13 Businesses, Officers Targeted for Alleged Telemarketing Sales Rule Violations

July 1, 2015

telemarketing-sales-ruleLast Monday, a federal district court in Orlando issued a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against a Florida corporation, five Florida limited liability companies and seven of the businesses’ respective officers (the “Defendants”), freezing the telemarketers’ assets and temporarily halting the group’s marketing initiatives. The Federal Trade Commission and Florida Attorney General’s Office (the “Government Plaintiffs”) filed the action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Telemarketing Sales Rule, as well as other state and federal laws prohibiting deceptive and unfair trade practices.

What claims are the Defendants facing under the Telemarketing Sales Rule?

Alleged Telemarketing Sales Rule Violations

The Government Plaintiffs brought 13 separate causes of action against each of the individual and corporate Defendants, including the following nine alleged violations of the Telemarketing Sales Rule:

(1) Misrepresenting their debt relief services;

(2) Misrepresenting their affiliations with financial institutions;

(3) Charging/receiving fees in advance of providing debt relief services;

(4) Billing consumers without their express informed consent;

(5) Calling telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry;

(6) Calling individuals who previously stated that they did not wish to receive telemarketing calls;

(7) Failing to transmit Caller ID information (including telephone number and name of the telemarketer);

(8) Using prerecorded messages to call consumers without their express written consent; and

(9) Failing to promptly disclose their identity, the purpose of the call and the nature of the services offered.

Temporary Restraining Order

On June 22, 2015, in response to the Government Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion, the court issued its TRO against the Defendants. Among other things, the court order:

  • Prohibits the Defendants from violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule, FTC Act and/or Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act;
  • Freezes each Defendant’s assets, including cash, real and personal property and shares of stock; and
  • Requires the Defendants to divulge exhaustive financial statements to the Government Plaintiffs.

The TRO expires on July 7, 2015, at which time the Defendants must appear before the court to argue whether the restrictions should be lifted.

Protect Your Telemarketing Business and Assets

As this case demonstrates, the Telemarketing Sales Rule empowers the FTC and state attorneys general to enforce a number of regulations against telemarketing businesses and their officers. Telemarketers can minimize their risk of liability by maintaining a strict regimen of compliance with applicable regulations.

If you are interested in learning more about this topic, or if you have been served with legal process relating to your telemarketing practices, please e-mail us at info@kleinmoynihan.com or call us at (212) 246-0900.

The material contained herein is provided for informational purposes only and is not legal advice, nor is it a substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney. Each situation is unique, and you should not act or rely on any information contained herein without seeking the advice of an experienced attorney.

Attorney Advertising

Related Blog Posts:

Telemarketers, Payment Processor to Pay $1.7 Million to FTC

“Debt Relief” Robocalling Telemarketers Settle with FTC

FTC Sues Companies and Officers For Alleged Phony Debt Relief Scheme

Share:

David Klein

David Klein is one of the most recognized attorneys in the technology, Internet marketing, sweepstakes, and telecommunications fields. Skilled at counseling clients on a broad range of technology-related matters, David Klein has substantial experience in negotiating and drafting complex licensing, marketing and Internet agreements.

Trending Topics

FTSA florida FTSA standing man holding phone telemarketing telemarketers
Blog

FTSA Standing

Readers of our blog may recall a recent article in which we discussed two Florida class action lawsuits that significantly limited telemarketing companies’ exposure in

Read More »