AICR

I've been getting a lot of calls from this dubious "charity", AICR (American Institute for Cancer Research) – from a different number each time. A little research on 800notes and a few other sources reveals that they use a lot of phone numbers. Just for reference, here are the ones I've found (and have pre-emptively blocked):

202-350-3492
202-350-4661
202-367-9096
202-367-9102
202-367-9225
202-367-9238
202-367-9919
202-461-3474
202-495-7181
202-495-7197
202-540-5118
202-607-2601
202-607-2602
202-607-2603
202-607-2615
202-607-2726
202-607-2763
202-607-2770
202-607-2805
202-607-2809
202-607-2813
202-607-2813
202-607-2927
202-643-1991
202-688-0627
202-688-0811
202-870-5859
202-870-5894
202-888-3126
800-843-8814
877-275-6850

Less than an hour after my first post on the topic I get another call from these slimebags. From yet another new (or spoofed) number:

202-888-2764

Strictly speaking, those numbers don't belong to AICR but its hired commercial fundraiser, generally InfoCision, the pride of Akron. The charity group is consistently reported to be yet another barely concealed profit enterprise. InfoCision is a top industry player and facilitator of corrupt charities which laid out ten mil a few years back for naming rights to the new local university stadium. It operates with the subtlety of a used car salesman in a checked nylon blazer and will not ever stop calling unless you rub the law in its face, which I did successfully months ago.

My story from Nov 2012 is linked below:
https://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-914-294-2543/7#p480457181536419195

Thanks, Resident. Good information.

You wouldn't happen to still have a copy of your letter and can post it here, less your phone number(s) and private details?
Might make for a good "form letter" for others to use.

Naturally I have copies, and the original. Without good records I would have a hard time enforcing my demands if the nuisance calls were to start up again.

When I first publicized my victory over beggar phone calls I thought about doing just what you suggest but shied away. For years I've been beefing about the many flawed letter templates floating around which are meant for debt collectors. The problem with templates is that people are often too lazy or ignorant to use them properly *as* templates, meaning to be modified into what works for each of them. They copy-paste-send letters which say things they don't mean, don't understand, and get them in trouble later. Eventually those templates flood the market, so to speak, and they're laughed off by their recipients who come to recognize them as the cookie-cuts they are. I didn't want to start a new category of broken letters for commercial fundraisers.

Next best thing was to describe carefully what my letter said and let the reader build her own. My whole recipe is in the first few paragraphs in my InfoCision essay. The letter I sent them ran about 1.3 pages but the vital parts fit on an index card. I might do something a little different if my target was ACS, Harris, MDS, etc. and depending on the charity in question. Senders must season to taste.

If there is a skinny format to express, I guess it goes like this:
1. You people are cheesing me off.
2. Here is how and when you have annoyed and inconvenienced me.
3. Here is what you can do to make me happy:
3a. No calls ever again for (charity name) (refer to affected numbers)
3b. No calls for any other charity client
3c. Send me your Do Not Call policy.
3d. (other useful demands, maybe specific to the case)

I think giving "just the facts, ma'am" and decorating my envelope in green USPS Certified labels had something to do with the continued silence from at least this one call center.

I have a couple of pennies lying here, so I'll toss them in the hat...

As so often is the case, I find myself nodding my head in the affirmative as I read what Res has written.  Given the fact that TCPA requires the maintenance of internal DNC lists, I can't imagine the standards such a letter would be held to would be any greater than the "everyman" standard of FDCPA.

In the case of either TCPA or FDCPA letters, I believe "less is more" applies (perhaps my favorite maxim).  I really think a simple, "You are not to call 999-999-9999 for any purpose under any circumstance and without exception.  I am the lawful holder of this number, and I am prepared to take any appropriate actions should my instructions in this matter be disregarded." in Res's requisite CMRR mailing would be quite sufficient.

[Oh no, did I really just use "less is more" and the name of a men's magazine in the same sentence?]

We all have a tendency to want our pound of flesh in writing such letters, and sometimes there are certain specifics which may be appropriate, but if it becomes necessary to litigate, I prefer being able to lay one's case out before the judge, without being encumbered by intemperate or possibly erroneous statements in a letter I have written.  After all, the other party generally knows what they did to earn your ire, and what you really want is simply for them to shut up and go away.

It is unfortunate that even legitimate charities and causes fall prey to the mindset of non-stop fund raising.  Tired of unending entreaties, I advised those charities and other causes to which I donated to stop this practice with regard to me, or I would cut them off.  A number of them, having been put on notice that they were not to solicit more than once a year, persisted and lost any chance at future donations.  Some folks are slow learners.

For those who are seriously interested in TCPA treasure hunting, VOIP accounts offer lovely CDR reports for your records.  If like me, you just want them to go away, I have configured my system to dial 1, then endlessly play a "place me on your internal do not call"/TCPA warning.  It also allows me to file FCC/FTC complaints and truthfully answer the "told them not to call" question in the affirmative.

202-688-0621
Tried to call me today. Blocked.

No problem and I agree with your concerns.
Thanks for the info as posted :)

I just did some web searching on "AICR". Sadly, their telespamming campaign doesn't show up until the third page of results :(  Even the link to their Charity Navigator rating (Zero stars) is only on the second page of results. I'd guess they're really been successful in getting people to link to them and boost the page rank of positive or neutral links.

On the humorous side, I did see their BBB report. They are an "Accredited Charity" that "Meets Standards", whatever that means (it means they pay for BBB membership would be my guess). BBB shows 1 complaint about them during the past 36 months. Unsurprisingly, it's regarding "call list removal".