FTC Says Scoot, Rascal! Rascal Scooters Penalized $100,000 for Calling Consumers on the Do Not Call Registry

On April 21, 2011, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Electronic Mobility Corporation (d/b/a Rascal Scooters) entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which Rascal Scooters agreed to pay $100,000 as a civil penalty to settle a complaint filed by the FTC alleging that Rascal Scooters violated the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 44) and the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (16 C.F.R. 310) (TSR). At the center of the FTC’s complaint was the allegation that Rascal Scooters and its owner, Michael Flowers, made more than three million unsolicited sales calls since 2003 to consumers on the Do Not Call Registry who submitted their contact information to Rascal Scooters through its “Win a Free Rascal” sweepstakes.

As background, the Telemarketing Sales Rule allows a company to call a consumer on the Do Not Call Registry if the company has an “established business relationship” with the consumer and the consumer has not otherwise opted out of receiving calls from the company. What Rascal Scooters failed to consider, however, was that an “established business relationship” does not arise from the submission of a sweepstakes entry form. Rather, an “established business relationship” only exists if a consumer has purchased a company’s goods or services within the 18 month period immediately preceding the call or if a consumer inquires or submits an application regarding a company product or service within the 3 month period immediately preceding the date of the call. 

In addition to the $100,000 penalty, Rascal Scooters is only allowed to call consumers if it has their consent in writing or if there is an actual “established business relationship” and is subject to ongoing monitoring and reporting requirements to ensure its compliance with the settlement order.

 

It is important to note that the penalty imposed could have been (and can be) much greater than $100,000. Pursuant to the settlement order, Rascal Scooters is subject to a $2 million penalty that is currently suspended due to its inability to pay.   The $2 million will become due immediately if it is revealed that the company misrepresented its inability to pay.

Robocalling. Easy. Doing it right? Maybe not so much . . .

On April 27, 2010, the Federal Trade Commission announced separate settlements with women’s clothing retailer Talbots and its telemarketer SmartReply, Inc. for violations of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”). In two separate complaints filed in the U.S. District Courts for the District of Massachusetts (Talbots) and the Central District of California (SmartReply), the FTC alleged that the companies violated the TSR’s prerecorded message requirements in connection with seven advertising campaigns between February and July 2009. Specifically, the FTC alleged that SmartReply’s robocalls on behalf of Talbots (and J. Jill) did not allow consumers to opt out of future calls until they had listened to almost all of the prerecorded solicitation or failed to provide instructions to consumers about how to be added to the do-not-call list; did not immediately disconnect consumers that chose to opt out and instead connected them to another prerecorded advertisement before allowing them to opt out by pressing an additional prompt; and failed to notify live call recipients of their right to opt out at any time during the call.

As part of their proposed final settlements, filed concurrently with the complaints in Massachusetts and California, both Talbots and SmartReply agreed to orders that prohibit further violations of the TSR. As we previously wrote, according to regulations that became effective on September 1, 2009, this includes delivering prerecorded messages without consumers’ written authorization. In addition, the companies each are subject to a $112,000 civil penalty, although all but $49,000 of SmartReply’s penalty has been stayed due to its inability to pay. The proposed final settlements, which continue the FTC’s recent work in this area, are an important reminder to consult applicable laws and regulations before deploying new marketing strategies or technologies.

District Court Rules TCPA Applies to Text Messages Even Though Recipient Not Charged to Receive the Message

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently ruled that a plaintiff may maintain a suit for receiving an unsolicited Short Message Service (“SMS”) text message under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991, even though the plaintiff was not actually charged for receiving the message. In Abbas v. Selling Source, LLC, No. 09-CV-3413 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 14, 2009), Judge Joan B. Gottschall noted that in enacting the TCPA, “Congress was just as concerned with consumers’ privacy rights and the nuisances of telemarketing” as it was with cost-shifting of communications addressed by the TCPA. Judge Gottschall continued to state that “[a]utomated calls invade privacy and pose nuisances regardless of whether the called party is charged for the call, and so congressional intent is furthered by the TCPA’s application to both charged and uncharged calls.”

In the putative class action lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged that Selling Source sent him and others like him SMS text messages in violation of the TCPA. In pertinent part, the TCPA prohibits a person from making a call, other than a call made for emergency purposes or with the prior express consent of the recipient using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice. Selling Source moved to dismiss the complaint for the failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, alleging, amongst other things, that the TCPA does not apply to SMS text messages because SMS text messages are not a “call” within the meaning of the statute and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he was charged for the text message he allegedly received.

The trial court noted that the meaning of “call” as used in the TCPA was ambiguous, but concluded that the meaning of “call” includes text messages. In reaching its conclusion, the court relied in part on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 569 F.3d 946, 954 (9th Cir. 2009), which noted that “text messaging is a form of communication used primarily between telephones,” and in part on the FCC’s own interpretation of the TCPA such that it applies to text messages. The court also held that a person does not need to be charged to receive the text message to maintain a suit under the TCPA. The court rejected Selling Source’s argument that the TCPA could not apply to text messages because the statute was enacted before the advent of text messaging. Although the trial court dismissed the complaint because of the plaintiff’s failure to meet the federal pleading requirements, the court granted the plaintiff leave to amend to correct the pleading deficiencies.

Telemarketers Beware: New FTC Restrictions on Prerecorded Calls Take Effect Soon

Although the use by businesses of prerecorded message telemarketing has been prohibited for years for most calls, many companies have continued to lawfully deliver prerecorded telemarketing calls to their existing customers or others with whom they are deemed to have an existing business relationship (“EBR”). The Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) recent amendments to its Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”) will greatly restrict that practice. Effective September 1, 2009, companies subject to FTC jurisdiction will not be able to make interstate prerecorded telemarketing calls to EBR consumers absent the prior express written agreement of the consumer.

Effective December 1, 2008, any company that continues to make such calls must comply with new restrictions that will continue even after September 1, 2009 when prior express written consent of the consumer is mandatory. The restrictions require that the prerecorded message: (1) state at the outset that the call recipient can be asked to be placed on the caller’s company specific do not call list; (2) make available an automated opt-out mechanism for “live” recipients of a call that enables the recipient to place the number on the company’s do not call list; and (3) if the call is answered by an answering machine or voicemail, leave a toll free number where the recipient can call and be connected to an automated system where they can opt-out of further calls. In addition, such calls must ring for at least 15 seconds or 4 rings before they are disconnected and any message must begin within two seconds of the call recipients’ greeting. The new TSR amendments do not govern purely informational calls (e.g., a doctor’s appointment reminder), intrastate calls, or calls made by entities not regulated by the FTC. Most of those calls will continue to be subject to Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) rules that permit prerecorded telemarketing calls to EBR consumers subject to the recipient requesting to be placed on a company’s own internal do not call list.

 

Background

Businesses engaged in telemarketing or that hire telemarketers to make calls on their behalf are potentially subject to two different federal regulatory regimes. The FTC, under the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevent Act (“TCFAPA”) has jurisdiction over most entities engaged in interstate telemarketing. Excluded are insurance companies (to the extent they are regulated by state law), banks, certain regulated brokers, common carriers and non-profit organizations, although third party telemarketers calling on these excepted entities’ behalf generally are subject to FTC jurisdiction. The FCC, under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, (“TCPA”) has jurisdiction over all entities engaged in telemarketing, whether interstate or intrastate. In 2003, both the FTC and the FCC enacted rules to implement the national do not call registry. Under both sets of rules, businesses could continue to make live calls to any EBR consumer even if the consumer has enrolled in the national Do Not Call registry, unless the consumer has made a “company-specific” Do Not Call request to the calling entity. EBR consumers are current customers, consumers that have purchased, rented or leased goods and services within the last 18 months, and consumers that have made an inquiry or application within the last 3 months.

 

The Differing FTC and FCC Approaches to Prerecorded Calls to EBR Consumers

The two agencies’ rules initially differed regarding prerecorded calls to EBR consumers. The FCC permitted such calls. The FTC, however, considered such calls to violate its rules on “call abandonment” – a rule that requires 97 % of calls per day of a calling campaign to be connected to a live sales representative within two seconds of a call recipient’s completed greeting (if the call is answered by a live person and not an answering machine). In November 2004, the FTC, responded to a petition for a rule change to conform its approach concerning prerecorded calls with the FCC’s rules. It issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to expressly permit prerecorded calls to EBR consumers (without the calls being considered abandoned) as long as specific conditions were met. The FTC also announced it would forbear from enforcing its call abandonment restrictions on prerecorded calls to EBR consumers pending completion of its rulemaking.

Despite strong industry support for the FTC’s position in the November 2004 NPRM, the FTC on October 3, 2006, in a surprise move, announced that it was not going to adopt its November 2004 proposal and instead proposed the approach that ultimately led to its most recent rule revisions. The FTC’s rule revisions also modified the call abandonment rate to allow it to be calculated over 30 days rather than on a daily basis, which is similar to a related FCC rule provision.

Significance of the FTC Decision

The FTC’s decision has far-reaching significance for the marketing activities of the many businesses subject to FTC jurisdiction under the TCFAPA. Prerecorded calls to EBR customers made with autodialers are a cheap and efficient way for businesses to reach their existing customers and notify them of new services. Companies not subject to FTC regulation and companies that make such calls intrastate only, will be able to continue to follow the FCC’s approach. Others must be aware of the FTC restrictions.

A copy of the FTC’s Federal Register notice concerning the TSR amendments is available here.