An FTC action alleges a Florida telephone company named Blu failed to properly handle stored information. Consumers who purchased phones may be entitled to compensation. www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/1723025_blu_decision_and_order_4-30-18.pdf. Call (973) 598-1980 for a free consultation .
Settlement In Do Not Call Energy Litigation
This is a Notice of a proposed Settlement in a class action lawsuit Abramson v. Alpha Gas and Electric, LLC, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 15-CV-05299-KMK (the “Action”). The settlement would resolve claims against defendant Alpha Gas and Electric, LLC (“Alpha”) arising from telemarketing calls made by it to cellular telephone numbers in alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (the “TCPA”).
Company Liability for Other Making Calls
Even if discovery shows that a third party agent acting on the defendant's behalf made the calls in question, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act would still provide for liability. The Supreme Court of the United States recently clarified that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act does provide for vicarious liability. See Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136... Continue Reading →
Do Not Call List: FTC Applie Robocall Rule to Soundboard Technology
Do Not Call List This technological distinction prompted questions within the telemarketing industry as to whether soundboard calls would be subject to the robocall regulation and Do Not Call List Rules and Regulations
ENERGY COMPANIES SOLICITATION AND THE DO NOT CALL LIST
Plaintiff, brings this putative class action against Starion Energy, Inc. ("Starion … ("Starion Energy" or "Defendant"), alleging violations of the "Do Not Call" provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").
Do Not Call List Requirement
All artificial or prerecorded voice telephone messages shall: (1) At the beginning of the message, state clearly the identity of the business, individual, or other entity that is responsible for initiating the call. If a business is responsible for initiating the call, the name under which the entity is registered to conduct business with the... Continue Reading →
Do No Call List Claim Against Security Systems
Cunningham is a Davidson County resident who claims to have received at least twenty-eight phone calls, sometimes only one or two seconds apart, from callers purporting to be conducting a "safety survey" but in fact marketing home security systems and related services. The marketing effort turned out to be in support of a deal pursuant to which the recipient would accept the installation of a "free" home security system
CLAIMS UNDER THE DO NOT CALL LIST
To prevent evasion of the TCPA's call prohibitions, the FCC has treated calls made by a third party on behalf of a company as if the company itself made the call, whether in relation to collection or solicitation calls subject to § 227(b) or in rules governing solicitation calls addressed in § 227(c). With respect to collection calls under § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) made to wireless numbers, the FCC explained: To ensure that creditors and debt collectors call only those consumers who have consented to receive autodialed and prerecorded message calls, we conclude that the creditor should be responsible for demonstrating that the consumer provided prior express consent. The creditors are in the best position to have records kept in the usual course of business showing such consent, such as purchase agreements, sales slips, and credit applications. . . .
ENERGY DO NOT CALL CLAIMS
Many consumers have been called for supposed energy or electric savings. Sometimes supposed savings have been exaggerated. Our office is handling claims for annoying calls to people on the Do Not Call List. Here is a recent case report. "Nancy Owens ("Plaintiff"), brings this putative class action against Starion Energy, Inc. ("Starion Energy" or "Defendant"),... Continue Reading →
DO NOT CALL LIST AND HOME SECURITY SERVICES
1. Home Security Calls A Davidson County resident who claims to have received at least twenty-eight phone calls, sometimes only one or two seconds apart, from callers purporting to be conducting a "safety survey" but in fact marketing home security systems and related services. According to the plaintiff, the marketing effort turned out to be in... Continue Reading →