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. . . .
UNWANTED CALLS AND LEGAL CLAIMS
A consumer may receive a number of unwanted calls. However, if those calls were made to collect a debt, the remedy is under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, not the Do Not Call List law. The Do Not Call List law excludes calls to collect a debt from its coverage. The Fair Debt... Continue Reading →