The call platform provider was smart. By declaring themselves a "Common Carrier" they got around the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thus avoiding potential litigation - or so they thought. Yes, they were correct in theory, but still had to defend themselves when threatened with call prohibition lawsuits. Still had to pay $50,000 to get out of each winning challenge. What they found, like most companies reaching out over the phone: It's best to get rid of previous TCPA court filers before each campaign.
Recent Posts
I often wonder when companies call me about eliminating TCPA court filers from their call lists - "Why did you wait so long?" It's not whether businesses are going to be threatened with call violations - but how many times they've been. A B2B small loan magazine publisher tells me most of his advertisers are in call compliance court. A major call platform provider, for the first time, was sued for $2.88 million - the FCC saying, "You're so close to your customer, it's like you're making the calls yourself." Meaning anyone in the call chain is now liable under the new FCC. And this could have sweeping ramifications for previously safe businesses.
With the thousands we spend on call lists, you'd think we’d eliminate folks that have already sued under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Why? Because these are the people that will most likely sue again. They’re not going to buy anything anyway. And most importantly they will win in court and make life miserable. Oh ya, they are also easily identified and eliminated from call campaign lists!
Ever wonder why it's so hard to find call protection as an individual agent making cold calls? Costs for individual protection have gone up five fold in the last few years. Compliance companies tell me the liability exposure on TCPA fines, the fastest growing group of call related expenses, is the same for individuals as it is or companies. So why should they take the risk for such a small payoff? IE: they don't want you.
A young lady in Florida has requested TCPA class action against an automotive group over a text received about an unfulfilled 2003 recall repair on her Jetta. Meanwhile, a woman was killed by an exploding defective Takata airbag while driving her 2002 Honda having never responded to Honda's recall contact efforts. Phone, email and
You're a lead generator. After you sell a lead, it's no longer your responsibility, right?. Traditionally, you've been tasked with lead creation only. Compliance is up to the buyer. But lately, it seems more dangerous. Like your prospect lead being followed up via acceptable TCPA calling procedures may be your responsibility. Like you need to certify if it's a cell, VoIP or landline. As the new FCC expands that chain of liability exposure for all call participants, maybe it's time to take a closer look.
How much number
So there's this list called Litigator Scrub that eliminates former TCPA filers. But who's responsibility is it to make sure we don't call them. The lead generator? The call platform provider? And why is nobody talking about
Did you hear about the FCC's $2.88 million Dialing Services Inc. fine? It's important because it shows the reach of the FCC’s implementation power concerning platform providers. Dialing Services did not conduct the robocalls. But the FCC determined Dialing Services platform had been so connected in the deployment of the calls, it was like the company had done the deed itself.
Many TCPA defense attorneys remain unaware of valuable call protection tools like Litigator Scrub. They cannot legally sell off-the-shelf compliance tools designed to perform day-to-day heavy compliance lifting. They are limited to selling advice on the importance of things like Cell Phone Scrubs and DNC List Scrubs. But how to implement these services efficiently - making everyday call compliance chores work so they'll hold up in court. So they'll motivate predatory attorneys to keep on walking - not so much.
