Federal do not call registry is here to stay: What's next for direct marketing regulation?

Abstract

In 2003, the Federal Trade Commission established a national do not call registry for commercial telemarketing. In 2004, a federal appeals court upheld the validity of the registry. This article explains the history of the regulation and analyzes the court's opinion. The article discusses the impact of the opinion on other direct marketing regulations, such as e-mail solicitation, wireless advertising messages, data privacy protection, and nonprofit solicitation.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aguilar

J.R.

Over the Rainbow European and American Consumer Protection Policy and Remedy Conflicts on the Internet and a Possible Solution

International Journal of Communications Law and Policy 4 1999/2000 1–57 Winter

Basho

COMMENT: The Licensing of Our Personal Information: Is It a Solution to Internet Privacy?

California Law Review 88 2000 1507–1544 October

Cain

Call Up Someone and Just Say “Buy”––Telemarketing and the Regulatory Environment

American Business Law Journal 31 1994 641–698

Cain

Global Privacy Concerns and Regulation––Is the United States a World Apart?

International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 16 1 2002 23–34

Cain

Nonprofit Solicitation Under the Telemarketing Sales Rule

Federal Communications Law Journal 57 2004 81–106

Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of N.Y. (1980). 447 U.S. 557.

Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. (1984). 467 U.S. 837, 842–843.

City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network. (1993). 507 U.S. 410.

Computer & Internet Lawyer. (2004). FTC Brings First Criminal Action Under CAN-SPAM Act. 21(7), 29.

10.

Consumer Financial Services Law Report. (2004, August 12). FTC Unveils New E-mail Address for Deceptive Spam. 8(5).

11.

Cox v. New Hampshire. (1941). 312 U.S. 569.

12.

Do-Not-Call Implementation Act. (2003). Pub. L. No. 108–10, 117 Stat. 557.

13.

E-Commerce Law & Strategy. (2004, June 11). Developments of Note: CANSPAM Update, 21(2), 8.

14.

Fineman

Feds Reject “Do-Not-Spam” List

The Internet Newsletter 2 6 2004 8 June 17

15.

FTC Telemarketing Sales Rule, Final Amended Rule, (TSR). (2003). 68 F.R. 4580.

16.

Hoffman

Novak

T.P.

Schlosser

A.E.

Locus of Control, Web Use, and Consumer Attitudes Toward Internet Regulation

Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 22 1 2003 41–57

17.

Hudson

D.L.

Essay: Justice Clarence Thomas: The Emergence of a Commercial-Speech Protector

Creighton L. Rev 35 2002 485–501 April

18.

Hudson, D.L., Jr. (2004). Privacy Trumps Speech in Ruling, 3 ABA Journal eReport 7.

19.

Katz

D.M.

Privacy in the Private Sector: Use of the Automotive Industry's “Event Data Recorder” and Cable Industry's “Interactive Television” in Collecting Personal Data

Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal 29 2003 163–190

20.

Lewczak

Rahman

Practical Suggestions For Complying With The National Do Not Call Registry

The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel 18 2004 February

21.

Mack, A. (2004, June 21). Do-Not-E-Mail Won't Help. Adweek.

22.

Mainstream Marketing Services, Inc. v. FTC. (2004, October 4). 358 F. 3d 1228 (10th Cir.) cert. denied, 2004 U.S. Lexis 5564.

23.

McClurg

A.J.

A Thousand Words Are Worth a Picture: A Privacy Tort Response to Consumer Data Profiling

Northwestern University Law Review 8 2003 63–143 Fall

24.

Meacham

To Call or Not to Call? An Analysis of Current Charitable Telemarketing Regulations

CommLaw Conspectus 12 2004 61–77

25.

Milina

Note: Let the Market Do Its Job: Advocating an Integrated Laissez-faire Approach to Online Profiling Regulation

Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal 21 2003 257–284 Winter/Spring

26.

Murdock v. Pennsylvania. (1943). 319 U.S. 105.

27.

Petty

R.D.

Wireless Advertising Messaging: Legal Analysis and Public Policy Issues

Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 22 1 2003 71–82

28.

Precision Marketing. (2004, March 12). US DMA Concedes Defeat in Fight to Halt Do Not Call, 9.

29.

Raysman, R., & Brown, P. (2004). CAN-SPAM Act Part 1: Let the Games Begin. New York Law Journal, 70, 3.

30.

Schmoll

COMMENT: Sobriety Test: The Court Walks the Central Hudson Line Once Again in 44 Liquormart, but Passes on a New First Amendment Review

Federal Communication Law Journal 50 1998 753–773 May

31.

Sweet

Opting-out of Commercial Telemarketing: The Constitutionality of the National Do-Not-Call Registry

Tennessee Law Review 70 2003 921–984 Summer

32.

Swire, P.P., & Litan, R.E. (1998). None of Your Business: World Data Flows, Electronic Commerce, and the European Privacy Directive. Brookings Institution Press.

33.

Teinowitz

Critics Fear Do-Not-Call Curbs for E-mail, Faxes, TV

Advertising Age 75 8 2004 2 February 23

34.

Telemarketing Sales Rule Fees, Final rule (2003, July 31). 68 Fed. Reg. 45134.

35.

Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. (2004). 47 U.S.C. § 227.

36.

U.S. v. Edge Broad. Co. (1993). 509 U.S. 418, 427–428.

37.

U.S. West v. FCC. (1999). 182 F. 3d 1224.

38.

Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc. (1976). 425 U.S. 748.

39.

Wall Street Journal (Eastern edition). (2004, March 4). Telemarketers Fight Call Registry, Planning Supreme Court Appeal. D.6.

40.

Worth

S.M.

“Do Not Call” Laws and the First Amendment: Testing the Limits of Commercial Free Speech Protection

Journal of Small and Emerging Business Law 7 2003 467–542 Fall