Source: http://clrkc.com/telemarketing-connections/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 02:13:19+00:00

Document:
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has obtained settlements with two charities after alleging they deceived donors with false claims about their charitable purposes. FTC v. Disabled Police and Sheriffs Foundation, Inc. and FTC v. American Veterans Foundation, Inc. The charities and their executive directors are banned from soliciting charitable contributions in the future and from making false claims.
More courts are enforcing arbitration provisions to defeat purported Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) class actions. In re: Midland Credit Management, Inc. (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2019); Petrie v. Gosmith, Inc. (D. Colo. Jan. 31, 2019).
Comment: For the arbitration clauses to apply, the calls or texts must be related to the topic of the agreement, and not some unrelated goods or services.
On December 13, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) issued a Report and Order (the “Order”) addressing calls to numbers which have been disconnected, then reassigned to a new subscriber. See https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-177A1.pdf.
Consumer comments submitted in response to the Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC”) request concerning the definition of automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) urged the FCC to adopt Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC and its logic that any system which stores telephone numbers is an ATDS. Comments were due October 17, 2018 and reply comments were due October 24, 2018.
Comment: If the FCC uses the definition of ATDS found in the statute and assigns meaning to the words “using a random or sequential number generator”, it must, using normal rules of statutory construction, give meaning to those words and limit the term to a system with that capability.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes Florida and other states) is considering oral argument on the issue of whether a single text constitutes sufficient “injury” to give a plaintiff standing to sue under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). The defendants argued that the single text did not make plaintiff’s phone inoperable, prevent him from receiving other text messages or phone calls, or cost him anything. Salcedo v. Hanna.
Comment: The same argument would be relevant to unanswered calls which did not deliver a voicemail message.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) fax case where the plaintiff alleged the fax opt-out notice was deficient. The court noted the fax opt-out notice was there, and regardless of technical errors in the language, the recipient had no standing to sue because he never attempted to opt-out of receiving faxes. St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v. Nomax, Inc.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has obtained an injunction from a federal court stopping a telemarketing company which allegedly charged up front fees from consumers to secure them government grants of up to $10,000. FTC v. Hite Media Group, LLC, et al. The defendants were based in Phoenix, Arizona.
Comment: Usually, the FTC only seeks a temporary restraining order against a defendant accused of violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”) if allegations of financial fraud are involved.
A company purportedly offering student loan debt relief has settled charges brought by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) alleging fraud and violation of the national “do-not-call” registry. FTC v. Student Debt Relief Group. The company was forced to turn over more than $2.3 million in assets to the FTC.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.