CONSUMER NEWS    RECALLS    COMPLAINT FORM    SCAM ALERTS  


Complain about a product or service

Small Claims Guide | Class Actions | Lemon Law | FAQ | Resources | Newsletters | Spanish
Automotive    Education    Electronics    Family    Finance    Health    Homeowners    Shopping    Travel   
NEWS   Latest |  Archives |  Auto |  Cells, etc. |  Computers |  Financial |  Health |  Homeowners |  Parents |  Privacy |  Scams |  Seniors |  Travel

FTC Vows Not To Purge Numbers From Do Not Call List

Agency backtracks, says consumers won't need to reregister



October 23, 2007

Do Not Call

'Do Not Call' List Entries Are Now Permanent
North Carolina Asks Candidates to Respect 'Do Not Call' List
Congress Makes 'Do Not Call' List Permanent
FTC Vows Not To Purge Numbers from Do Not Call List
866 Calls Pushing Phony Health Insurance
FTC Sues Telemarketers for Do Not Call Violations
Telemarketers Must SendCaller ID Info
FCC Issues First Citation
AT&T Will Run DNC Database
AT&T Faces DNC Fine
DNC Registry Opens
Scam Artists Flock to DNC
Bush Signs DNC Bill

Backtracking from earlier statements, the Federal Trade Commission now says it will not purge consumers’ telephone numbers from the national Do Not Call list – numbers that most telemarketers are not permitted to call.

The first numbers were scheduled to be purged from the list in 2008.

Testifying before a House subcommittee, Bureau of Consumer Protection Director Lydia Parnes said that after "carefully considering" changes that have taken place since the registry was implemented in June 2003, “the Commission now commits that it will not drop any telephone numbers from the registry based on the five-year expiration period pending final Congressional or agency action on whether to make registration permanent.”

When the registry was developed, the FTC adopted a five-year reregistration mechanism and said that the list – which now contains more than 145 million phone numbers – would be periodically purged of disconnected or reassigned numbers.

The idea was to ensure accuracy, she said.

But since the registry has been in place, Parnes says several changes have occurred, including the increased use of cell phones and the popularity of telephone number portability.

Parnes also said the registry has been implemented successfully for five years and has included a scrubbing program that has removed disconnected and reassigned numbers each month. But perhaps the real reason for the change in policy is the agency’s desire to avoid messing up a good thing.

“The registry has enjoyed unprecedented popularity and helped enhance the privacy of the American public in a tangible way,” Parnes said.

Enforcement

Citing a Harris Interactive survey released in January 2006 showing that 94 percent of American adults have heard of the registry and 76 percent have placed their phone numbers on it, Parnes also described how the FTC operates the Registry, its fee structure, and the agency’s enforcement actions against companies and individuals who have not complied with its requirements.

Since the registry has been in place, the commission has initiated 27 cases alleging DNC violations, resulting in a total of $8.8 million in civil penalties and $8.6 million in consumer redress or disgorgement of ill-gotten gains.

In one recent case highlighted in the testimony, the commission targeted The Broadcast Team, a telemarketer that allegedly used “voice broadcasting” to make tens of millions of illegal automated telemarketing calls, often to numbers on the Registry.

According to the FTC’s complaint, The Broadcast Team violated the “abandoned calls” provision of the DNC component of the Telemarketing Sales Rule, either by immediately hanging up on a consumer, or in some instances playing a recording instead of connecting a consumer to a live sales representative within two seconds after the consumer answered the phone.

In settling the commission’s charges, The Broadcast Team agreed to pay a $1 million civil penalty, the second-largest penalty obtained in a Do Not Call case. Satellite television subscription seller DirecTV paid a $5.3 million penalty in 2005 for allegedly violating the Do Not Call provisions of the Telemarketing Sales Rule.

More Scam Alerts ...

Report Your Experience
If you've had a bad experience -- or a good one -- with a consumer product or service, we'd like to hear about it. All complaints are reviewed by class action attorneys and are considered for publication on our site. Knowledge is power! Help spread the word. File your consumer report now.


Consumer News

July 6 2008

Recent Recalls & Safety Alerts

Print, mail, etc.


FREE CONSUMER NEWSLETTERS

The Daily Consumer
Afternoons M-F

Sign up now!


Consumer News & Alerts
Every Sunday

Sign up now!


Knowledge is free.
Knowledge is power.







Back to the top |

Advertisement


Home | Rogues Gallery | Good Guys | Complaint Form | News | Recalls | Search | Video | FAQ |
Consumer Resources | Small Claims Guide | Lemon Law | Newsletter | Contact Us
Advertise With Us | Testimonials | Newsroom | RSS Feeds | Radio | Job Postings




Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use

Advertisements on this site are placed and controlled by outside advertising networks. ConsumerAffairs.com does not evaluate or endorse the products and services advertised. See the FAQ for more information.

Company Response Welcome If complaints about your company appear on our site, we welcome your response. Please see the Response Form for more information.

For more information, see the FAQ and privacy policy. The information on this Web site is general in nature and is not intended as a substitute for competent legal advice.  ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. makes no representation as to the accuracy of the information herein provided and assumes no liability for any damages or loss arising from the use thereof. 

Copyright © 2003-2008 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc.  All Rights Reserved.