December 28, 2003

"For telemarketers, 2003 was a year for reflection. It was a time to audit compliance processes, review campaigns and re-evaluate the business model. The national no-call list, supplemented by new restrictions on predictive dialers, forced marketers to look at themselves through the eyes of the public."

Jeff Schmitt, scripting and compliance manager at Advanced Data-Comm Inc., an inbound and outbound telemarketing company, commenting on the new rules and laws that went into effect in 2003 for telemarketers. From DM News, Identifying Exposure Points in DNC Regulations, December 24, 2003. Mr. Schmitt can be reached, toll free, at (800) 582-9501.

C.A.T.S. Comment: We agree with Mr. Schmitt. 2003 marked a turning point for the telemarketing industry. With over 53 million people on the national "Do-Not-Call" list the industry can no longer claim that the people who don't want telemarketing calls are a minority. Perhaps the industry will finally bring itself into compliance with the laws, but conventional wisdom says that the industry will find loopholes in the law which they will exploit.

We at C.A.T.S. wish all (including telemarketers) a happy holiday season and good wishes for 2004.

December 21, 2003

"This is a landmark enforcement step - the first FCC action to enforce our new National Do Not Call rules. This citation demonstrates our resolve to ensure that consumers are not bothered by unwanted, intrusive calls to their homes. Do Not Call enforcement is the FCC's top consumer protection priority and we, along with our partners at the FTC, will continue to be vigilant in this area on behalf of the American public.

"California Pacific Mortgage may be subject to a monetary forfeiture if it continues to violate the Do Not Call rules. The Communications Act, however, requires that the FCC issue a citation as a first step when dealing with a company that does not hold an FCC license or other authorization."

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Enforcement Bureau Chief David H. Solomon commenting on the first FCC Enforcement Bureau action of a violation regarding the National "Do-Not-Call" registry. From a press release by the FCC, STATEMENT OF ENFORCEMENT BUREAU CHIEF DAVID H. SOLOMON, December 18, 2003. Mr. Solomon can be reached at: (202) 418-7450.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Hold the phone! The FCC recently cited AT&T for violating FCC rules and proposed a fine of $780,000.00. AT&T has many land mobile (two-way radio), operational fixed (microwave point-to-point), and cellular phone service licenses. Yet despite this fact, the FCC, rather than revoking or suspending licenses issued to AT&T, instead issued them a citation with a proposed fine of $708.000.00. A $780,000.00 fine to a mega-corporation like AT&T is like a $20.00 fine to the average person. This action speaks volumes about the FCC's enforcement posture when it comes to the telemarketing industry.

An FCC license is a privilege, not a right, and to suspend or revoke it requires little action on the part of the issuing agency. The revocation or suspension of an FCC license would send a clear message to the telemarketing industry.

Who's kidding who, Mr. Solomon? Could it be that FCC took no action (except proposing a minor fine) against AT&T because of the high-dollar Washington lobbyists and lawyers that AT&T employs?

December 7, 2003

"Trendwest misled consumers through deceptive sales practices and non-disclosure, and illegally denied consumers the ability to cancel their contracts. This settlement will help make victims whole, and ensure Trendwest operates lawfully in the future."

Bill Lockyer, the Attorney General of California commenting on his department's actions against Trendwest, a company that offers timeshares. From a press release from the California Attorney General's office, Attorney General Lockyer Settles Lawsuit Against One of World's Largest Timeshare Firms, Trendwest Will Pay Restitution to Consumers and $795,000 in Civil Penalties, October 29, 2003. Mr. Lockyer can be reached through the Attorney General's Public Inquiry Unit at (916) 322-3360 or, within California, by calling (800) 952-5225.

C.A.T.S. Comment: C.A.T.S. founder Robert Arkow received a telemarketing call from Cendant (Trendwest's parent company) on August 5, 2003, from a telemarketer identified only as "April". When he asked April for a copy of their written "Do Not Call" policy, she turned and asked her supervisor what to do, The supervisor said, "If he's not interested then hang up" She did.

The property that they were selling was the Fairfield Grand Desert Resort in Las Vegas. Calls to the Fairfield Grand Desert Resort requesting the policy have been ignored. As of this date, the policy has not been received.

A lawsuit was filed against Fairfield Resorts Inc. on November 21, 2003. Court date is January 30, 2004. Stay tuned.

December 7, 2003

"The FTC’s [Federal Trade Commission's] basic no-call rule isn’t very helpful to consumers because it is riddled with loopholes.....

"Changes in the nature and source of the calls will result, but companies will find a way to run after telemarketing dollars. Telemarketers will pour through existing loopholes and through new ones yet to be devised."

Robert Gellman, a Washington-based privacy and information policy consultant, and former chief counsel to the House subcommittee on information, justice, transportation and agriculture, commenting on the FTC's "Do-Not-Call" list rule. From DM News, The Do-Not-Call Follies, December 4, 2003. Mr. Gellman can be reached via e-mail at: rgellman@netacc.net.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Great article Robert. This proves that the original Telephone Consumer Protection Act or TCPA (which was passed by Congress in 1991) may still be the best way to stop unwanted calls. This is because the old law allows a consumer to file a lawsuit for violations, and the new law does not.

The new laws depend on government enforcement. Telemarketers know that with government budgets stretched to the limit, there is little likelihood of enforcement. Thus, many telemarketers are willing to "roll the dice," and risk breaking the law.

Consumer generated lawsuits are, of course, another matter. Because people can sue under the old law, there is, at least, some measure of enforcement independent of government budgets. Our experience at C.A.T.S. has shown that once a telemarketer has a lawsuit on his hands, compliance with the law takes on a new significance.

November 30, 2003

"But I think for the industry, at least most of our clients have taken the position that if 50 plus million consumers have indicated that they don't want to receive unsolicited telephone calls, it doesn't make good business sense to expend the time and resources to place calls to those consumers."

Linda Goldstein, an attorney with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, a New York-based law firm, commenting on the response of telemarketers to the National "Do-Not-Call" list. From a web cast by Acxiom, Customer-Centric Privacy Compliance, November 12, 2003. Ms. Goldstein can be reached at (212) 373-5205.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Hold the phone! Even before the National "Do-Not-Call" list was in effect, when we told telemarketers to stop calling they STILL called. We don't know who your clients are, Ms Goldstein, but a quick check of their business practices would probably show that they continue to call people who tell them to stop. It is cheaper to call them than to expend the effort to remove them from their lists.

Nice try Ms G., but that is why the national list was created in the first place, because telemarketers continued to call after they were told to stop.

November 23, 2003

Consumer frustration has been building for years, and response rates to outbound campaigns have continued to decline, just as other channels have been declining. Some of the holdouts who tried to fight to the bitter end will go under, and some of them deserve it."

Art Schoeller, senior analyst at The Yankee Group, (a marketing group) Boston, MA, commenting about the effect that the National "Do-Not-Call" list will have on the telemarketing industry. From DM News, Evidence of No-Call Closings Unclear, November 17, 2003. Mr. Schoeller can be reached, via phone at (617) 956-5000.

C.A.T.S. Comment: It seems that the National "Do-Not-Call" list may ultimately benefit the telemarketing industry. Anyone on the list is probably not a good candidate for anything sold by telemarketing. Thus, the effect the National "Do-Not-Call" list may ultimately higher sales rates because the people left (those not on the list) will be more receptive to the message. While a few companies may go under, as Mr. Schoeller notes, the fact is that the companies remaining will obey the law will ultimately benefit the industry. By the way, even though the telemarketing industry ultimately benefits, they are STILL fighting this law. It makes one wonder what the industry leaders are thinking.

November 16, 2003

"Our outbound telesales department officially became a victim of the FTC DNC (Federal Trade Commission Do Not Call) list and all the related vilification via ad campaigns and such. We let a dozen people go, and our dialer and phone room sits empty."

Tony Kudalis, Technical Director for Best Lead Lists, a marketing firm. Mr. Kudalis has over 20 years experience with marketing databases and predictive dialers. From Direct Magazine, Letters To The Editor, November 16, 2003. Mr. Kudalis can be reached through his firm's toll free number: 888-610-8975, or via e-mail at: tony@morenamesnow.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: We are sure that most readers of this page will not even shed one tear over the loss of telemarketing jobs as a result of the new law. Maybe now we can eat our dinner in peace.

If the industry is so concerned about jobs, why not retrain the outbound telemarketers to take inbound calls? How many times have you hung up on a company you called because no one was available to talk to you? We've all heard the recording that says: "Your call is important to us." Now a ready and trained labor force is available to answer our calls.

Problem solved!

November 9, 2003

"This lawsuit should put all telemarketers on notice to get a copy of the Do Not Call registry and take the law seriously. Millions of Californians registered their phone numbers on the national list to reclaim their privacy and family lives from telemarketers. If you're on the FTC's registry and still getting calls, report it so we can continue to aggressively enforce the law to protect Californians."

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer commenting on the lawsuit that his organization filed against American Home Craft, Inc., a home improvement company and licensed contractor. The suit claims that they violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by placing telemarketing calls to California phone numbers listed on the FTC's Do Not Call Registry. The complaint also alleges American Home Craft violated state law by engaging in unfair competition. From a press release on the California Attorney General's web site, Attorney General Lockyer Files First Lawsuit Against Telemarketer for Calling Phone Numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, November 6, 2003. Mr. Lockyer can be reached through the Attorney General's Public Inquiry Unit at (916) 322-3360 or, within California, by calling (800) 952-5225.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Just as it took 10 years to get the FCC to enforce the TCPA, it now seems that California's Attorney General has finally got on the bandwagon as well. The real question is just how far will he go?

As an example, his predecessor, former Attorney General Dan Lundgren, violated the TCPA when running for Governor of California, while he was still Attorney General. (By the way, Lundgren's staff told the FCC that the reason that they violated the TCPA during the campaign for Governor was because they were unaware of the law!)

While we commend Attorney General Lockyer for his actions, we can't help but wonder when a politician violates the same law, will he take a similar action? Time will tell. Stay tuned.

November 2, 2003

"This is an important victory for American consumers. We believe the rule fully satisfies the requirements of the U.S. Constitution, and we will now proceed to implement and enforce the do-not-call registry."

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairman Timothy J. Muris commenting on the ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the FTC could implement the national "Do-Not-call" list. From DM News, Court OKs FTC Enforcement of No-Call Registry, October 8, 2003. Chairman Muris can be reached through the FTC's web site: www.ftc.gov.

C.A.T.S. Comment: The telemarketing industry may try to fight the Federal Government over the "Do-Not-Call" registry but the fact is that with the Congress and the President against the industry the chance of their victory is slim. The direct marketing industry should learn from this and watch what they do or a national "Do-Not-Mail" list could be next.

Like telemarketing, misleading and offensive mailings will anger the public and bring on a similar fate to the direct mail industry. After all, how many phony checks and sweepstakes are appearing in your mail?

The events of the last few months show the power of the consumer. The industry should take heed.

October 26, 2003

"According to the [Wisconsin] Department of Justice complaint, each of the companies named in the lawsuits called numerous Wisconsin residents on the state’s do-not-call registry."

Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager commenting on her recent lawsuit against three telemarketing firms for allegedly calling consumers listed on the state’s do-not-call registry.

The suits list Kuhn & Associates Inc., located in Madison, WI; Next Level Marketing Inc., Gurnee, IL; and Soho Marketing, Irvine, CA.

Soho Marketing, which allegedly does business as the Award Center, Debt Services International and Direct Reservations Center, made 121 illegal calls, according to the complaint on file with the Kenosha County Circuit.

Kuhn and Associates, which sells vacuum cleaners under the name Madison Kirby Co., is accused of making eight Calls to names on the do-not-call registry. The case is filed in Dane County Circuit Court.

Next Level Marketing, which markets buyers clubs under the name UCC Total Home of Gurnee, is charged with making ten calls. The case is filed in Kenosha County Circuit Court.

Penalties could include forfeitures and fines of up to $100 per violation.

From Direct Magazine, Wisconsin Sues Telemarketers for Do-Not-Call Violations, October 26, 2003. Ms. Lautenschlager can be reached through the Wisconsin Department of Justice at (608) 266-1221.

C.A.T.S. Comment: We salute your taking action against unlawful telemarketing, Ms. Lautenschlager. We hope your actions will deter other telemarketers from breaking the law, but if past history is any indication, we suspect that the telemarketing industry will not comply with the law despite your efforts. In any event, we here at CATS wish you well in your efforts. We commend you.

October 19, 2003

"I expect that this issue will reach the Supreme Court. My law firm filed facial challenges to two state lists (Indiana and North Dakota) prior to implementation of the federal list and the Colorado court decision. The Indiana list has already been upheld in state court in the face of a constitutional challenge by a commercial telemarketer. The Supreme Court usually tries to resolve conflicts between varying laws and courts, and given that conflicting decisions already exist, the press coverage of this issue, and that the issue affects more than two federal laws and about 40 state laws, national judicial resolution is likely."

William Raney, an attorney at Copilevitz and Canter LLC, Kansas City, MO., commenting about the national and state "Do-NotCall" lists. Last year he defended telemarketing company DialAmerica against a California plaintiff and lost. It seemed that despite the plaintiff's repeated requests to have DialAmerica stop calling the plaintiff did not say the "magic words" i.e. put me on your "Do-Not-Call" list. Therefore, DialAmerica kept calling. The judge disagreed with DialAmerica's position and they lost the lawsuit as well as an appeal. From DM News, The DNC Challenge and State Lists, October 17, 2003. Mr. Raney can be reached at: (816) 471-3977 or via e-mail at braney@copilevitz-cantor.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: C'mon William, is this really that difficult? What part of "Do-Not-Call" don't you understand? Do you need the Supreme Court to define that?

October 12, 2003

"Ignorance is no excuse. Make sure you understand the new regulations as adopted by the Federal Trade Commission and more recently by the Federal Communications Commission....

"Be prepared, ensure your vendors are prepared, and verify that you have a system in place that is compliant with all applicable federal and state regulations in addition to the new FTC and FCC no-call registry and other new rules."

Cheryl Baylor, vice president of marketing at Data Warehouse Corp., in Boca Raton, FL, commenting on the new FTC and FCC rules that telemarketers now have to follow. From DM News, The DNC Regulations: Prepare, Prepare, Prepare, September 20, 2003. Ms. Baylor can be reached, toll free, at (888) 707-7600 x232.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Really Ms. Baylor, do you think that telemarketers will now obey the law since they have been violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) since it was created by Congress in 1992? Even Dan Lundgren, California's former Attorney General and candidate for Governor, violated the TCPA while running for Governor! And what excuse did our former Attorney General give to the FCC when he was caught? He told the FCC that his managers were unaware of the law. And, as usual, the FCC issued no fines despite the violation.

So, Ms Baylor, if you truly believe that telemarketers willingly obey the law and face sanctions when they don't, we here at C.A.T.S. have one request. Can we have some of what you are smoking?

October 5, 2003

"If there weren't any Americans who didn't hate telemarketers before, they do now. To them, this looks like a bunch of cheap lawyer tricks."

Jon Hamilton, a 31 year veteran of the telemarketing industry and president of JHA Telemanagement Inc., commenting about recent the publicity regarding the two back-to-back court decisions against the national "Do-Not-Call" registry. From DM News, FCC Set to Enforce Oct. 1 No-Call Deadline, September 30, 2003. Mr. Hamilton can be reached, by phone, at (610) 347-0724.

C.A.T.S. Comment: For once we agree with you Jon. The industry has done nothing but stir up bad feelings about itself with these court challenges. As a result, the President of the United States, the Congress, and over 50 million Americans are upset with telemarketers in general.

At least you are being honest about the industry this time. We remember when you claimed that if the national "Do-Not-Call" registry were implemented that small towns like Harlan, IA would be wiped off the map (see our Quote of the Week for July 21, 2002). By the way, we checked...Harlan, IA is still there and is doing well.

Jon, we commend you for your honesty now. Hopefully the telemarketing industry will start being honest with themselves, our lawmakers, and the public as well.

September 28, 2003

"Fifty million people have already said, 'Leave us alone,' but telemarketers have said, 'We are going to court and bother you anyway.....'

[With the lawsuits] "telemarketers are drawing more public attention to the do-not-call list and getting more people who never heard of it to sign up. They've made telemarketing a real hot-button issue."

Walter Janowski, an analyst with Gartner Inc., a marketing research and consulting firm in Stamford, CT, commenting on the recent court decisions regarding the telemarketing industry's lawsuits filed against the national "Do-Not-Call" list. From the Los Angeles Times, Popular Do-Not-Call Law Faces Months of Delays, September 27, 2003. Mr. Janowski can be reached via the Gartner Group's Corporate Headquarters at: (203) 964-0096.

C.A.T.S. Comment: We agree. We have never seen such hatred stirred up against the telemarketing industry. It seems that the President, Congress, and the general public hate telemarketers more than the Taliban. We suspect that most Fortune 500 companies will now cease using this universally hated marketing method because of negative viewpoint and consumer backlash caused by the unwanted calls.

September 21, 2003

"It will be like an asteroid hitting the Earth. Two million people will lose their jobs."

Tim Searcy, executive director of the American Teleservices Association (ATA), commenting about implementation of the national "Do-Not-Call" list by the Federal Government. From the Boston Globe, Telemarketers speed-dial to beat do-not-call deadline, September 7, 2003. Mr. Searcy can be reached at the ATA's NEW toll free number: (866) 500-4272.

C.A.T.S. Comment: An asteroid hitting the earth? This sounds like yet another "great telemarketing lie" to us. Really, Mr. Searcy, don't you think that you are overdoing it just a bit? You are claiming a disaster of astronomical proportions. An asteroid hitting the earth would kill millions of people.

By making claims like this, you put the creditability of the ATA and yourself in question as well. Why should anyone believe either of you?

September 14, 2003

''We've had a lot of prank calls, people leaving funny messages, singing songs, playing the kazoo, being condescending, profane and people trying to get on the Do Not Call list."

Tim Searcy, executive director of the American Teleservices Association (ATA), commenting about the calls to his organization's toll free number when syndicated columnist Dave Barry told his readers to tell the ATA what you think of telemarketing and included the ATA's toll free number.

Although Searcy described the calls as ''a small blip of a nuisance,'' he maintained the ATA's official position: People have a right to make their calls. Searcy also said Barry's prank will be costly because the association must pay for the toll-free calls and for the staff member who spends hours sorting through the recorded messages.

From the Miami Herald, Dave Barry column unleashes flood of calls on telemarketing group, September 10, 2003. Mr. Searcy can be reached at the ATA's NEW toll free number: (866) 500-4272.

C.A.T.S. Comment: A small blip of a nuisance??? C'mon Tim, get real. The ATA's old toll free number (877-779-3974) was disconnected this week and there is no referral to the new number. We at C.A.T.S. suspect that it was more than a minor nuisance, it was a major headache.

There is no question that the telemarketing industry is in trouble in this country. If the industry wants to again gain favor with the public, a little honesty is a good first step. Remember the public's outcry when the CEO's of the major tobacco firms told Congress that "nicotine isn't addictive?" Your statement that the unwanted calls to ATA's number were a "small blip of a nuisance" has the same candor as well.

September 7, 2003

''I'm just thinking out loud here. I'm sure you have a better idea for how we can resolve our differences with the telemarketing industry. If you do, call me. No, wait, I have a better idea: Call the American Teleservices Association, toll-free, at (877) 779-3974, and tell them what you think. I'm sure they'd love to hear your constitutionally protected views!''

Dave Barry, a nationally syndicated columnist commenting on the position of the American Teleservices Association (ATA) which claims that their members a constitutionally protected right to call people at home to sell products and services, despite the fact that they are on an national "Do-Not-Call" list. From The Knight-Ridder News Service, Telemarketers still haven't dialed up meaning of 'do not call', August 30, 2003. Mr. Barry can be reached, via the Miami Herald Newspaper at: Barry c/o The Miami Herald, One Herald Plaza, Miami, FL 33132.

C.A.T.S. Comment: It seems that many people did take Mr. Barry's suggestion and called the ATA to tell them their opinion of telemarketing! Their business number was apparently swamped with calls from angry people. In fact, the ATA had to get a new toll free number to conduct its business. Calls to the old number are now greeted by voice mail, instead of a live operator.

Good! Hats off to you Mr. Barry! Its about time the ATA got a taste of its own medicine. Now the ATA knows what it is like to hide behind an answering machine to avoid calls. Should you wish to call the ATA and comment, their new number is: (866) 500-4272.

August 31, 2003

''By adopting a National Do-Not-Call List, we arm American consumers with a powerful tool to protect their privacy. This is one of the most significant things that the FCC has ever done for American families. It will benefit consumers on a daily basis and in a very personal way.''

Federal Communications Commission Commissioner (FCC) Jonathan S. Adelstein commenting on the FCC's implementation of a National "Do-Not-Call" list. From a press release by the Commissioner, July 3, 2003. Commissioner Adelstein can be reached by phone at (202) 418-2300

C.A.T.S. Comment: The only way the list will benefit American families and consumers is if the FCC enforces the law. Considering the fact that the FCC has barely enforced the laws that are currently on the books, we at C.A.T.S. suggest that California consumers still ask telemarketers for a copy of their company's written "Do-Not-Call" policy and keep a small claims court form handy. Considering the current state of compliance, we think that you'll need the small claims form!

August 24, 2003

''We're not opposed to the [Do-Not-Call] law in general. We're opposed to the government regulating what kinds of calls can and cannot be made, exempting politicians and charities.''

Tim Searcy, executive director of the American Teleservices Association (ATA) which filed suit federal court to stop the new laws. The suits claim that the FTC lacks jurisdiction to regulate telemarketing and the registry is an unconstitutional limit on commercial free speech. From the Miami Herald (Knight Ridder News Service), Solicitors dialing 'L' for loophole in no-call law, August 13, 2003. Mr. Searcy can be reached at the American Teleservices toll free number: (877) 779-3974.

C.A.T.S. Comment: OH--Get real Tim. Your argument is like claiming that you are not against drunk driving laws but the repeal of prohibition (the 21st amendment) never stated that the government could regulate whether one could or could not not drink intoxicating liquors while driving a car.

ATA members have continuously broken all the laws when it comes to telemarketing people despite their requests to be placed on company specific "Do-Not-call" lists. If your members had obeyed the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) back in 1992, these laws current laws (which you are fighting in court) would not have been passed.

You have only your self to blame.

When we pointed out those members of your organization that broke the law, we were told the the ATA is not a law enforcement organization, and that ATA would not take any action against them.

The real question is not whether ATA will win in a court battle but rather will the ATA's members finally obey the laws (new or old) or will they continue (as they have in the past) to ignore the laws? We, here at C.A.T.S., would bet on the latter.

August 17, 2003

"And if a question exists about the application of these laws to caller ID marketing and text messaging, what about telephony on the Internet or the use of predictive dialers on the Internet? As no-call lists shut down the kitchen phone as a storefront, will marketers turn to the family PC? If so, the ambiguity in whether these laws apply to these forums leaves cutting-edge marketers in even riskier territory......

"Where does all of this leave marketers who want to embrace new technology and reap the benefits? In a world that has lost its tolerance for excessive marketing and its fear of over-regulation? Afraid, very afraid."

Helen Mac Murray commenting on the regulatory climate currently in the United States. Ms. Mac Murray is head of the national regulatory practice unit at the law firm Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter, Columbus, OH, and a founding member of the Direct Marketing Association’s Teleservices Ethics Committee. From DM News, Is Teleservices Technology Ahead of Regulations, August 1, 2003. Ms. Mac Murray can be reached via e-mail at: hmacmurray@keglerbrown.com or by phone at: (614) 462-5400.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Marketers should be afraid, VERY afraid. Consumers have had it with their lives being interrupted by sales pitches. And they are tired of their kitchen phone (or any other phone for that matter) being turned into a storefront. Consumers are filing lawsuits at a record rate against telemarketers and junk faxers, yet the industry STILL continues to break the law.

Here's our challenge to you Ms. Mac Murray. Since you are a founding member of the Direct Marketing Association's (DMA) Teleservices Ethics Committee, we ask you to call 10 DMA members who are telemarketers and (without telling them who you are) ask for a copy of their written "Do-Not-Call" policy. As you are aware, the law requires that telemarketers make their written policy "available upon demand."

Several years ago Dateline NBC and Teleprofessional Magazine did similar tests and found compliance at around 35%. Let us know your results, we will publish them.

With the industry continuing to break the law at a rapid rate, is it any wonder why the number consumer lawsuits against the telemarketing industry is rising?

August 10, 2003

"The only reason privacy advocates get any play in the press is that so many consumer reporters are ignorant wannabe consumer advocates, and this industry plays right into their hands. How many daily newspaper reporters who happily filed pieces on the FTC’s no-call list were ignorant of how much their employers rely on telemarketing for subscription drives? Could it be, ALL OF THEM? And whose fault is that? Not theirs.

"This industry must emerge from its bunker....

"If Saudi Arabia can find a PR firm to put a positive spin on its terrorist-infested culture, direct marketing can find one to help its image. "

Ken Magill, iMarketing News Editor for DM News, commenting about state of direct marketing industry and its public relations efforts. From DM News, Column: Fine, Keep Your Head Down; See You at Unemployment, August 4, 2003. Mr. Magill can be contacted via DM News at: (212) 925-7300.

C.A.T.S. Comment: We agree. But if the direct marketing industry wants to improve its image with the public it will take more than a PR firm to do that. The direct marketing industry has to tell the truth, and not use clever ruses to hide what they do. For example, some companies claim that they do not sell or trade the data on their customers. The fact is that customer data is rarely, if ever bought, sold, or traded, it is rented. And don't forget "the great telemarketing lie" that telemarketing firms have used for years to justify their practices.

In direct marketing, as in life, honesty is still the best policy.

August 3, 2003

"The FCC has, for more than a decade, had a clear statutory duty to consider a broad array of business, consumer and potential constitutional issues in establishing telemarketing policy and its rush to judgment today amounted to an effective abandonment of that critically important regulatory duty."

American Teleservices Association (ATA) Chairman Tom Rocca commenting about the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adoption of major components of the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) new Telemarketing Sales Rule which created a national do not call list. From a press release by the ATA, FCC Votes to Eliminate Two Million Jobs, June 26, 2003 Mr. Rocca can be reached via ATA's toll free number, (877) 779-3974.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Rush to judgment???? This has been in the works for months. Both the FCC and FTC took literally thousands of comments, both from the industry and the public. It took thousands of hours to develop their regulatory positions.

Famous defense attorney, Johnnie Cochran, coined the term "rush to judgment" in defending his client, OJ Simpson. In view of the OJ civil trial's outcome and the attitude of the public in general toward Mr. Simpson, we at C.A.T.S. suggest that ATA choose different terms to describe their displeasure with the FCC's and FTC's actions. Surely, ATA could have picked a better role model.

July 27, 2003

"Fax.com, with high-level technology and low-level respect for the law, runs a 24-hour privacy invasion operation that continually spews unsolicited faxes and prerecorded phone calls. Junk faxes cost consumers, businesses and taxpayers tens of millions of dollars every year. Consumers' privacy, choice and pocketbooks have to be protected. With this action, and through our other efforts to fight spam and quiet telemarketers, that's exactly what my office intends to do."

California Attorney General Bill Locker commenting in a press release regarding the State of California filing a minimum 15 million dollar lawsuit against Fax.com for sending junk faxes. From a press release on the Attorney General's web site, Attorney General Locker Files Lawsuit Against One of Nation's Largest Junk Fax Businesses. Complaint Against Falcon Seeks More than $15 Million in Penalties and Other Relief, July 22, 2003. Attorney General Locker can be reached through the Public Inquiry Unit at (916) 322-3360.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Despite this action and a proposed notice of liability (a fine) of 5.38 million dollars by the FCC and a civil class action suit of $2.2 trillion dollars Fax.com simply ignores the law and continues to send junk faxes. A check of their web site does not even mention any of the above facts so potential clients have no idea what is going on.

We at CATS suspect that the last fax that Fax.com will send will be to the bankruptcy court for protection of their assets from the civil and criminal courts. Before that happens, we believe that the California Attorney General should simply raid their offices and shut them down.

July 20, 2003

"When you have 104 million [telemarketing cold calls] made each evening and you take 60 million off the list, we estimate that about one-third of all employees will lose their jobs. It's obvious - they will have no pool to call."

Tim Searcy, executive director of the American Teleservices Association, (formerly the American Telemarketing Association), commenting about the new National "Do-Not-Call" list. From The New York Daily News, No calls means no jobs. Telemarketers say registry could mean 2 million layoffs, July 13, 2003. Mr. Searcy can be reached, toll free, at: (866) 500-4272.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Now it seems that the American Teleservices Association (ATA) is concerned about jobs. They claim that the National "Do-Not-Call" list will cost thousands of American telemarketers their jobs.

However, the ATA failed to echo similar concerns when some of their members laid off American telemarketers and hired replacements from India and the far east in order to cut costs.

What about those jobs, Mr. Searcy? Don't those people matter at all to your members? We guess not.

July 13, 2003

"When my office asked MCI, AT&T and Southwestern Bell for copies of the do-not-call lists they are required to keep, the phone companies went to court in Cole County to block our efforts.

"The telephone companies and their lobbyists have been quite skillful in carving out and keeping their loophole in the state No Call law. That does not mean, however, that they can flout federal telemarketing rules. These lawsuits show I will use every tool available to me to fight for the rights of Missourians to be free from these unwanted intrusions by telemarketers"

Missouri Attorney General Jeremiah W. "Jay" Nixon commenting about the lawsuits he has filed on behalf of the citizens of Missouri in federal court against MCI, AT&T and Southwestern Bell. The suits accuse the firms of violating the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by continuing to make telemarketing calls to Missouri consumers who have asked them to stop. From Direct Magazine, Missouri AG Sues Long-Distance Firms Over DNC, July 12, 2003. Mr. Nixon can be reached through the Missouri Attorney General's office at: (573) 751-3321.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Way to go Mr. Nixon! It looks like the citizens of California may need a new Governor soon. If your term as attorney general is nearing an end, why not consider moving to the sunshine state and running for Governor? You would definitely get our vote!

July 6, 2003

"We were the inventors of telemarketing. Who wants to be called now, nobody. We are looking at things that are more respectful [of customers]."

[When asked afterward if those comments meant that AT&T planned to stop calling at inconvenient times of day, Ms. Constable responded:] "Not at dinnertime."

Cathy Constable, vice president of marketing communications at AT&T. From AdAge.com, AT&T REEVALUATES TELEMARKETING POLICY, Says It Wants to Be More Respectful of Consumers, June 25, 2003. Ms. Constable can be reached at (908) 234-6200.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Not at dinnertime? Well, not really. Last year AT&T started a guerrilla-marketing project that included advertising on pizza boxes, to make sure the company's messages were still in front of consumers when they sat down to eat, and wrapped its brand messages around coffee cups and water bottles handed out for free in California.

Actions like this make AT&T's claims of trying to be more respectful of consumers (especially at dinnertime) somewhat hard to swallow.

June 29, 2003

"Unwanted telemarketing calls are intrusive, they are annoying, and they're all too common."

George W. Bush (R-President of the United States) commenting about telemarketers during his signing of the law creating the National Do Not Call Registry, maintained jointly by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). From CBS News's web site, 'Do-Not-Call' Site Swamped, June 27, 2003. George W. Bush can be reached via the White House operators at: (202) 456-1414.

C.A.T.S. Comment: President Bush has signed into law the most sweeping reforms that the telemarketing industry has ever seen. His pointed comments about the telemarketing industry were evident during the signing ceremony at the White House.

C.A.T.S. congratulates President Bush on the signing of the bill that creates the list. It will be interesting to see how the telemarketing industry complies with the new laws. If past practice is any indication, the FCC and FTC enforcement people will be very busy indeed.

So far the only actions taken by the industry are several lawsuits claiming that the legislation is a violation of the First Amendment (freedom of speech). Most legal scholars give the suits little chance of success. Stay tuned!

June 22, 2003

"This [telemarketing] is the core of the whole privacy issue. People tell me this is the No. 1 annoyance in their lives."

California State Senator Liz Figueroa (D-Fremont) commenting on the subject of telemarketing to the New York Times. From The New York Times, Limits to Be Set on Telemarketing, June 20, 2003. Ms. Figueroa can be reached, via her State Senate office, at (916) 445-6671.

C.A.T.S. Comment: It seems that the outbound telemarketing industry has made quite a name for itself. The telemarketing industry now finds itself in the same position that the tobacco industry was several years ago.

The tobacco industry learned that fighting the government and the public did not work, and as a result no longer does so. Now the industry tries to work with legislative bodies and is trying to repair its image. Unfortunately, the telemarketing industry is fighting the law with lawsuits.

If history does repeat itself, the telemarketing industry will be in even more trouble as a result. If they lose the court fight, they will be in the public spotlight even more. If they win, the public's anger will translate into legislation that is even more devastating, as well as judgment proof. The court battle they ultimately need to win, is in the court of public opinion.

C.A.T.S. believes that the leaders* of the telemarketing industry are highly intelligent, talented individuals. Its amazing that these exceptional people fail to realize, in reality, how futile their court battles are.

*C.A.T.S. is referring to the leaders of the American Teleservices Association (ATA) and the Direct Marketing Association (DMA).

June 15, 2003

"Yeah, did you understand that? F---ing hang up on somebody like that again -------I'm coming in to your f---ing house you --- ---- ---. What the ---- you going to do? I'll ----ing kill you"

Comments from a telemarketer selling Qwest long distance service made to a resident of Evergreen, Colorado. (The resident chooses to remain anonymous.) The call was made after the resident hung up on the telemarketer the first time he called. The resident let the second call go to voice mail where the telemarketer left the above remarks. The telemarketer worked for Teleperformance USA, a telemarketing firm hired by Qwest. From KUSA 9's (NBC Denver) web site, Qwest to terminate subcontractor's contract after homeowner receives death threat from telemarketer, June 11, 2003. Teleperformance USA can be contacted, toll free at: (800) 431-5101.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Teleperformance USA refused an on camera interview with KUTV (CBS TV, Salt Lake City, Utah) reporters, however they did issue the following statement after the incident:

"Teleperformance USA strives to maintain the highest standards of professionalism. The individual in question has been subject to disciplinary action and no longer works for the company. The company regrets any distress caused by the incident and will extend its full cooperation to any investigation by the authorities."

It turns out that the telemarketer had lots of personal information on the person that he called, but the victim is not allowed to get any information on the telemarketer who threatened his life. It seems that telemarketers have privacy rights, even when they threaten the lives of the people they call. Kinda gives you a warm feeling, doesn't it?

For the record, law enforcement authorities are investigating the incident. Further, C.A.T.S. apologizes to our viewers for the "colorful language" used in this week's quote.

June 8, 2003

"TCPA [The Telephone Consumer Protection Act] provides for an action to 'recover for actual monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive up to $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater'. We conclude that the alternative remedy provided by the statute of up to $500 in damages for each violation is punitive rather than compensatory and that claimant therefore was not required to prove actual damages in order to recover. The legislative history of TCPA indicates that the statute was intended to provide a remedy to consumers for telemarketing abuses, and to encourage consumers to sue and obtain monetary awards based on a violation of the statute. Because 'actual monetary losses from telemarketing abuses are likely to be minimal', a statutory penalty is necessary to provide incentive for consumers to enforce the statute. The penalty need not be measured by the loss incurred by claimant where it is imposed as a punishment for the violation of a public law."

A ruling by the Supreme Court of The State of New York in the case of Martin Kaplin V. Democrat and Chronicle, a newspaper in Rochester NY. From the New York Supreme Court (Justices Green, J. P., Lawton, Hayes, Hurbutt and Balio, JJ.). From the written decision, November 12, 1999. The Court can be reached via phone at: (518) 455-7700 or via United States Mail at: New York State Court of Appeals, 20 Eagle Street, Albany, New York 12207-1095.

C.A.T.S. Comment: The New York Supreme Court got it right!! Congress wanted the law to be enforced by the average citizen, so they created a "private right of action" when they crafted the law. A number of states have done the same thing when it comes to spam in our e-mails. The Federal Government is now considering creating a "private right of action" for spam as well.

We at C.A.T.S agree. The "private right of action" clauses in the TCPA have worked well, and Congress should treat unsolicited e-mail much like it treats unsolicited telemarketing calls. Give the Internet communality the ability to take spammers to court.

June 1, 2003

"I am very concerned about a federally sponsored do-not-call list, as it will receive tremendous marketing via all media outlets. This list will grow rapidly as a result of all of this attention and as it grows, the pool of available numbers to call will shrink indefinitely. There will be an accelerated need to join the list as remaining households will receive ever-increasing calls. Without a doubt this will cause worldwide economic catastrophe. I am not an alarmist. But mark my words, when I say the government backing and subsequent free marketing of this list will plunge the world into depression."

Rich Tehrani, Group Editor-in-Chief of Customer Inter@ction Solutions, (formerly Telemarketing) magazine commenting about the Federal Trade Commission's new Telephone Sales Rule creating a new national "Do-Not-Call" list. From High Priority, What More Could "The Industry" Have Done, Customer Inter@ction Solutions, May 2003, Vol. 21/No. 11. Mr. Tehrani can be reached, toll free, at (800) 243-6002, or by e-mail at: rtehrani@tmcnet.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Mr. Tehrani: We have heard this kind of talk before. It seems that whenever a law is proposed against the Direct Marketing Industry, gloom and doom are usually predicted by the Industry. Case in point, when the government was considering the Drivers License Privacy Act, the Direct Marketing Industry made similar predictions about the survival of their industry and the economy in general. Those predictions never happened.

If you truly believe that the passage of the new Telephone Sales Rule will lead to a worldwide economic catastrophe and depression, then why aren't you not selling your part of the magazine's assets, and buying gold instead?

Please, Mr. Tehrani, put us on your "Do-Not-Gall" list.

May 25, 2003

"It's put a hell of a burden on us. You want to continue the way you used to, but you've got to check into everything. "

David Voelker, president of Don Allen Automotive Group, a five-franchise dealership in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, commenting about the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) "Do-Not-Call" list (and Pennsylvania's state wide "Do-Not-Call" list) and the effect that they have had on their businesses. From Automotive News, Dealerships must verify prospects have not signed up, May 20, 2003. Mr. Voelker can be reached, by phone, at (412) 681-4800.

C.A.T.S. Comment: That's right, car dealerships fall under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) when they call you "encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services." But there is one loophole that the car dealers have. Since you went to the car dealership for a test drive or showed interest in the car, the dealership now has an "established business relationship" with you. You can end this "established business relationship" by telling them not to call again.

Here's a better way. Since most car dealerships ask you for your driver's license when you take a test drive we recommend that you make some photocopies of your driver's license with your personal information (like your address) "blacked out" with a magic marker before you go to the dealership. When they ask for your driver's license, give the photocopy to them. When they ask for your phone number refuse to give it. If they insist however, you can give your number and when they call (and they will call) say "Put me on your "Do-Not-Call" list and send me a copy of your written "Do-Not-Call" policy." They are now required to do so, and failure to do this can result in a civil action against the dealership.

Protecting your privacy starts with you. Taking some pro-active steps now will result in less intrusions later.

May 18, 2003

"This comes as welcome relief from telemarketers who have interrupted us during dinnertime far too many times. All Americans will have a choice to opt-out of unwanted telemarketing calls and enjoy a little privacy at home for a change."

Congressman Billy Tauzin (R-Louisiana), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and sponger of the bill that created the national "Do-Not-Call" list by the Federal Trade Commission. From CBS News, 'Do Not Call' Closer To Reality, February 13, 2003. Mr. Tauzin can be reached at his Congressional Office, via phone, at (202)-225-4031.

C.A.T.S. Comment: It seems now that Republicans like Billy Tauzin are working on the side of consumers when it comes to telephone privacy. And President Bush recently signed Mr. Tauzin's bill which will create a national "Do-Not-Call" list.

While Republicans traditionally in the past called such measures "anti-business," it now seems that they have finally got the message that privacy is, in the end, best for for consumers and businesses as well.

May 11, 2003

"...when nondisclosure is accompanied by intentionally misleading statements designed to deceive the listener, the First Amendment leaves room for a fraud claim."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the United States Supreme Court, commenting on the unanimous ruling the court made in favor of the Illinois Attorney General in the state's case against Telemarketing Associates Inc. Telemarketers that telemarket without intentionally misleading donors may continue to do so. But telemarketers who purposely fool potential donors into thinking that more of their money goes to charity as opposed to fundraising costs had better watch out. It turns out that Telemarketing Associates Inc. kept 85% if all the funds they collected on behalf of VietNow. From CBS News, Telemarketers Told To Tell The Truth, May 5, 2003. Justice Ginsburg and the Supreme Court can be contacted, via US Mail, at: Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, DC 20543.

C.A.T.S. Comment: What a mouthful from the Supreme Court! The telemarketing industry constantly misleads people (primarily legislators) with their statements. Let's look at a few....

We don't call anyone who doesn't want to be called.
Over 70% of people view telemarketing calls as an invasion of privacy Telemarketers typically sell to less than 5% of the people they call. Most consumers just hang up.

Telemarketing results in over 20 million (or some other ridiculous amount) in sales. The industry defines "telemarketing" as sales by telephone, which includes inbound calls. This makes telemarketing appear larger and more successful than it is. Most ordinary people define telemarketing as the annoying outbound calls. Remember how President Clinton defined sex?

Telemarketing creates jobs. It turns out that many of those "jobs" created are offshore in countries like the Philippines or India. Of course the industry doesn't tell legislators that little detail.

Is the telemarketing industry guilty of making statements where "nondisclosure is accompanied by intentionally misleading statements designed to deceive the listener?" You be the judge.

May 4, 2003

"There's going to be an impact, particularly on the smaller companies. So what's a company with $25,000 in annual revenue going to do?"

 Benjamin Harris, president of Unicall International in Fairlawn, Ohio, commenting on the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) plans to create a national "Do-Not-Call" list. Harris estimates that the cost of buying all the state do-not-call lists, the FTC list and hiring a couple of people to administer them, as well as buying equipment to deduplicate the files is likely to run as high as $250,000 From Direct Magazine, Abandoned Calls, March 1, 2003. Mr. Harris can be reach at Unicall's toll free number: (877) 864-2251

C.A.T.S. Comment: The telemarketing companies are crying in their beer over the FTC's new rules. Of course what the telemarketing companies failed to say is the fact that for years the industry was out of control, which is the reason that the new rules were enacted in the first place.

We at C.A.T.S. will make a prediction. The telemarketing industry will hire high priced lawyers to fight these new laws any way they can. And if that does not work, they will "interpret" the laws in their favor until the courts tell them otherwise. In short, they will obey the new rules like they obeyed the old rules. Consumers will be the losers and the telemarketing lawyers will be the winners.

Ultimately, the consumers who "win" against the telemarketers will use the simple strategy of wasting as much of the telemarketer's time as possible and not buying the product or service. That is a weapon that the telemarketers cannot beat.

April 27, 2003

"Telemarketers are the scum of the earth. They are a pain in the *&# selling me $@!p that I don't want like g!#d$%m vacation shares and credit card offers. I especially hate those so-called stockbrokers asking me for $10,000 to invest. Dammit, I don't have 10 cents. Thank God for caller ID. I screen my calls so I won't have to answer the phone and listen to those scum-sucking maggots. I would love to pop one in the mouth.&ldots;Gee, do I have a problem with telemarketers? H%ll yeah!"

 One response to an informal e-mail survey regarding consumer attitudes toward various forms of direct marketing. The survey was done by Beth Negus Viveiros, executive editor of Direct Magazine. From Direct Magazine, Welcome to the Love Fest, March 15, 2003. Ms. Viveiros can be reached by phone at 617-916-2762, or via e-mail at bethdirect@aol.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: It takes a lot of guts for the editor of a direct marketing magazine, supported entirely by advertising, to print such a response. We at C.A.T.S. take our hats off to you, Ms. Viveiros, for printing that response to your survey.

A number of years ago the Editor-in-Chief of Teleprofessional Magazine did a "test" of industry compliance and printed the results. Needless to say, the industry failed to pass the test and when the article was published, many advertisers threatened, and later pulled their advertising from the magazine. As a result, the person who did the survey and wrote the article "quit" the magazine soon after the article appeared. The publisher soon "left" the magazine as well.

The end result was a loss of talent and revenue, causing Teleprofessional Magazine to cease publication as we knew it. Of course this did not stop the citizen outrage with the industry or the resulting legislation from that anger.

We at C.A.T.S. hope that the industry has learned the lesson that killing the messenger does not stop the message.

April 20, 2003

"Telemarketing as we know it is dying. This [Federal Trade Commission] bill will have unintended consequences that will negatively impact the vacation ownership industry. We just want to be able to market to those people who have shown an interest.”

Howard Nusbaum, president of the American Resort Development Association (ARDA), a Washington, D.C.-based trade association representing the vacation ownership and resort development industries. From hotelbusiness.com, HB ON THE SCENE: Timeshare Takes Center Stage At ARDA, April 8, 2003. Mr. Nusbaum can be reached by phone at (202) 371-6700x142.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Let's see, Mr. Nusbaum says that the industry he represents only wants to call people that have "shown an interest". So when we enter a contest to win a car, why do we get calls from timeshare companies based on that entry? All we were interested in was winning a free car, not buying a timeshare. This sounds like just another example of telemarketing double speak to us.

Please, Mr. Nusbaum, put us on your "Do-Not-Gall" list.

April 13, 2003

"The people who run the industry will tell you that companies do comply with the law, that the law breakers are the 'fly by night' operators who run boiler rooms. Let me tell you some of the companies that I have had to challenge or take to court. Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Circuit City, The Los Angeles Times, The Los Angeles Daily News, Chase Manhattan Bank, The online services, Prodigy and Compuserve, Time Warner Cable, Media One Cable, Household International, Independent realtors that represent Century 21 and ReMax. This is but a partial list. Do these companies sound like 'Fly By Nights' to you?"

Robert Arkow, founder and president of Californians Against Telephone Solicitation, in a speech to the State Senate of California, Business and Professions Committee during hearings to create a state-wide "Do-Not-Call" list. The hearings were held in June, 1998. Robert Arkow can be contacted via e-mail at bob@stopjunkcalls.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Many of these companies still violate the the law today on a daily basis. One wonders if they will violate the the new national "Do-Not-Call" list law that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is planning to implement next October. The FTC has threatened to issue an $11,000 per call fine for calling anyone on the list.

One thing is for sure--the telemarketing lawyers will continue to be busy as they defend their clients when they break this new law, just like they defended them when they broke the old laws. Stay tuned!

April 6, 2003

"With due respect for the lawsuits launched by the Direct Marketing Association and the ATA [American Teleservices Association] and the associated companies, Congress, the FTC [Federal Trade Commission] and the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] have made a decision: Outbound telemarketing is dead.

"Chairman M and the politicians can take solace. They have succeeded in destroying an annoyance. They have tamed the menace of a phone call.

"And to think, all a consumer had to do was hang up!"

Don Jackson is an author and chairman of JCG Ltd., a consulting firm specializing in insurance direct marketing. Jon Hamilton is president of telemarketing consultancy, JHA Telemanagement. From Bad Policy, Direct Magazine, March 1, 2003. Mr. Jackson can be reached, toll free, at (866) 450-7005. Mr. Hamilton can be reached at (610) 347-0724, or via e-mail at jhatelemgt@aol.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: WRONG! The FTC and FCC did NOT decide that outbound telemarketing is dead. Angry consumers decided that long ago, and now the politicians and government agencies are listening and acting on their outcry.

If the telemarketing industry had listened long ago to consumers, the actions by the FTC and FCC would not have happened. As veterans of the telemarketing industry you should have seen this coming. You have only yourselves to blame.

March 30, 2003

"Every phone call is going to be longer because the disclosures are more complex. You’re going to have to have more people or handle less transactions per hour."

Lewis Rose, an attorney with Collier Shannon Scott, a law firm that specializes in the Telephone Sales Rule (TSR), commenting on the new rules that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has put in place, and how it will affect the telemarketing industry. From DM News, TSR Changes: Are Telemarketers Ready?, March 27, 2003. Mr. Rose can be reached by phone at his law firm: (202) 342-8400.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Hold the phone! Wasn't it the telemarketing industry that told legislators that the industry created jobs, and as a result they should not have to deal with more regulations? It seems to us that the industry should be rejoicing, not complaining. After all, the Federal Trade Commission's new rules will create even more jobs for the industry. This is an industry that constantly reminds Congress and the state legislators that they created more jobs. They should be very happy. We at C.A.T.S. are!

March 23, 2003

"The FTC [Federal Trade Commission] has accepted our request and delayed implementation of these regulations. Our members will now have the time to plan more effectively for compliance."

Matt Mattingley, Director of Government Affairs for the American Teleservices Association (ATA), commenting on the Federal Trade Commission's decision to grant their request to delay recently enacted rules for predictive dialers for six months. The Association claims that their members need six months to comply with the new rules. From a press release at the American Teleservices Association's web site, FTC Stays Ruling, Compliance Deadline Extended for Recorded Announcements, March 14, 2003. Mr. Mattingley can be reached, toll free at: (877) 779-3974.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Huh? Six months to comply with a rule? Let's look at the record.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act or TCPA was passed by Congress 10 years ago and many of your members still violate the act on a daily basis. And when we tell the ATA about them, your Association fails to take any action against them.

Its no wonder that an FTC official last year commented that: "You don't have a lot of credibility, to be perfectly honest, This industry [telemarketing] since 1995 has had a chance to make a company-specific do-not-call system work." What will ATA's excuse be six months from now when their members still fail to comply with the FTC's rules?

Please, Mr. Mattingley, put us on your "Do-Not-Gall" list.

March 16, 2003

"I believe that consumers have a right to privacy in their own homes and should be able to prevent unsolicited telephone calls.

"This bill will give consumers a choice in limiting the telephone calls they receive without having to go to the expense of leasing or purchasing special equipment."

State Senator Robert Spada, (R-North Royalton Ohio) commenting about the legislation that he introduced to establish a do-not-call list for Ohio. Ohioans wishing to be placed on such a list would notify the state attorney general's office that they don't want to receive unsolicited calls on their home phones, cellular phones and fax machines. From the Cincinnati Enquirer and the Associated Press, Bill would establish no-call list in Ohio, March 10, 2003. Senator Spada can be reached via his Columbus, OH office at: (614) 466-8056.

C.A.T.S. Comment: What's this?? A pro-business conservative, republican state senator introducing a bill against the telemarketing industry? Seems so. And this week President Bush approved the funding for a national "Do-Not-Call" list as well.

While the Republicans and Democrats will disagree on many things, it seems that they can all agree on the fact that telemarketers should be restricted.

Despite the high paid lobbyists that the telemarketing industry employs, it seems that they have made some powerful enemies in the state and federal governments. Thank goodness that the telemarketing industry has failed to learn from its past mistakes, and is making the same mistakes over and over again.

March 9, 2003

"...at a weekly strategy meeting for conservatives...a representative from the telemarketing industry bad-mouthed a proposed Federal Trade Commission [FTC] rule change that he said would expand government power and throttle small business—the sort of thing that normally reminds me of why I’m a right-winger.

"Only this time the government would muzzle unsolicited sales calls. The FTC merely proposes to set up a national ‘do not call’ list, banning telemarketers from phoning people who put their names on it. The telemarketers say millions of jobs are at stake, including jobs that ‘offer flexible hours, allowing parents to spend time with their families’—without noting that these jobs deprive other parents of spending time with their own."

John J. Miller commenting on remarks from someone from the telemarketing industry regarding the proposed regulations from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Mr. Miller is National Review magazine’s National Political Reporter, based in Washington, D.C. He writes frequently for a variety of publications, including the New York Times, Investor’s Business Daily, the Wall Street Journal, Reader’s Digest, and The New Republic. More recently, The Washington Monthly dubbed him a “rising star” among a “new generation of conservative thinkers and writers. From The New York Times, Curb the Endless Ringing of the Telemarketers, May 18, 2002. Mr. Miller can be reached via e-mail at: letters@nationalreview.com or via National Review at: 212-679-7330.

C.A.T.S. Comment: When a pro-business, anti-government regulation conservative like Mr. Miller wants to see government regulation enacted against the outbound telemarketing industry, you know that the industry is in serious trouble. Yet they continue to use the same old tired arguments to defend their industry. Arguments, which, by the way, that have failed miserably in the past.

My grandmother used to say: "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got." Good words of advice for an industry that can't (or won't) learn from it's past mistakes.

March 2, 2003

"Telemarketing companies will have to pay at least $50,000 per employee to pay for people to administer this program. You can't leave this to people who make minimum wage. It's too important.

"Companies will have to pay at least $500 to $1,000 per representative for bonding and insurance. [It's seems a small cost] but there's a high turnover in telemarketing companies, so it could add up over time."

John Crouthamel, chief operations officer of Prosodie Interactive in Fort Lauderdale, FL and chair of the Direct Marketing Association's Teleservices Council operating committee, talking about the new rules that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is requiring telemarketers to follow. From Direct Magazine, Abandoned Calls, March 1, 2003. Mr. Crouthamel can be reached, toll free at: (877) 453-5700 extension 276.

C.A.T.S. Comment: As more laws are passed against the telemarketing industry, the cost of telemarketing increases. Soon it will be less expensive for companies to market their products by a means other than telemarketing. We as consumers can help speed up this process by costing telemarketers even more money when they call us. Waste their time, waste their money, and never buy from them should be your motto.

As the cost of telemarketing rises, companies will drop this marketing method and find other less costly and less intrusive methods to market their products. When they call you should "tease" them (by acting interested in the product or service) into giving out more information about themselves. And be sure to ask for a copy of their "Do-Not-Call" policy, as this costs them even more money. The more money they spend by making the call, the faster this method of marketing will end. We can do it!!!

February 23, 2003

"They're missing the whole point. The FTC [Federal Trade Commission] has created no exemptions, except for political calls. It's just that they can't enforce [it] on these people."

Jon Hamilton, a 30 thirty year veteran of the telemarketing industry and president of JHA Telemanagement, a teleservices consultancy. He claims that many in finance and telecommunications think that because they are outside FTC jurisdiction, they will be exempt from the DNC (Do-Not-Call) list.

But the Federal Communications Commission can enforce rules on anyone who uses the phone for marketing. In January, the FCC said it expected to issue its final rules concerning telemarketing in late spring and that it was working closely with the FTC. From DM News, Does DNC Really Spell E-N-D for Telemarketing, February, 21, 2003. Mr. Hamilton can be reached at: (610) 347-0724 or via e-mail at jhatelemgt@aol.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Here Jon goes again, making yet another outrageous statement. The article claims was that the proposed DNC law will actually make telemarketing more efficient by eliminating those people that sign up for the list, since those people are not good prospects for the calls anyway. Despite this obvious finding, Mr. Hamilton warns of hidden dangers that may or may not exist with the law, since the FCC has not issued its final rule making yet. With statements like this, is it any wonder that last year an official from the FTC said that telemarketers had no credibility?

Jon, we here at C.A.T.S. want to make this as simple as driving your car. So here's some advice: Be sure your brain is engaged before putting your mouth into gear.

February 16, 2003

"One might think that a single lawsuit could have made a stronger statement here. Or maybe the two associations’ intentions are simply to bog down the legal system for as long as possible. In the end, however, it’s doubtful that either argument will hold water, but at least they can tell their members they did something."

Tad Clarke, Editor-in-Chief of DM News commenting on the Direct Marketing Association and the American Teleservices Association filing separate lawsuits against Federal Trade Commission’s actions to create a do-not-call list. Both associations are using basically the exact same argument: that the FTC is violating marketers’ First Amendment rights to free speech and ignoring the Fifth Amendment’s due process and equal protection guarantees. From DM News, Editorial: Let the Lawsuits Begin, February 3, 2003. Mr. Clarke can be reached at tad@dmnews.com or via phone at (212) 925-7300.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Is Mr. Clarke suggesting that the two largest marketing organizations would file a groundless lawsuit in order to please their members? Seems so, according to the editorial as written.

C.A.T.S. might point out that these same organizations often call consumer lawsuits involving the private right of action provided by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) as groundless and/or nuisance suits. In some cases, defense lawyers for telemarketers have threatened countersuits if consumers file lawsuits under the TCPA.

If Mr. Clarke is right, then perhaps the Federal Trade Commission should file a countersuit against the Direct Marketing Association and the American Teleservices Association, claiming their lawsuits are groundless and an abuse of process, as well as a waste of taxpayer dollars. Should the taxpayers of this country have to pay thousands of dollars to defend themselves against a groundless lawsuit? We at C.A.T.S. don't think so.

February 9, 2003

"Isn’t it ironic that the most flagrant violators of telemarketing conduct are some of the largest corporations in the United States? The real irony is that the calls largely come from corporations with which we already do business or from large corporations that rent our names to their competitors. At the same time, these same corporations that wouldn’t even think about sending e-mail to their customers without permission are the corporations that are interrupting our dinner....

"Telespam is in many ways worse than spam and should be seen for what it is: a desperate ploy for revenue. The ultimate solution is not a national DNC [Do-Not-Call] list. This problem won’t go away unless and until some of the most widely known corporations in the world simply agree to stop the practice altogether."

Tom Osenton, CEO, Customer Share Group From a published letter to the editor of DM News, It’s Sad That We Need a DNC List in the First Place, January 21, 2002. Mr. Osenton can be reached by phone at: (603) 964-2311 or via e-mail at: tosenton@customershare.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: You got it Tom! And the sooner that we as consumers learn to "turn off" telemarketers by wasting their time and taking their dollars, the sooner that the unwanted calls will stop. Thanks for telling it like it is!

February 2, 2003

"This kind of calling is the source of vast outrage to almost all our constituents. Unwanted telemarketing calls have become, as I have noted, a vast nuisance that many consider an invasion of privacy."

John Dingell (D-Michigan), a ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee commenting on legislation that recommended that Congress approve funding for the Federal Trade Commission's national no-call registry. From DM News, House Committee Backs No-Call Funding, January 30, 2002. Representative Dingell can be reached via his web site at: http://www.house.gov/dingell or by phone at: (202) 225-4071.

C.A.T.S. Comment: It seems that even Congress has got on the bandwagon in regards to a national "Do-Not-Call" list. Years ago when this issue came up, legislators often balked at creating such a list claiming that jobs were at risk, or that it was a freedom of speech issue, or some other nonsense. Now it seems that the telemarketing industry has made a powerful enemy even in Congress, the same Congress that they have courted in the past with their lobbyists. It seems that very few members of Congress want to appear to support this industry.

The telemarketing industry has only itself to blame for this. Is it any wonder that the industry has now abandoned Congress and is going to seek relief from the courts?

January 26, 2003

"Congratulations, telemarketers. You just got exactly what you asked for.

"You have abused consumers for years, and now it’s time to pay.

"Thanks to the FTC’s [Federal Trade Commission's] amended Telephone Sales Rule [TSR], you will no longer be able to deluge home phones with abandoned calls, debit credit cards without permission and simply ignore do-not-call requests. The TSR puts the consumer into the driver’s seat for the first time in the miserable history of outbound calling.

"And stop whining about how this will hurt legitimate companies.

"To reach the 1% who will respond to an offer, even the best firms think nothing of alienating the remaining 99% who receive the call.

"Anyway, what’s legitimate about Triad Marketing and other exponents of advance consent marketing? To defend them is to defend the indefensible."

From Direct Magazine (www.directmag.com). The article was titled "Rule No. 1", yet no author was listed. You can direct comments to Direct Magazine's Editorial Director, Ray Schultz at (212) 462-3371 or via e-mail at: rschultz@primediabusiness.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: These comments were a gutsy move when you consider the magazine depends on revenue generated by their advertisers. Although telemarketers have threatened to stop supporting (and in some cases have stopped supporting) publications that are critical of the industry.

Is it any wonder that there is no published author? C.A.T.S. commends Direct Magazine for having the guts to put in print what most people in direct marketing think when it comes to telemarketing.

January 19, 2003

"They [telemarketing companies] continue to see pressure on margins, excess capacity in the U.S. and decreased calling volumes. Some of these companies have a high exposure to the telecom industry, and some are paid on a per-call basis, and we've seen reduced calling of telecom and wireless subscribers by some of these companies...

"Also, the companies that provide outbound telemarketing have seen decreased calling activity as a result of a cutback on outbound telemarketing campaigns. A lot of credit card companies that have had outbound telemarketing promotions have pulled back on that."

Jeff Nevins of First Analysis Securities Corporation, Chicago, IL, commenting on the miserable performance that the telemarketing industry has had in 2002. The companies that bother us at home have had an average decrease of 22% of their stock value in 2002. Nevins also says that the Federal Trade Commission's announcement last month that it will establish a national do-not-call list will further hurt telemarketing firms in 2003. From DM News, Teleservices Rings Up Losses in 2002, January 6, 2003. Mr. Nevins can be reached at: (312) 258-1400.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Go ahead and pat your self on the back Mr. and Mrs. consumer, you deserve it! We at C.A.T.S. have always said that the way to 'beat' the telemarketing industry was to NOT just hang up, but to waste their time and their money on every call.

Consumers took that message to heart in 2002, and as a result this intrusive industry lost money. Last year saw a record of consumer lawsuits, actions by State Attorney Generals, legislation on the part of states, and an increase of blocking devices and services. You as consumers did your part by writing your legislators, wasting the telemarketers time and money with various techniques, asking for "Do-Not-Call" policies, and taking telemarketers to court who fail to obey the law. As we waste telemarketer's time and money, they will eventually learn that there is no profit in bothering us in our homes and the calls will stop. Fearing a consumer backlash, many companies have already stopped telemarketing to their customers.

C.A.T.S. thanks all the consumers that did their part in 2002 to help rid us of this electronic nuisance. Just keep up the good work! Thank you!

January 12, 2003

"We couldn’t get a bank or telemarketing organization to talk to us."

Harry Moses, a producer with 60 Minutes II, a CBS TV newsmagazine. Moses was commenting to Direct Magazine about his experiences at the Direct Marketing Association's Fall Convention last year, while doing a story on the direct marketing industry. The segment has not been scheduled, but Moses hazarded a guess that it might air in mid-March. From Direct Magazine, 60 Minutes II Segment to Focus on Financial Privacy, January 9, 2003. Mr. Moses can be reached via CBS-TV's web site, www.cbs.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: We at C.A.T.S. find it very interesting that banks and telemarketers who fight laws against restrictions on their calling us at home, under the guise of "freedom of speech", consistently refuse to talk to the media when offered a chance to do so. They spend millions of dollars on lawyers and lobbyists to protect their "freedom of speech", when it comes to talking with consumers at home by phone. If "freedom of speech" were so important to them, one would think that they would exercise their rights (which they pay millions of dollars for) and talk to the news media. After all, they make their living by talking to us. So why the silence? Could it be that they cannot justify their actions?

January 5, 2003

"A national DNC [Do-Not-Call] registry could have a catastrophic affect on the teleservices industry – we will not simply stand back and watch it happen,"

Matt Mattingley, Director of Government Affairs for the American Teleservices Association (ATA). Mattingley added that, earlier this year, the ATA retained Hogan & Hartson LLP, a law firm that has successfully litigated commercial free speech cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. From an ATA press release, ATA Implements Legal Action Plan, December 18, 2002. Mr. Mattingley can be reached at ATA's toll free number: (877) 779-3974.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Hang it up Matt. Your industry failed to follow the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) for years and violations were commonplace. The ATA's own members continue to violate the act, and the ATA takes no action against them.

The end result of this unlawful behavior is more regulation and restriction of your industry. If the ATA had been pro-active in taking actions against those in the industry that break the law, these regulations would not be happening.

You have only yourselves to blame for the situation, and even if the courts knock down the laws as unconstitutional, people will use blocking technologies to eliminate unwanted calls. As blocking technology in phone instruments becomes as commonplace as a redial button, your industry will suffer even greater losses than they are facing now. Be careful what you wish for Mr. Mattingley, you just might get it.

Quotes from 2002