I would say the amateurish short from "VideoJug" is more concerned with being funny than making sense, and falls down on both counts. Mark this an example of why wanna-be sketch comedy writers should not be making television or giving legal advice -- not to mention the aphorismic danger of "a little knowledge". I'll rebut the short's shaky claims in order of appearance.
The short is trapped in self-contradiction over how one should request an end to calls from a given sales entity, advising both "getting off" a call list and adding an affected number *to* an internal no-call list. Since the TSR demands that sales callers (and commercial fundraisers) maintain and honor their own no-call lists, the demand to *ADD* numbers should be the only one you rehearse. While a sales caller often works from a list of qualified leads, a contracted call center may not be able to alter that list, only scrub it against the "no-calls" compiled. At the more devious telepest firms, employees may be trained to *reject* any request which sounds like "take me off", since that action as phrased is not legally required, despite what the VideoJug voice-over says.
Later comes a repeated claim that your internal no-call request remains valid for "ten years". Well, I can't find that provision in federal law, which clearly sets *five years* as the minimum enforcement period. Maybe some state law says different, but it's doubtful. There is also a claim that a recipient of a scamming call may "press criminal charges" against the caller. This again would depend on state law, which may or may not elevate a set of nuisance calls to harassment claims which a criminal court might hear. When you sue a telemarketer, it's extremely likely to be a *civil action* only.
This brings me to the most curious omission of the piece, which burns a lot of time mocking a call center rep character and counting up damage awards before they hatch without once citing the law one would invoke to state a claim. The $500 violation counts refer to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). I'm amazed there is no mention of its treble damages option, granting up to $1500 for violations found to be "knowing and willful".
I'm also baffled by the advice to sue in Small Claims court if one is pleading for an award of four or five figures. Sure, you might buy in cheap and get a pre-trial settlement, but if that's your goal a good "intent to sue" package could obviate the filing fee. This has to be done seriously, on the assumption that you'll get an active defense, and if so you want a big-boy court. Federal would be best, (especially since SCotUS finally cleared the air on proper venue a while back) where fewer dirty lawyer tricks work and judges don't need to be taught in painful detail what federal law says.
The short's structure, which first harps on the federal Do Not Call list as a first "step", may lead a viewer to a common faulty assumption that TCPA enforcement depends on DNC registration. The two are in fact independent, and TCPA has been around twice as long as DNC. However, DNC registration does help to clear that "knowing and willful" hurdle.
Critical flaws emerge from the production's age. The upload was made in January 2008, which predates regulatory changes such as the Truth In Caller ID Act and last month's revision to the TCPA, which disposed of the flimsy "established business relationship" exemption. Before you press "play" you have good reason to instead consult the FTC, consumer watchdogs, and the many lawyers who help companies with TCPA and Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) compliance.
Worse yet, we should not miss that later that same year is when the national epidemic of illegal autodialed sales calls began, enabled by cheap VOIP and Caller ID spoofing which consumer laws cannot control. The majority of today's trashy sales callers have gone out of their way to conceal their true locations and/or shift the jobs to call centers in (mainly) South Asia. To win a TCPA action you need a real address to serve and a defendant. To collect a judgment you need assets you can seize. Both targets are usually much harder to find now.
I am also compelled to beat up on production values for inattention to set design, focal range, lighting, and "safe title area", the last of which is causing all the graphics to be cropped at the screen edges. This is what you get when frat boys with a cheap HandyCam and a copy of Adobe Premiere think they have all they need to produce coherent instructional video.
In concept, I agree with the what the short implies. A government opt-out program is not one-stop shopping to end all illegal and unwanted sales calls. We're ten years into the DNC program and most of its registrants refuse to understand that. You're going to get bad actors, and if you want them to feel the big hook you must do the actual work of notification and careful documentation, and yes, maybe prosecute the fools if you can. I object to the short's *execution* of concept. Getting details correct the first time matters, especially if you might want a judge to help you punish your irritants.
FCC: Unwanted Telephone Marketing Calls
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/unwanted-telephone-marketing-callsFTC: Telemarketing Sales Rule
http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus27-complying-telemarketing-sales-ruleTelephone Consumer Protection Act
http://www.the-dma.org/guidelines/tcpa.shtmlhttp://www.fcc.gov/cgb/policy/TCPA-Rules.pdf [PDF]
FCC: TCPA Compliance Guide (2012 revisions noted)
http://www.fcc.gov/document/telephone-consumer-protection-act-1991Notes from a legendary consumer litigant
http://www.dianamey.com/anti-telemarketing-guide/
Reply to topic