America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 20 years ago by alsant. 9 replies replies.
"Do Not Call" List on HOLD!
RDC Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 01-21-2000
Posts: 5,874
We're getting screwed by the telemarketers again!!

http://money.cnn.com/2003/09/24/technology/ftc_donotcall/index.htm?cnn=yes


U.S. court rules FTC overstepped its authority when it set up the list to block telemarketing calls.
September 24, 2003: 3:11 PM EDT



NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - A federal court has blocked the national "do not call" list -- meant to allow consumers to stop unwanted telephone sales calls -- just days before it was scheduled to take effect.

The ruling Tuesday by the U.S. District Court in Oklahoma was a victory for the Direct Marketing Association and telemarketers who said the registry violated their rights under the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.


Judge Lee West ruled that the Federal Trade Commission cannot enforce the do-not-call registry. The FTC has signed up some 50 million phone numbers for the list, which was due to become effective Oct. 1.

In a statement Wednesday, the DMA acknowledged that millions of American do not want to receive telephone marketing calls. The group said it supports the idea of a list for consumers to express their preference not to be solicited by telephone, and pointed out that for years it has offered its own no-call system for consumers.

The DMA is a trade group representing about 5,000 U.S. companies. Other plaintiffs, all telemarketers, were U.S. Security, Chartered Benefit Services Inc., Global Contact Services Inc. and InfoCision Management Corp.

FTC Chairman Timothy Muris called the decision was "clearly incorrect," and vowed the agency will "seek every recourse to give American consumers a choice to stop unwanted telemarketing calls."



CNNfn's Greg Clarkin reports on the federal court ruling against FTC's enforcement of the do-not-call registry.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin, R-La., and the committee's ranking member, John Dingell, D-Mich., said they were disappointed by the ruling but are confident it will be overturned.

"We will continue to monitor the situation and will take whatever legislative action is necessary to ensure consumers can stop intrusive calls from unwanted telemarketers," the lawmakers said in a statement.

The FTC's do-not-call list was created in early 2002 and implemented this year after Congress ordered the agency to make rules preventing abusive and deceptive telemarketing practices.

Plaintiffs challenged the creation of the list and its prohibition of "abandoned calls," defined as one in which the telemarketer does not get on the line within two seconds of calling a consumer. They wanted the court to prohibit the FTC from enforcing the registry and rules against abandoned calls.




West agreed regarding the registry, but disagreed regarding abandoned calls.

The judge held that it was "inappropriate" for Congress to have allowed the FTC to interpret the congressional orders on its own, saying it "raises serious constitutional questions."

West agreed with the plaintiffs' argument that Congress should have given an "unambiguous grant of authority" for the FTC to create the registry and other rules.

"Admittedly, the elimination of telemarketing fraud and the prohibition against deceptive and abusive telemarketing acts or practices are significant public concerns," the court wrote in its order. "However, an administrative agency's power to regulate in the public interest must always be grounded in a valid grant of authority from Congress."

Muris disputed that, and said the FTC was given "clear legislative direction" in creating the do-not-call registry.


Telemarketing cure killed? Not really.

The DMA and other plaintiffs argued the do-not-call registry violated their rights under the First Amendment, allowing freedom of speech, and the Fifth Amendment, which grants due process of law. They said the FTC's rules "discriminate against speech based upon content and identity of speakers and ... suppresses far more speech than necessary."

The FTC argued that the creation of the registry is a correct interpretation of Congress' orders to to prevent abusive telephone marketing practices, because the FTC considers calls to a number on the registry abusive.

West agreed with the plaintiffs only on their complaint about the do-not-call registry. He upheld rules against abandoned calls and unauthorized charges on a customer's account, agreeing with the FTC that they are unfair practices.


usahog Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
does this mean we can sue the Bastages if they call our homes after 8 pm or on sundays... or better yet when they get your Cell Phone Number and you have to change the number because their burning up your Personal minutes with their sales pitch BS??????

Hog
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
i always thought a phone ringing was the most annoying sound imaginable. i had a duck phone that quacked and that was fun for two days. i just bought a cat phone, but it doesn't meow it rings.
now none of the phones in my house will ring. the answering macjine picks up and i get a bunch of no messages everyday. those are more then likely sales pitches. if i expect a call from a doctor or a friend, i turn the volume up on the ans machine.

my cell phone only calls out, and i rarely exceed my 60 minute per month allowed.

years ago, i wore a beeper for a few days. it beeped once while i was in the toilet and i returned it the next day.

i know a lot of business people need the cell phone and their business phone on.

we deserve peace at home.





i wonder who will have access to the names and phone numbers of the 20 million people that signed up for no calls. should be a good list to start calling to sell blocking devices.
RDC Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 01-21-2000
Posts: 5,874
We should ALL call the judge that ruled the thing illegal 24/7
Homebrew Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 02-11-2003
Posts: 11,885
Hey RDC,
Does anybody know the judges phone number, probably on the do not call list. LOL Anyway, Congress, believe it or not, is trying to rectify the situation today. I think this issue is nonpartisian, at least for now, so maybe they can get something done. If anyone finds out the judges home number, post it here, so we can all give him a call, about supper time, or maybe bedtime, or maybe even 4 A.M.
Later
Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)
Penguin13 Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 07-26-2002
Posts: 1,546
Dave - from what I was reading, that was already done. They posted up his home phone and the number to his office. I think it's changed by now :)

KC
Homebrew Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 02-11-2003
Posts: 11,885
Probably, dangit,
I missed out on the fun.
Oh Well, maybe the legistative branch may have some luck.
Later
Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)
Jon@CAO Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 08-23-2002
Posts: 745
FYI - It's back 'on.' "Fifty-million Americans can't be wrong."

check it out: http://www.cnn.com
Homebrew Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 02-11-2003
Posts: 11,885
Every now and then,
Politicians have to remember where those votes come from. Thanks for the update Jon
Later
Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)
alsant Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 10-03-2002
Posts: 150
heard that it is off again , can we get these two judges phone numbers ? so we can call them as they are eating .
Users browsing this topic
Guest