Debt collectors seeking to collect debt owed to or guaranteed by the U.S. government are no longer exempt from the TCPA.

The Fourth Circuit court found that the 2015 amendment to the TCPA, exempting automated calls that relate to the collection of debts owed to or guaranteed by the federal government, violates the First Amendment. The Court was “unpersuaded by the Government’s compelling interest argument.  Again, the debt-collection exemption does not further the purpose of the automated call ban in a narrowly tailored fashion.  Congress implemented the ban in order to protect privacy interests.  See S. Rep. No. 102-178, at 1, 5 (1991) (explaining that purpose of TCPA is to protect “privacy interests”); see also Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 565 U.S. 368, 372 (2012) (discussing congressional findings supporting TCPA prohibitions).  The debt-collection exemption, however, undercuts those privacy protections.  In fact, the exemption applies in a manner that runs counter to the privacy interests that Congress sought to safeguard.” For more information, you may read the courts opinion here. Learn more about telemarketing compliance, telemarketing rules, telemarketing regulations, telemarketing license requirements, and cell phone do not call laws.

Unified Data Services, LLC Challenges the FTC Opinion Letter Regarding Soundboard Technology.

Unified Data Services, LLC filed suit against the FTC on April 24, 2019, See Unified Data Services, LLC et. al. v. United States Federal Trade Commission, No. 2:19-CV-00698 (D. Nev. 2019). According to the Plaintiffs, “on November 16, 2016, the FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection. Division of Marketing Practices, issued a letter that, in practical effect, binds for the first time an entire sector of the telemarketing sales industry, including Plaintiffs, under the so-called “robocall” provision of the TSR.” UDS argues that “the 2016 Division Letter is invalid and unenforceable.” Further asserting that the FTC letter violates the First Amendment and the Notice-and-Comment Requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Allen, Mitchell & Allen will follow the case closely as this case may determine the future of soundboard technology as well as the validity of the FTC opinion letters. The filed Complaint may be obtained here.
Learn more about avatar telemarketing compliance here. Contact a telemarketing lawyer, telemarketing attorney, or TCPA expert if you need help understanding any topics discussed in this post. Robocall laws, autodialer laws, and do-not-call regulations are other topics that you should be sure to understand. 

FTC Alleges the operators of ClixSense and i-Dressup.com failed to secure consumers personal information.

The operators of online rewards website ClixSense have settled with the FTC regarding allegations that the website had insufficient security, while claiming it “utilizes the latest security and encryption techniques to ensure the security of your account information.”.  ClixSense collects personal information from users, including consumers’ names, dates of birth, answers to security questions, login and password credentials, and Social Security numbers. The FTC alleges that because the business, “failed to implement minimal data security measures” the personal information of 6.6 million consumers, including some 500,000 U.S. consumers were accessed by hackers.