Response Magazine Site Response Expo Site Direct Response Market Alliance Site Response TV Site Market Research Job Board
   Log in
  

The Voice

Recent News Demonstrates Robocalling Is on Regulators' Radar

6 Mar, 2012 By: Jeffrey D. Knowles, Venable LLP’s Advertising, Mikhia E. Hawkins


On Feb. 15, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved significant changes to its rules regarding telemarketing calls. Among the changes was an update of the agency’s rules governing telemarketing “robocalls” – marketing phone calls that make use of an auto-dialer or artificial or prerecorded voice.

Both the FCC and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have regulatory enforcement authority over marketing telephone calls made to consumers. The FCC’s changes largely harmonize its telemarketing rules, which are enforced under authority granted by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), with the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). The TSR requires, among other things, that marketers secure prior express written consent for all robocalls to wireless numbers and residential landlines, regardless of whether the calls are to consumers with whom the marketer has a business relationship. It also requires that marketers make automated “opt-out” mechanisms available to consumers that enable them to opt out of receiving future prerecorded calls from the marketer.

In addition, the FCC revised its rules to adopt a “per-calling-campaign” standard for measuring the maximum percentage of live telemarketing sales calls that a telemarketer may lawfully drop or abandon because of the use of autodialing software or other equipment. The agency had previously used a 30-day average of all a marketer’s calls to calculate the marketer’s abandon rate.

Demonstrating that the FTC is also paying attention to robocallers’ practices, the agency announced two settlements with marketers of robocalling technology on February 24. The two companies allegedly marketed Web-based self-service robocall platforms to businesses that enabled the services’ users to make prerecorded sales calls by uploading a recorded message and a list of telephone numbers. The Web-based service would then dial each uploaded phone number and play the uploaded prerecorded message.

The FTC alleged that the robocall service companies violated federal telemarketing laws by enabling telemarketing campaigns that unlawfully called numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, delivered prerecorded calls without complying with federal requirements for such calls, abandoned calls by playing prerecorded messages after call recipients answered the calls, and failed to disclose the caller’s identity during the calls. The companies’ robocall services allegedly used automated dialing equipment to deliver prerecorded messages.

The two settlements with the robocall self-service companies require that the businesses pay $10,000 to the FTC, with suspended civil penalty judgments of $2 million and $1 million, respectively. Additionally, the settlements prohibit the businesses from violating federal telemarketing laws in the future.

The changes to the FCC’s rules, as well as the recent FTC settlements, demonstrate that regulators are paying attention to the robocalling space. For marketers using robocalls, whether for lead generation, upselling existing clients, or any other reason, it is critical that they understand the regulations governing robocall-based marketing and develop best practices to ensure compliance with the state and federal rules regulating telemarketing.

Jeffrey D. Knowles is a partner at Venable LLP and chair of the firm’s Advertising, Marketing and New Media Group. Mikhia E. Hawkins is an attorney at Venable LLP. They can be reached at (202) 344-4000, or at jdknowles@venable.com and mhawkins@venable.com.


Add Comment



DRMA Spotlight
DRMA Spotlight: Growing Smiles on Customers’ Faces     1 Apr, 2014

Article By: Doug McPherson

“In the beginning it was just me in my apartment on my couch with a laptop and $400 cash,” says...More>>


29 Jul, 2014

Knowles

July 8, 2014 | Article | By Jeffrey D. Knowles, Leonard L. Gordon

Many marketers would like to believe that their only concerns are the number of orders coming in,... more>>


Fasel

July 8, 2014 | Article | By Frank R. Fasel

As an Orange County attorney, the drive up to the San Fernando Valley to take and defend three days... more>>


Richter

July 8, 2014 | Article | By Jeffrey Richter, John Waller

In another blow to plaintiffs seeking to escape the impact of Proposition 64 and its requirement... more>>


Rothbard

July 8, 2014 | Article | By William I. Rothbard

In the past few years, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has placed several affiliate networks... more>>


Richter

June 3, 2014 | Article | By Arthur Yoon, Jeffrey Richter

In the case of In re: Celexa and Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practice Litigation, the plaintiffs... more>>



648350

April 1, 2014 | Article | By Thomas Haire

Higher Power Marketing is a Phoenix-based per-inquiry (PI) advertising agency and Direct Response... more>>


DRMA Spotlight

April 1, 2014 | Article | By Doug McPherson

“In the beginning it was just me in my apartment on my couch with a laptop and $400 cash,” says... more>>


DRMA-Spotlight_Image_Mojo

January 1, 2014 | Article | By Thomas Haire

At first it was humbling. Direct response is unlike any industry I had seen before,” says Gregory... more>>


DRMA-Spotlight_Image_AP

December 1, 2013 | Article | By Thomas Haire

What we really care about is providing unequaled service to our customers,” says Bruce Stone,... more>>


DRMA-Spotlight_Image_2

November 1, 2013 | Article | By Thomas Haire

In May, we turned the Direct Response Marketing Alliance (DRMA) Spotlight on the InterMedia Group... more>>


Content not yet available.


MOY

February 23, 2012 | News

Coming up on its fourth year, the DRMA Marketer of the Year Award is the most coveted award in the... more>>