http://money.netscape.cnn.com/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1310&idq=/ff/story/0001/20030924/163319003.htm&photoid=20030924SMO102&sc=1310


Judge Rules Against Do-Not-Call Registry
By JENNIFER L. BROWN

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - A federal judge has ruled that the Federal Trade Commission overstepped its authority in creating the national ``do-not-call'' list against telemarketers.

The ruling came in a lawsuit brought by telemarketers who challenged the list of 50.6 million numbers submitted by people who do not want to receive business solicitation calls.

The immediate impact of Tuesday's ruling by U.S. District Judge Lee R. West was not clear. He did not issue an order directing an action by the FTC. The list was to go into effect Oct. 1.

West said the main issue in the case was ``whether the FTC had the authority to promulgate a national do-not-call registry. The court finds it did not.''


In 1994, Congress enacted the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act that directed the FTC to ``prescribe rules prohibiting deceptive ... and other abusive telemarketing acts.''


But the judge said Congress gave the Federal Communications Commission, not the FTC, the authority to operate ``a single national database to compile a list of telephone numbers of residential subscribers who object to receiving telephone solicitations.''


The FTC said the Omnibus Appropriations Act, signed by President Bush in February, authorizes the FTC to ``implement and enforce the do-not-call provisions of the Telemarketing Sales Rule.''


``This decision is clearly incorrect,'' FTC chairman Timothy Muris said Wednesday. ``We will seek every recourse to give American consumers a choice to stop unwanted telemarketing calls.''


House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin, R-La., and Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., said they were confident the ruling would be overturned and that they believe Congress gave the FTC authority to operate the registry.


``We will continue to monitor the situation and will take whatever legislative action is necessary to ensure consumers can stop intrusive calls from unwanted telemarketers,'' they said in a joint statement.


Direct Marketing Association, one of the plaintiffs, said it was happy with the ruling, even though it ``acknowledges the wishes of millions of U.S. consumers who have expressed their preferences not to receive telephone-marketing solicitations - as evidenced by the millions of phone numbers registered on the FTC list.''


The DMA, a nonprofit trade organization representing 5,000 U.S. companies, said it will work with its attorneys, the FTC and the FCC during the next few days to evaluate what the ruling will mean for consumers and businesses.


The telemarketing industry estimates the do-not-call list could cut its business in half, costing it up to $50 billion in sales each year. Telemarketers would have 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.


The lawsuit was filed by U.S. Security, Chartered Benefit Services Inc., Global Contact Services Inc., InfoCision Management Corp. and Direct Marketing Association Inc.


A similar lawsuit is pending in U.S. District Court in Denver, where the trade group American Teleservices Association and two telemarketing companies sued in January to keep the FTC from starting the do-not-call program.


In the Denver case, the plaintiffs said the list would violate telemarketers' constitutional rights and exceed the FTC's authority. The FTC argued that the list presented no serious constitutional problems and was created under congressional authority in response to concerns about intrusions into consumers' privacy.


Plaintiffs in the Denver case are Mainstream Marketing Services Inc. of Boulder, Colo., and TMG Marketing Inc., a Nebraska company that operates from Denver.

I heard about it this morning. :mad:

That's stupid!:mad:

Let's call that judge at all hours of the day and night and try to sell him crap. Maybe he'll realize how f**king annoying those calls are.

Originally posted by dawsongirl
Let's call that judge at all hours of the day and night and try to sell him crap. Maybe he'll realize how f**king annoying those calls are.

Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I like that idea! :p :p :p to telemarketers! :explode:

:grr:

Originally posted by robyrob
:grr:

:nod:

The ruling came in a lawsuit brought by telemarketers who challenged the list of 50.6 million numbers submitted by people who do not want to receive business solicitation calls.

You'd think the governments of both the country and each and every state in the union would get a clue:

PEOPLE DON'T LIKE THESE INTRUSIVE, ANNOYING TELEPHONE CALLS!

We shouldn't have to request that we not be called. All of these calls should be illegal. The only calls that should be allowed at all would be those for charities.

I rarely answer my phone anymore. I'll just continue to screen all of my phone calls, like I've been doing for the last year or so.

Ugh!

That sucks. As far as I'm concerned it's up to me to decide who I want or don't want calling me. I'm the one who pays the phone bill so I should have a say in whether or not I want these people bothering me, not the government. Those people are so annoying and refuse to take NO for an answer.

http://member.compuserve.com/fotosrch/2/20030924SMO102.jpg

Originally posted by .simpson_10.
http://member.compuserve.com/fotosrch/2/20030924SMO102.jpg
What is this photo and what does it have to do with the thread topic?

Originally posted by BrandonS
What is this photo and what does it have to do with the thread topic?
Click Here To Find Out (http://money.netscape.cnn.com/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1310&idq=/ff/story/0001/20030924/163319003.htm&photoid=20030924SMO102&sc=1310)

Originally posted by Mijada
That sucks. As far as I'm concerned it's up to me to decide who I want or don't want calling me. I'm the one who pays the phone bill so I should have a say in whether or not I want these people bothering me, not the government. Those people are so annoying and refuse to take NO for an answer. "oooooh -but what about all the cr@ppy jobs that will be lost if this goes through!!!!" :( that ticks me off- they act like these are well-paying jobs that would lead to something better for people, but most of them are fly-by-night operations taking advantage of college students, and traps them in this special level of hell :mumble:

I don't think that requesting that telemarketers not call is illegal. I think harassing people by calling them when they don't wish to be called or selling things door-to-door should be illegal.

http://groups.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=MyPhotos_GetPubPhoto&photoId=nIgAAAOkJVYRO1Cs7mk1eFEZ9D5dioeVFB3Nlo5WhBpHPrkKjpFmGBOKGyeLWsPU!oy3IoRDBy8M

No big to me,since I love have fun with those people, I either hang on them or,Just say what everytime they ask a question

Originally posted by STEPH_McMAHON_FAN
No big to me,since I love have fun with those people, I either hang on them or,Just say what everytime they ask a question wasn't there some prank thing somebody posted online where the guy got the telemarketer to beleive that the guy's grandad was having a heart attack in the tub, but he was more interested in the cr@p they were selling?

I just heard that the "Do Not call List" is back in business.

Has anyone ever actually bought anything from a telemarketer? Because we just hang up on them, and I get the feeling that a lot of people do the same thing.

Second Judge Blocks Do-Not-Call List

By David Ho
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - With remarkable speed and near unanimity, Congress on Thursday passed legislation intended to ensure consumers can block many unwanted telemarketing calls. But whether the service millions of Americans signed up for takes effect next week was thrown into doubt when a second federal judge ruled the list violates free speech protections.

U.S. District Judge Edward W. Nottingham in Denver blocked the list late Thursday, handing another victory to telemarketers who argued the national registry is unconstitutional and will devastate their industry.

His decision came shortly after the House and Senate voted overwhelmingly for a bill making clear that the Federal Trade Commission has the power to enforce the "do-not-call" list. The legislation was prompted by an earlier ruling by a federal judge in Oklahoma City who 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. "Unwanted telemarketing calls are intrusive, annoying and all too common," he said in a statement.

The list that would block an estimated 80 percent of telemarketing calls is supposed to be effective Wednesday, but it's unclear whether legal issues will be settled by then. Even after Bush signs the legislation, the FTC must win in court for the list to move forward.

Despite the uncertainty, the FTC is encouraging people to continue signing up for the list at the Web site www.donotcall.gov or by calling 1-888-382-1222.

The FTC asked U.S. District Court Judge Lee R. West to block the order he issued Tuesday declaring the agency lacked proper authority to oversee the list. He declined Thursday and the FTC immediately appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

The FTC had no immediate comment on Nottingham's ruling, but it also probably will end up with the 10th Circuit.

The suit in Nottingham's court was filed in January by two telemarketing companies and the American Teleservices Association, which represents call centers.

Nottingham said the do-not-call list was unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it does not 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," Nottingham wrote.

Ken Johnson, spokesman for Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the ruling "puts a little damper on the party, but we're still confident of prevailing in the end." He said Tauzin's staff was reviewing the Denver decision.

During brief debates, House and Senate members made it clear they want the list.

"Clearly the court's decision was misguided," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., referring to West. "The measure before us makes crystal clear the commission can and should proceed with the do-not-call list."

He said the Oklahoma City ruling has "served as a rallying cry for the tens of millions of American households who signed up for the registry."

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said no one likes "hopping up and down like jackrabbits to answer the phone and then hear somebody on the phone try to sell you something. It drives you crazy."

The 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.

The rapid response underscored the popularity of the list, which after fewer than four months already has nearly 51 million numbers.

"This legislation got to the House floor faster than a consumer can hang up on a telemarketer at dinnertime," said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass.

Since issuing the ruling, 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.

"They just keep calling to harass us, like the telemarketers harass them, I guess," said Rick Wade, operations manager at the district clerk's office.

Despite the torrent of angry calls Thursday, West rejected the FTC's request to block his order, saying the agency offered no additional evidence that would make him change his mind.

The FTC expects the list to block four of every five telemarketing calls. Exemptions include calls from charities, pollsters and on behalf of politicians.

The FTC's rules require telemarketers to check the list every three months to see who does not 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.

Telemarketers say the list would severely harm their industry and lead to the loss of thousands of jobs. Still, the Direct Marketing Association, one of the groups that challenged the registry, said it has asked its members to obey the wishes of those who are enrolled in the registry.

"It is appropriate for marketers to respect the wishes of consumers," said H. Robert Wientzen, the association's president.

This is bull****. I know telemarketers are just doing their job (I was one for awhile while in high school), but these judges really should respect the peoples' wishes not to receive these calls. Any way you slice it, the calls are intrusive, and the pitches are persistent.

I say, let the do-not-call list go forward. If the consumer wishes not to be bugged, let him or her not be bugged.

Originally posted by AKA
This is bull****. I know telemarketers are just doing their job (I was one for awhile while in high school), but these judges really should respect the peoples' wishes not to receive these calls. Any way you slice it, the calls are intrusive, and the pitches are persistent.

I say, let the do-not-call list go forward. If the consumer wishes not to be bugged, let him or her not be bugged.

:nod: I agree.

I can understand and even appreciate the fact that they have to make a living and put food on their tables, but there is no reason they have to be as obnoxious as they are. Many times I've wished I could do to them, what they do to millions of people every single day.

I would be bothered by this but since I've got caller ID I don't even answer the phone unless I recognize the number.

Originally posted by AKA
This is bull****. I know telemarketers are just doing their job (I was one for awhile while in high school), but these judges really should respect the peoples' wishes not to receive these calls. Any way you slice it, the calls are intrusive, and the pitches are persistent.

I say, let the do-not-call list go forward. If the consumer wishes not to be bugged, let him or her not be bugged.

i dont feel this (or any other) judge is correct in saying that this would interfere with free speech - this is akin to coming into people's living room and making statements.... you have the right to freedom of speech in any public forum, not within the privacy of people's homes :mumble:

Originally posted by *Marilyn Monroe*
Has anyone ever actually bought anything from a telemarketer? . Yes.

We bought our house.

Some realitor called us...blah blah my mom talked to her.....she became our realitor....put us throught sooooo much bad crap...and now we have our house...


JUST SAY NO.

I just heard this news. This sucks.