[telecom] FTC tightening up rules against "robocalls". But..

but... there are still plenty of loopholes. And this also doesn't address the huge lack of movement by the FTC on most complaints...

[FTC press release]

"New Rule Prohibiting Unwanted "Robocalls" to Take Effect on September 1 Telemarketers Must Obtain Prior Written Approval from Consumers Who Want to Receive Such Calls

"Beginning September 1, 2009, prerecorded commercial telemarketing calls to consumers - commonly known as robocalls - will be prohibited, unless the telemarketer has obtained permission in writing from consumers who want to receive such calls, the Federal Trade Commission announced today." --------------

however, there are bunches of exceptions. First are the ones which, for want of a better term, I'll call greyish:

"... do not prohibit calls that deliver purely "informational" recorded messages - those that notify recipients, for example, that their flight has been cancelled, an appliance they ordered will be delivered at a certain time, or that their child's school opening is delayed ..."

and then there are the sleazoids, namely:

..."politicians, banks, telephone carriers, and most charitable organizations"

eyup. politicians are still exempted. Suprise, surprise.

rest:

formatting link

- I think a good law would be to require that every time a politician makes such a call, that person's home phone, cellular phone, office number, spouses listings, and mother-in-law... should all be appended, thus letting everyone call them right back and explain how pissed they are...

_____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key snipped-for-privacy@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

***** Moderator's Note *****

Oh my Ghod! Not the Mothers-in-law! That would be too cruel! ;-)

Reply to
danny burstein
Loading thread data ...

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:56:56 -0400, danny burstein ended what he wrote with the words:

Just yesterday I actually answered what turned out to be a tele-solicitation call from some "charity". I asked if they were aware my number was on the National DoNotCall List.

The caller informed me that charitable organizations are not bound by that list. I thought he was putting me on -- so thanks for letting me know he was on the up-and-up :-) .

***** Moderator's Note *****

The new rule has an exception for calls where the victim gave written consent. I can't help but wonder if charitable organizations will include "permission" clauses in their donation literature, and then sell their donor lists to commercial marketers.

Come to think of it, I wonder if the "charitable organizations" exception would allow marketers to rent phone lists from charities in return for some percentage of receipts. Does a call made by a commercial firm that benefits a charity count as a "charitable organizations" exception?

Bill Horne

Reply to
tlvp

I'm afraid so. There's a whole sleazy industry of commercial fundraisers for charities. The most efficient charities spend nearly all of the money raised on the nominal purpose, like Second Harvest which spends 98% of its revenue on program activities. On the other hand, according to the LA Times, Citizens Against Government Waste spent 6% of money from fundraisers on its nominal purpose, and 94% on the fundraising.

formatting link
ObTelecom: if a charity calls you, you can be quite sure that the majority of the money you give will pay the fundraiser, not the charity

R's, John

Reply to
John Levine

That's a burr in my saddle.

If I went to the trouble of joining the DNC list wouldn't it stand to reason I don't want calls from politicians or "charitable organizations"? Yes, I know they're exempt. And I'm polite about it. But then they argue with me that they're under no obligation to remove me from their call list. I then point out if I get one more call I will NEVER vote for their candidate or I will NEVER contribute to their cause. This sometimes gets the point across.

Back in 2004 I had political party "A" call me asking for donation. And to make matters worse they had a minimum contribution, $75 I think. I told them to forget it. I kept getting calls. I finally said that every time they called me I would contribute to party "B". And I was prepared to do this. Funny, the calls came to a screeching halt.

John

Reply to
John Mayson

An extreme case: Some 20 years ago, when I lived in New Hampshire, I read in the local newspapers that the New Hampshire chapter of the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) hired a fundraising firm to solicit for them. After the firm deducted its fee and expenses, MADD got zero dollars.

Reply to
Richard

Well, "yes", _AND_ "no", applies. If they're soliciting charitable donations, they _are_ exempt from the DNC list. If they're selling a product/service, with the charity getting the profits, then those calls are _not_ exempt from the DNC list. e.g. if they're calling you to ask you to buy Easter Seals, or Catholic Charities Christmas Cards, they _do_ have to screen against the DNC list.

The permission document is _not_ transferable. It must name the organization (singular!!) to which the permission is being given.

Authoritative answer: "No."

See above. "It depends". That particular situation -is- =expressly= addressed in the telemarketing rules. If they're strictly soliciting donations, and get paid a share of the money they raise, they _are_ exempt from the DNC rules. If they're 'selling something', with (some of) the profits going to the charity, they are *NOT* exempt. Even a charity, _itself_ which is phoning to 'sell something' has to screen against the DNC list.

This stuff was all settled years ago.

Reply to
Robert Bonomi

Yeah, it 'stands to reason'. But marketing people -- and *especially* politicians -- are well known to be extremely resistant to actually engaging in 'reasoning'.

The law _is_ the way it is, because of *Constitutional* limitations. The underlying principle for _all_ the telemarketing regulation is the "Commerce Clause" of the Constitution. To pass Constitutional muster, the law had to regulate only activities with "some degree" of relation to commerce, and commercial activity. Politics, charitable solicitations, opinion surveys, etc -- all the "exempt" stuff -- are *not* "commerce" related. The Congressional choice was: (1) regulate just what you legally can, or (2) try to regulate all calls, and have the courts throw it out as unconstitutional. They chose alternative #1.

That's _not_ "precisely" true. They =do= have to remove you if asked. But, it _is_ legal for them to add you right back onto the list.

You found the 'most effective' approach to stopping the calls -- telling them that if they call again for a donation, you'll donate to their opponent instead (even better, that you'll do it in _their_ name -- *evil* grin); and that if they call soliciting your vote, you'll vote 'a straight party ticket' for the opposition. To make this work, you need to get the caller's name _before_ handing out the bombshell. Then, as appropriate, you make the donation 'on behalf of' of the named person and organization, *And* you notify state/ national party headquarters that the action of said 'local' has cost them a vote for _all_ the offices they fielded candidates for.

Going 'up the food chain like this' can be *very* effective in reining in individual campaigns.

Reply to
Robert Bonomi

While what you state is correct, it is _not_ an answer to 'the question as asked", and, as such leads people to draw factually incorrect conclusion about the answer to the original question.

Marketers *cannot* 'rent' lists from charities for the purpose of selling their own products -- 'even if' some of the proceeds go back to the charity -- *WITHOUT* being subject to the full 'telemarketing rule' (that is, the 'charity' exemption is NOT applicable to their efforts.)

Note: even if the charity _itself_ is making the calls, asking you to buy something (as distinct from just 'begging' for donations), then *they* are subject to the full force of the telemarketing rule for those calls, including screening against the DNC list.

*HOWEVER*, if the charity has hired a company to make strict donation solicitations on behalf of the charity ("even if" a majority of the collected funds go to the marketer), then _those_ calls *are* covered by the exemption.

There has been talk (for a number of years) -- but nothing has come of it, as far as _I_ know -- of putting restrictions on the portion of the 'donations' that go to the agency making the solicitations while retaining the 'charitable solicitation' exemption.

Reply to
Robert Bonomi

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.