Source: http://www.ecofuture.org/jm/usc_title47_uscs_227.html
Timestamp: 2018-07-22 08:45:51
Document Index: 584590423

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 227', '§ 227', '§ 3', '§ 402', '§ 303', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 102', '§ 152', 'art 68', '§ 152', '§ 72', '§ 227', '§ 227', '§ 227', '§ 227', '§ 227', '§ 227', '§ 227', '§ 227', '§ 227', '§ 227', '§ 227', '§ 227', '§ 227', '§ 227', '§ 227', '§ 227', '§ 227', '§ 1331', '§ 227', '§ 227', '§ 227']

U.S. Code Title 47 addressing telephones, faxes, and unsolicited advertising
Created: 1995. Updated: 16 October, 2000
www.ecofuture.org/jm/usc_title47_uscs_227.html
*** THIS SECTION IS CURRENT THROUGH 106-263, APPROVED 8/18/00 ***
*** WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 106-260 AND 106-261 ***
47 USCS § 227 (2000)
(2) Regulations; exemptions and other provisions. The Commission shall prescribe regulations to implement the requirements of this subsection. In implementing the requirements of this subsection, the Commission--
(A) shall consider prescribing regulations to allow businesses to avoid receiving calls made using an artificial or prerecorded voice to which they have not given their prior express consent; (B) may, by rule or order, exempt from the requirements of paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection, subject to such conditions as the Commission may prescribe--
(3) Private right of action. A person or entity may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State, bring in an appropriate court of that State--
(c) Protection of subscriber privacy rights.
(1) Rulemaking proceeding required. Within 120 days after the date of enactment of this section [Dec. 20, 1991], the Commission shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding concerning the need to protect residential telephone subscribers' privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone solicitations to which they object. The proceeding shall--
(A) compare and evaluate alternative methods and procedures (including the use of electronic databases, telephone network technologies, special directory markings, industry-based or company-specific 'do not call' systems, and any other alternatives, individually or in combination) for their effectiveness in protecting such privacy rights, and in terms of their cost and other advantages and disadvantages;
(2) Regulations. Not later than 9 months after the date of enactment of this section [Dec. 20, 1991], the Commission shall conclude the rulemaking proceeding initiated under paragraph (1) and shall prescribe regulations to implement methods and procedures for protecting the privacy rights described in such paragraph in an efficient, effective, and economic manner and without the imposition of any additional charge to telephone subscribers.
(3) Use of database permitted. The regulations required by paragraph (2) may require the establishment and operation of a single national database to compile a list of telephone numbers of residential subscribers who object to receiving telephone solicitations, and to make that compiled list and parts thereof available for purchase. If the Commission determines to require such a database, such regulations shall--
(4) Considerations required for use of database method. If the Commission determines to require the database mechanism described in paragraph (3), the Commission shall--
(5) Private right of action. A person who has received more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State bring in an appropriate court of that State--
(6) Relation to subsection (b). The provisions of this subsection shall not be construed to permit a communication prohibited by subsection (b).
(d) Technical and procedural standards.
(1) Prohibition. It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States--
(3) Artificial or prerecorded voice systems. The Commission shall prescribe technical and procedural standards for systems that are used to transmit any artificial or prerecorded voice message via telephone. Such standards shall require that--
(e) Effect on State law.
(1) State law not preempted. Except for the standards prescribed under subsection (d) and subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, nothing in this section or in the regulations prescribed under this section shall preempt any State law that imposes more restrictive intrastate requirements or regulations on, or which prohibits--
(2) State use of databases. If, pursuant to subsection (c)(3), the Commission requires the establishment of a single national database of telephone numbers of subscribers who object to receiving telephone solicitations, a State or local authority may not, in its regulation of telephone solicitations, require the use of any database, list, or listing system that does not include the part of such single national database that relates to such State.
(f) Actions by States.
(1) Authority of States. Whenever the attorney general of a State, or an official or agency designated by a State, has reason to believe that any person has engaged or is engaging in a pattern or practice of telephone calls or other transmissions to residents of that State in violation of this section or the regulations prescribed under this section, the State may bring a civil action on behalf of its residents to enjoin such calls, an action to recover for actual monetary loss or receive $ 500 in damages for each violation, or both such actions. If the court finds the defendant willfully or knowingly violated such regulations, the court may, in its discretion, increase the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than 3 times the amount available under the preceding sentence.
(2) Exclusive jurisdiction of Federal courts. The district courts of the United States, the United States courts of any territory, and the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all civil actions brought under this subsection. Upon proper application, such courts shall also have jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, or orders affording like relief, commanding the defendant to comply with the provisions of this section or regulations prescribed under this section, including the requirement that the defendant take such action as is necessary to remove the danger of such violation. Upon a proper showing, a permanent or temporary injunction or restraining order shall be granted without bond.
(3) Rights of Commission. The State shall serve prior written notice of any such civil action upon the Commission and provide the Commission with a copy of its complaint, except in any case where such prior notice is not feasible, in which case the State shall serve such notice immediately upon instituting such action. The Commission shall have the right (A) to intervene in the action, (B) upon so intervening, to be heard on all matters arising therein, and (C) to file petitions for appeal.
(4) Venue; service of process. Any civil action brought under this subsection in a district court of the United States may be brought in the district wherein the defendant is found or is an inhabitant or transacts business or wherein the violation occurred or is occurring, and process in such cases may be served in any district in which the defendant is an inhabitant or where the defendant may be found.
(5) Investigatory powers. For purposes of bringing any civil action under this subsection, nothing in this section shall prevent the attorney general of a State, or an official or agency designated by a State, from exercising the powers conferred on the attorney general or such official by the laws of such State to conduct investigations or to administer oaths or affirmations or to compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of documentary and other evidence.
(6) Effect on State court proceedings. Nothing contained in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit an authorized State official from proceeding in State court on the basis of an alleged violation of any general civil or criminal statute of such State.
(7) Limitation. Whenever the Commission has instituted a civil action for violation of regulations prescribed under this section, no State may, during the pendency of such action instituted by the Commission, subsequently institute a civil action against any defendant named in the Commission's complaint for any violation as alleged in the Commission's complaint.
(8) Definition. As used in this subsection, the term "attorney general" means the chief legal officer of a State.
(June 19, 1934, ch 652, Title II, § 227, as added Dec. 20, 1991, P.L. 102-243, § 3, 105 Stat. 2395; Oct. 28, 1992, P.L. 102-556, Title IV, § 402, 106 Stat. 4194; Oct. 25, 1994, P.L. 103-414, Title III, § 303(a)(11), (12), 108 Stat. 4294.)
1992.Act Oct. 28, 1992, in subsec. (b)(2), in subpara. (A), deleted "and" following the semicolon, in subpara. (B)(ii)(II), substituted "; and" for the concluding period, and added subpara. (C). 1994. Act Oct. 25, 1994, in subsec. (b)(2)(C), substituted "paragraph" for "paragraphs"; and, in subsec. (e)(2), substituted "database" for "datebase".
Congressional findings. Act Dec. 20, 1991, P.L. 102-243, § 2, 105 Stat. 2394, provides:
"(4) Total United States sales generated through telemarketing amounted to $ 435,000,000,000 in 1990, a more than four-fold increase since 1984.
"(15) The Federal Communications Commission should consider adopting reasonable restrictions on automated or prerecorded calls to businesses as well as to the home, consistent with the constitutional protections of free speech.".
Deadline for regulations; effective date. Act Dec. 20, 1991, P.L. 102-243, § 3(c), 105 Stat. 2402; Oct. 28, 1992, P.L. 102-556, Title I, § 102, 106 Stat. 4186, provides:
"(1) Regulations. The Federal Communications Commission shall prescribe regulations to implement the amendments made by this section [adding this section and amending 47 USCS § 152(b)] not later than 9 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
"(2) Effective date. The requirements of section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 [this section] (as added by this section ), other than the authority to prescribe regulations, shall take effect one year after the date of enactment of this Act.".
NOTES: CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Federal Communications Commission--Connection of terminal equipment to the telephone network, 47 CFR Part 68.
This section is referred to in 47 USCS § 152.
RESEARCH GUIDE Federal Procedure:
31 Fed Proc L Ed, Telecommunications §§ 72:974, 1010, 1028.
Validity, construction, and application of state statute or law pertaining to telephone solicitation. 44 ALR5th 619.
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (47 USCS § 227) which makes it unlawful to send unsolicited faxes containing advertisements does not violate First Amendment and is reasonable means of preventing shifting of advertising costs to consumers. Destination Ventures v FCC (1995, CA9 Or) 46 F3d 54, 95 CDOS 807, 95 Daily Journal DAR 1463, 23 Media L R 1446.
Provision of Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (47 USCS § 227) banning automated, prerecorded calls to residences is content-neutral and narrowly tailored to advance legitimate government interest and leaves open ample alternative channels of communication, and therefore provision does not violate First Amendment; additionally, district court had jurisdiction to hear suit challenging constitutionality of 47 USCS § 227, since suit did not challenge any related FCC regulations. Moser v FCC (1995, CA9 Or) 46 F3d 970, 95 CDOS 925.
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 USCS § 227) does not preempt similar state law regulating use of automatic telephone dialing-announcing devices which prohibits use of such devices by candidate for public office. Van Bergen v Minnesota (1995, CA8 Minn) 59 F3d 1541.
States have been given, subject to their consent, exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over private actions authorized by Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (47 USCS § 227), and fact that such private actions may be permitted in some states and prohibited in others does not render Act violative of equal protection component of Fifth Amendment's due process clause; further, interpreting statute as creating exclusive state jurisdiction does not infringe Tenth Amendment rights of states to govern without interference from federal government. International Science & Tech. Inst. v Inacom Communs. (1997, CA4 Va) 106 F3d 1146.
State courts have exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over private actions brought under Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (47 USCS § 227). Chair King v Houston Cellular Corp. (1997, CA5 Tex) 131 F3d 507.
State courts have exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over private actions under Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 USCS § 227). Nicholson v Hooters, Inc. (1998, CA11 Ga) 136 F3d 1287, 11 FLW Fed C 1112.
Congress clearly intended to create private cause of action under Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 USCS § 227), and statutory analysis indicates that Congress intended to refer private litigants under Act to state court and to preclude federal question jurisdiction over such consumer suits. Erienet, Inc. v Velocity Net (1998, CA3 Pa) 156 F3d 513ec.
State courts have exclusive jurisdiction over cause of action created by Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (47 USCS § 227), since statutory analysis indicates that Congress intended to confer exclusive state court jurisdiction over private rights created by statute. Foxhall Realty Law Offices v Telecommunications Premium Servs. (1998, CA2 NY) 156 F3d 432.
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 USCS § 227(b)(1)(B), which prohibits using artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver some commercial messages to residential telephone lines without consent of called party, is unconstitutional, because Congress has not met its burden of showing reasonable fit between selective, categorical ban on one form of commercial solicitation and goal of enhancing residential privacy. Moser v FCC (1993, DC Or) 826 F Supp 360.
Fax advertisers' challenge to constitutionality of 47 USCS § 227(b)(1)(C) fails, where advertisers sought to enjoin enforcement of statute forbidding transmission of unsolicited advertisements via telephone facsimile machines (fax), 47 USCS § 227(b)(1)(C), because fax advertisement is commercial speech, government has legitimate purpose of preventing unfair cost-shifting to recipients of unsolicited advertisements, and ban on all unsolicited advertisements is reasonably crafted to fit purpose and therefore does not infringe impermissibly on advertisers' First Amendment rights. Destination Ventures v FCC (1994, DC Or) 844 F Supp 632, 22 Media L R 1171.
Former employee of appellate services corporation did not violate 47 USCS § 227(b) proscription against use of telephone facsimile machine (fax) to send "unsolicited advertisement," where employee and new business partner twice faxed unsolicited messages seeking to hire away corporation's employees, because messages did not fall within § 227(a)(4) definition of "material advertising commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services"--Congress did not prohibit fax transmissions of all unsolicited information or communications, and there is some question whether it could do so constitutionally. Lutz Appellate Servs. v Curry (1994, ED Pa) 859 F Supp 180.
Remedy provided in 47 USCS § 227 is designed to provide adequate incentive for individual plaintiff to bring suit on his own behalf. Forman v Data Transfer (1995, ED Pa) 164 FRD 400.
Corporation's action alleging violation of 47 USCS § 227 is not remanded to state court, because language of § 227(b)(3) providing for private right of action in state court was not meant to repeal federal question jurisdiction under 28 USCS § 1331; rather, state-court jurisdiction is concurrent, not exclusive, so court has federal question jurisdiction over this action which is based on violation of federal law. Kenro, Inc. v Fax Daily (1995, SD Ind) 904 F Supp 912.
Statutory claim brought by recipients of unwanted advertising via telephone facsimile (fax) will not be dismissed, because ban on unsolicited fax advertisements set forth at 47 USCS § 227(b)(1)(C) is narrowly tailored to government's asserted interest in protecting consumers from unfair shifting of advertising costs and from interruption of their use of their own fax machines, and does not violate First Amendment guarantee of commercial free speech. Kenro, Inc. v Fax Daily (1997, SD Ind) 962 F Supp 1162, 25 Media L R 1908.
District Court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over action brought under 47 USCS § 227, where alleged recipient of unsolicited facsimile advertisement brought putative class action in federal court against telecommunications company for statutory violation, because statutory language explicitly conferred permissive jurisdiction over such actions only in state courts. Foxhall Realty Law Offices v Telecommunications Premium Servs. (1997, SD NY) 975 F Supp 329, 26 Media L R 1092. Complaint filed by individual alleging that defendants had violated Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 USCS § 227) by sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements to plaintiff was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, since Act did not create private right of action in federal court. Murphey v Lanier (2000, CA9 Cal) 204 F3d 911, 2000 CDOS 1439, 2000 Daily Journal DAR 2027.