commission in March 2021; Defendants 

15 
continued to engage in such violations after receiving numerous complaints and lawsuits alleging 

that consumers did not want these calls and did not agree to receive them; Defendant Pulsipher 

continues to work in telemarketing and exercise control over Yodel’s soundboard infrastructure; 

and both Yodel and Pulsipher maintain the means, ability, and incentive to engage in similar 

conduct in the future. 

VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEMARKETING SALES RULE 

40. Congress directed the FTC to prescribe rules prohibiting abusive and deceptive 

telemarketing acts or practices pursuant to the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101-6108. The 

FTC adopted the original TSR in 1995, extensively amended it in 2003, and amended certain 

sections thereafter. 16 C.F.R. Part 310. 

41. Among other things, the 2003 amendments to the TSR established the DNC 

Registry, maintained by the FTC, of consumers who do not wish to receive certain types of 

telemarketing calls. Consumers can register their telephone numbers on the Registry without 

charge either through a toll-free telephone call or over the Internet at donotcall.gov. 

42. Consumers who receive telemarketing calls to their registered numbers can 

complain of Registry violations the same way they registered, through a toll-free telephone call 

or over the Internet at donotcall.gov, or by otherwise contacting law enforcement authorities. 

43. The FTC allows sellers, telemarketers, and other permitted organizations to access 

the Registry over the Internet at telemarketing.donotcall.gov, to pay the fee(s) if required, and to 

download the numbers not to call. 

16 
  

44. Under the TSR, a “telemarketer” means any person who, in connection with 

telemarketing, initiates or receives telephone calls to or from a customer or donor. 16 C.F.R. § 

310.2(ff). A “seller” means any person who, in connection with a telemarketing transaction, 

provides, offers to provide, or arranges for others to provide goods or services to the customer in 

exchange for consideration. 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(dd). 

45. Under the TSR, an “outbound telephone call” means a telephone call initiated by 

a telemarketer to induce the purchase of goods or services or to solicit a charitable contribution. 

16 C.F.R. § 310.2(x). 

46. Defendants are “telemarketers” engaged in “telemarketing,” and have initiated 

“outbound telephone call[s]” to consumers to induce the purchase of good or services, as those 

terms are defined in the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(dd), (ff), (gg), and (x). 

47. The TSR prohibits sellers and telemarketers from initiating an outbound telephone 

call to numbers on the Registry unless the seller or telemarketer can demonstrate that the seller 

(1) has obtained the consumer’s express agreement, in writing, to place such calls, or (2) has an 

established business relationship with that consumer, and the consumer has not stated that he or 

she does not wish to receive such calls. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(l)(iii)(B). Valid written consent to 

receive a live telemarketing call to a number on the Registry requires: (1) a writing signed by the 

consumer, (2) clearly evidencing authorization to receive calls placed by or on behalf of a 

specific party, and (3) stating the telephone number to which such calls may be placed. 16 C.F.R. 

§ 310.4(b)(l)(iii)(B)(l). 

17 
48. The TSR prohibits sellers and telemarketers from initiating an outbound telephone 

call that delivers a prerecorded message to induce the purchase of any good or service unless the 

seller or telemarketer has obtained from the recipient of the call an express agreement, in writing, 

that evidences the willingness of the recipient to receive calls that deliver prerecorded messages. 

Valid written consent to receive prerecorded messages requires: (1) clear and conspicuous 

disclosure that the purpose of the agreement is to authorize the seller to place prerecorded calls to 

such person; (2) that the seller obtained without requiring, directly or indirectly, that the 

agreement be executed as a condition of purchasing any good or service; and that (3) evidences 

the willingness of the recipient of the call to receive calls that deliver prerecorded messages by or 

on behalf of a specific seller. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(v)(A). Under the TSR, the express 

agreement may not be obtained by a lead generator who does not qualify as a seller or 

telemarketer under the Rule because the express agreement must be obtained by the seller or 

telemarketer directly from the call recipient. 

49. Pursuant to Section 3(c) of the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6102(c), and 

Section 18(d)(3) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57a(d)(3), a violation of the TSR constitutes an 

unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce, in violation of Section 5(a) of the 

FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

50. Defendants’ violations of the TSR as set forth below were committed with the 

knowledge required by Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A). 

18 
COUNT I 

Violating the National Do Not Call Registry 

51. In numerous instances, in connection with telemarketing, Defendants have 

initiated, or caused others to initiate, an outbound telephone call to a person’s telephone number 

on the National Do Not Call Registry in violation of the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(l)(iii)(B). 

COUNT II 

Initiating Unlawful Robocalls 

52. In numerous instances, in connection with telemarketing, Defendants have 

initiated, or caused others to initiate, outbound telephone calls delivering prerecorded messages 

to induce the purchase of goods or services in violation of the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 

310.4(b)(1)(v)(A). 

CONSUMER INJURY 

53. Consumers have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial injury as a result 

of Defendants’ violations of the FTC Act and the TSR. Absent injunctive relief by this Court, 

Defendants are likely to continue to injure consumers and harm the public interest. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

 Wherefore, Plaintiff requests that the Court: 

A. Award Plaintiff monetary civil penalties from each Defendant for every violation 

of the TSR, 

B. Enter a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the TSR by 

Defendants, 

C. Award other relief within the Court’s power to grant, and 

19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

D. Award any additional relief as the Court determines to be just and proper. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: / / 

Trial Attorney 

Consumer Protection Branch 

U.S. Department of Justice 

P.O. Box 386 

Washington, DC 20044 

Phone

 Attorneys for Plaintiff

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

20