|
Author
|
Topic: Interpretation of the FTC Proposal
|
Clegg Ivey
Junior Member
Member # 3950
Rate Member
|
posted November 06, 2006 01:44 PM
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has proposed a rule making it illegal to do the following:
"Initiat[e] any outbound telemarketing call that delivers a prerecorded message when answered by a person, unless the seller has obtained the express agreement, in writing, of such person to place prerecorded calls to that person. Such written agreement shall clearly evidence such person's authorization that calls made by or on behalf of a specific party may be placed to that person, and shall include the telephone number to which the calls may be placed and the signature of that person; provided, however, that prerecorded messages permitted for compliance ... with the call abandonment safe harbor in � 310.4(b)(4)(iii) do not require such an agreement."
The FTC says that the proposed rule is intended "to make it explicit that the TSR prevents sellers and telemarketers from delivering a prerecorded message when a person answers a telemarketing call, regardless of whether the call is made to a consumer whose number is listed on the Do Not Call Registry or to a consumer who has an established business relationship with the seller, without the consumer's experss prior written agreement. In soliciting comments on the proposed amendement, the Comission again wishes to emphasize that the proposed prohibition will not prevent telemarketers from transmitting prerecorded information messages to consumers that are not part of a "plan, program or campaign which is conducted to induce the purchase of goods or services or a charitable contribution."
The FTC proposes to begin enforcing this rule by January 2, 2007.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clegg Ivey
Junior Member
Member # 3950
Rate Member
|
posted November 06, 2006 01:45 PM
What does this mean? Clearly, this is a ruling that is of interest only to those VoiceXML applications and platforms that make outbound calls to consumers. But even then, not all outbound calls are affected by this proposed rule.
According to the wording, this rule applies only to "telemarketing" calls, which the FTC defines as a call that is part of a "plan, program or campaign which is conducted to induce the purchase of goods or services or a charitable contribution." So, emergency notifications are not telemarketing calls. Neither are other purely informational calls (e.g., "your package has been shipped," "your flight has been delayed," etc.).
But any call with an upsell component will be considered a telemarketing call - "Your cable has now been installed, would you like to hear about a special deal to subscribe to HBO?" - even if it has an informational component.
Nor is it clear whether this rule will apply to a call to remind a consumer that it's time to refill a prescription. Such a call seems purely informational. But why remind someone that his or her prescription is about to run out if not to induce that person to buy more of the prescribed drug?
Posts: 5 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clegg Ivey
Junior Member
Member # 3950
Rate Member
|
posted November 06, 2006 01:46 PM
The next issue is the FTC's decision to require more than just a pre-existing business relationship, which has been the rule of thumb to date. Under this proposed rule, outbound call campaigns can go only to consumers who have given express written consent for a particular phone number to be called. This would seem to eliminate the possibility of any web or email based opt-in system, because the FTC is demanding written consent. And this rule would seem to require a brand new signed consent each time a consumer adds or changes a phone number to be used.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
