FTC Bans Work-at-Home Operators from Selling Business Opportunities and Coaching Services

On December 14th, the FTC announced that they have settled a case against a company allegedly offering business opportunities and coaching services. The defendants in the case – Bob Robinson, Michael Sirois, and a number of their companies – were charged with violating the FTC Act and the FTC’s Business Opportunity Rule, which requires business opportunity sellers to make "certain disclosures to help consumers evaluate the opportunity" and "prohibits such sellers from making earnings claims without adequate substantiation." Under the settlement, the defendants are banned from selling business opportunities and business coaching services. They are also facing a partially suspended $35 million judgment and are required to turn over  $1.5 million worth of funds and assets. Read the FTC press release here. Many businesses like this engage in telemarketing. Make sure you understand FCC telemarketing laws.

New York Telefunder Being Targeted by State Attorney General

Telefunding business owner Mark Gelvan was banned from telefunding in the State of New York in 2004 after his phone agents allegedly impersonated police officers when they were calling potential donors. Regulators also alleged that Gelvan's company misrepresented how much of the donations would actually go to his charity clients and how much he would keep for himself. Now, the New York Attorney General is taking action against Gelvan again, alleging that he is operating a new telefunding business behind the scenes, with other individuals acting as the business owners on paper. Read an article with more details about the issue here. Telefunders as well as telemarketers should be sure not to impersonate any government employee or agency. They should also never misrepresent what their products or services actually provide or accomplish. This will help reduce complaints and regulatory attention. Learn about charitable telemarketing laws and nonprofit telemarketing laws. Whether your company does for profit or nonprofit telemarketing, make sure you understand all telemarketing rules. Consult with a telemarketing attorney to ensure full telemarketing compliance.

Kohl's Scores Big Win in TCPA Case

In Viggiano v. Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc., plaintiff Amy Viggiano alleged that Kohl's sent her unsolicited text messages after she had opted-out from receiving previous messages. Viggiano replied to the marketing messages by saying, “I’ve changed my mind and don’t want to receive these anymore,” “Please do not send any further messages,” and “I don’t want these message anymore. This is your last warning!” The terms and conditions that she accepted when she originally opted-in included the following language: "To stop receiving future Text Messages from Kohl’s pursuant to the Kohl’s Mobile Sales Alerts Program, you can text any of the following commands to 56457: STOP, CANCEL, QUIT, UNSUBSCRIBE, END." Learn about the laws related to texting cell phones.

The court ruled that because Viggiano didn't include the right opt-out wording in her texts, "Plaintiff has not plausibly pled a TCPA violation". The defendant's motion to dismiss was granted. Read the court's opinion here. Learn more about telemarketing to cell phones, telemarketing rules, do-not-call regulations and telemarketing compliance. Contact a TCPA lawyer if you find yourself involved in a telemarketing lawsuit.

FTC Obtains Court Order Shutting Down Debt Collection Business

The FTC has obtained a court order against a company that was allegedly deceiving consumers by convincing them that they owed false debts. According to the complaint, the callers would act like lawyers from debt collection agencies and demand that the call recipients send in money to settle the debts. Included in the court order is a $702,059 judgment against the defendants. Read more about this FTC order here.

District Court Rules that One Call is Sufficient to Breach Spokeo Defense in TCPA Case

The Spokeo defense has taken another negative blow. Under the Spokeo decision, the Supreme Court ruled that in order for a plaintiff to seek relief in Federal Court, some type of concrete damage or injury must have actually occurred. Defendants in TCPA lawsuits have tried to use this decision as a defense, arguing that plaintiffs who receive unwanted phone calls have not suffered any real injury. Early last month, the Northern District of Alabama held in Hossfeld v. Compass Bank that just one unsolicited phone call was enough to cause a concrete injury. This ruling, along with other recent similar court decisions, has made using the Spokeo defense much more difficult. A copy of the ruling can be accessed here. If you are involved in a TCPA lawsuit, contact a TCPA attorney.

CFPB Sues Debt Settlement Services Provider

On November 8th, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) filed a complaint against a telemarketing company that offers debt settlement services. The CFPB accused Freedom Debt Relief, LLC (Freedom) of misleading consumers by making false promises about what their services could achieve for them. For example, Freedom would allegedly promise their customers that they would negotiate with collections companies to settle their debts for much cheaper, when in reality Freedom knew that the collection companies would often be unwilling to engage in any reduced settlement talks. Read a copy of the CFPB's complaint here. Learn about telemarketing rules and telemarketing compliance. Ensure you understand and implement the advice of a telemarketing attorney if before you get on the phones.

Judge Denies TCPA Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Over "Clear and Conspicuous" Opt-In Language.

In Barrera v. Guaranteed Rate Inc., plaintiff Samuel Barrera filed a TCPA lawsuit alleging that the defendant, mortgage company Guaranteed Rate, called his cell phone using an ATDS without the proper consent. Guaranteed Rate filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Barrera had consented to receive such calls when he opted-in online. The Judge denied the motion, holding that the opt-in consent language on the website was not "clear and conspicuous.'' Read a copy of the Judge's decision here. Learn more about telemarketing regulations, robocall laws, and autodialer rules.