[ql06] PUBLIC: US "Do-Not Call" list -- Part III
- From: "Ken Campbell -- LAW'06" <2kc16@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <ql06@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 15:44:41 -0400
Here we go... just across the wire...
The private sector plays it's next card: "Let's see if we can make it
look voluntary. Maybe it will be "self-regulating" ... which means
keeping it out of public prosecution."
Smart move, if only for PR value if they lose.
Most interesting and relevant quote from article below... FTC boss Muris
says:
"I do not believe that our Constitution dictates such
an illogical result. To the contrary, our Constitution
allows consumers to choose not to receive commercial
telemarketing calls."
It's so much clearer what he is saying, now that I've been taking this
course.
Just underscores why this is a classic example of what Stan Corbett has
been rambling on about -- between bouts of self-mutilation with food
processors.
Ken.
--
It is astonishing what you can do when you have a lot of
energy, ambition and plenty of ignorance.
-- Alfred P. Sloan Jr.
--- cut here ---
Telemarketing Group Tells Members to Heed Registry
Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- The largest telemarketing industry group says it wants its
members to abide by the national "do-not-call" list next week despite
two court rulings that have thrown the program's future into legal
limbo.
"We are telling our members, yes indeed, we don't want you calling
people who have told anyone they don't want any calls," Direct Marketing
Association President H. Robert Wientzen said Friday. He said he hasn't
had time to arrange agreements making that request binding, but "up to
the moment I have had nobody disagree."
The list of nearly 51 million phone numbers is scheduled to go into
effect Wednesday, but rulings by two federal courts have made that plan
unlikely.
U.S. District Judge Edward W. Nottingham in Denver issued a ruling late
Thursday saying the list violates telemarketers' free-speech rights.
Federal Trade Commission Chairman Timothy Muris said Friday the agency
will fight the decision. "I do not believe that our Constitution
dictates such an illogical result," Mr. Muris said. "To the contrary,
our Constitution allows consumers to choose not to receive commercial
telemarketing calls."
Mr. Muris said that if Judge Nottingham's reasoning were applied
elsewhere, it would cripple the more than two dozen state do-not-call
lists.
The FTC is still allowing people to sign up for the list at the Web site
www.donotcall.gov or by calling 1-888-382-1222.
But the latest court ruling means the agency can't penalize
telemarketers for violating the registry, said Walter Janowski, a
director with research firm Gartner Inc. "This likely precludes a quick
fix such as Congress's attempt yesterday," he said. "We can expect
multiple appeals potentially as high as the Supreme Court."
Mr. Janowski said the voluntary efforts of some telemarketers to obey
the list will have mixed results for consumers. "Legitimate
telemarketers will listen. It's the ones that are less legitimate or
somewhat sleazy that are the ones we have the problems with to begin
with," he said.
Many telemarketers already have obtained the do-not-call list to compare
with their own calling lists.
Mr. Wientzen said that despite telling members to obey the wishes of
people who don't want to be called, the telemarketing industry still
opposes the do-not-call list. "We don't think this is an appropriate
role for government," he said. "These cases are simply making that
point."
Judge Nottingham's ruling capped a frantic day in which Congress moved
with nearly unprecedented speed and unanimity in an attempt to counter
an earlier court ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Lee R. West in
Oklahoma City. Judge West's ruling on Tuesday said the FTC lacked the
power to create and operate the registry.
The House voted 412-8 and the Senate 95-0 for the bill. President Bush
said he looked forward to signing it Monday. "Unwanted telemarketing
calls are intrusive, annoying and all too common," he said in a
statement.
Even after Mr. Bush signs the legislation, the FTC must win in court for
the list to move forward.
Judge Nottingham's ruling said the do-not-call list was unconstitutional
under the First Amendment because it doesn't apply equally to all kinds
of speech, blocking commercial telemarketing calls but not calls from
charities. "The FTC has chosen to entangle itself too much in the
consumer's decision by manipulating consumer choice," he wrote.
Judge West rejected an FTC request to delay his order, saying the agency
offered no additional evidence that would make him change his mind. The
FTC immediately appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
Denver.
While it was unclear how Judge West's order would affect the FTC's
plans, the second ruling more directly prohibits the government from
enforcing the do-not-call list. The constitutional issues raised also
may not be solved as easily.
The first court ruling caught lawmakers off guard, but they responded
with remarkable speed. Bills can take months or even years to pass, but
the do-not-call legislation was drafted and approved in both chambers in
little more than 24 hours.
Since issuing the ruling, Judge West's home and office have been
bombarded with calls from angry consumers. His numbers were posted on
the Internet and people were encouraged to call. Judge Nottingham's
phone numbers are online as well.
The case decided by Judge West was brought by a coalition of
telemarketers, including the Direct Marketing Association, an industry
group.
The suit in Judge Nottingham's court was filed by two telemarketing
companies and the American Teleservices Association, which represents
call centers. The association has another lawsuit pending in Denver
against the Federal Communications Commission, which added its authority
to the list to close certain regulatory loopholes.
The national registry is intended to block an estimated 80% of
telemarketing calls.
The FTC's rules require telemarketers to check the list every three
months to see who doesn't want to be called. Those who call listed
people could be fined up to $11,000 for each violation. Consumers would
file complaints to an automated phone or online system.
Exemptions to the list include calls from charities, pollsters and on
behalf of politicians.
Other related posts:
