[ql06] Re: PUBLIC: US "Do-Not Call" list -- Part III
- From: Sheldon Erentzen <sheldon.erentzen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: ql06@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:20:09 -0400
The great thing about this whole process is that we are getting to watch
the legal ball bounce back and forth between the courts and the
legislature. It seems to me that the lawmakers next move is to make the
registry applicable to all unsolicited callers and to have those
registering choose from categories of unsolicited callers. This way
private citizens can choose to keep their names on lists that involve
organizations they want to hear from. Of course, they might choose to
refuse all unsolicited calls, which politicians might not want
considering the fact that this might include polls...political
fundraising. It would possibly harm charities as well since they also
rely on telemarketing to a great degree. Still, by listing categories,
politicians would have a way around the free speech issue since it would
no longer be discriminating against one social sector.
Ken Campbell -- LAW'06 wrote:
>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:
