Fines For "Do Not Call" Violators

At his Red Tape Chronicles blog, Bob Sullivan has written an excellent post about recent corporate fines for telemarketers who have violated the Do Not Call phone rules:

"Craftmatic and three of its subsidiaries agreed to pay $4.4 million -- the second largest Do Not Call penalty ever -- to settle various FTC telemarketing-related charges. The agency alleged that Craftmatic obtained consumers’ phone numbers through sweepstakes entries, then placed tens of thousands of calls to entrants who were on the Do Not Call list. Because the sweepstakes form did not expressly seek their assent to receive telemarketing calls, the calls violated federal regulations..."

"ADT agreed to pay slightly more than $2 million to settle charges that two of its authorized dealers -- Alarm King and Direct Security Services -- placed telemarketing calls to consumers on the list. While ADT did not place the calls, the FTC held it responsible for the marketing tactics of its affiliates."

"Ameriquest was fined $1 million after the FTC found the firm had purchased consumers' phone numbers from "lead generation" companies. Consumers had been enticed to provide their phone numbers and other personal information to Web sites offering various financial products. Because the consumers had not expressly given Ameriquest permission to call them, the calls were a Do Not Call violation, the FTC said."

I am sure that some of you are wondering how this relates to identity theft. I say plenty.

How companies comply (or don't) with federal regulations regarding telemarketing is related to how these companies respect (or don't) consumers' private information and requests not to receive telemarketing calls. It is related to whether (or not) these companies employ effective data security processes to protect consumers' sensitive information. This is the first step in holding companies responsible. It's also an important step to restoring balance to the tilted playing field where companies make money selling consumers' personal information while consumers bear the post-breach burden.

Want to learn more? Click on any of the above links and definitely read opt-out resources for consumers.