Nov 28, 2017 | Blog
FCC Allows Service Providers to Proactively Block Certain Types of Robocalls
The FCC adopted new rules on Nov. 16, 2017 that
. . . allow voice service providers to proactively block certain types of robocalls that are likely to be fraudulent because they come from certain types of phone numbers, including those that do not or cannot make outgoing calls. For example, perpetrators have used IRS phone numbers that don’t dial out to impersonate the tax agency, informing the people who answer that they are calling to collect money owed to the U.S. government. Such calls appear to be legitimate to those who receive them and can result in fraud or identity theft. Service providers now can block such calls, as well as calls from invalid numbers, like those with area codes that don’t exist, from numbers that have not been assigned to a provider, and from numbers allocated to a provider but not currently in use.
According to the FCC’s November 16, 2017 press release (which can be viewed by clicking FCC Adopts Rules Allowing Phone Companies To Proactively Block Illegal Robocalls):
Unwanted calls, including illegal robocalls, are the top consumer complaint at the FCC, with more than 200,000 received annually. Some private analyses estimate that U.S. consumers received approximately 2.4 billion robocalls per month in 2016. Advancements in technology make it cheap and easy to make robocalls and to “spoof” Caller ID information to hide the caller’s true identity.
To combat these scams, the new rules approved today expressly authorize voice service providers to block robocalls that appear to be from telephone numbers that do not or cannot make outgoing calls, without running afoul of the FCC’s call completion rules.
As a result of today’s action, voice service providers will be allowed to block calls purporting to be from a phone number placed on a “do not originate” list by the number’s subscriber. They will also be allowed to block calls purporting to be from invalid numbers, like those with area codes that don’t exist, from numbers that have not been assigned to a provider, and from numbers allocated to a provider but not currently in use.
To minimize blocking of lawful calls, [the FCC’s] Report and Order encourages voice service providers that elect to block calls to establish a simple way to identify and fix blocking errors. The rules also prohibit providers from blocking 911 emergency calls.
The FCC’s “Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” describing the new rules authorizing call blocking of certain types of numbers that do not, or cannot make, outgoing calls, can be viewed by clicking FCC Report & Order_FCC 17-151.
Have You Received Unwanted, Unsolicited or Harassing Telephone, Telemarketing, Autodial or Robocalls and/or Text Messages?
If you have received unwanted, unsolicited or harassing telephone, telemarketing, autodial or robocalls and/or text messages and would like to speak privately with an attorney to learn more about your potential legal rights, please complete the form to the right or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected]; John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected]; or send an e-mail to [email protected].
The Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to protecting investors and consumers from corporate fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoing. Driven by a strong and principled sense of social responsibility and obtaining justice for the aggrieved, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. represents plaintiffs seeking to recover investment losses resulting from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate wrongdoing or malfeasance, those harmed by anticompetitive practices, and consumers victimized by fraud, negligence, false claims, deception, data breaches or whose rights to minimum wage and overtime compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage and hour laws have been violated.
Nov 21, 2017 | Blog
According to the FCC:
. . . on August 2, 2016, the FCC adopted rules to implement amendments to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) that exempt some robocalls—including autodialed text messages made to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States—from certain TCPA requirements. The statutory amendments that the FCC’s rules implement state that prior express consent is no longer needed when sending autodialed text messages or making autodialed, prerecorded voice, and artificial voice calls to a wireless number to collect a federal debt. Pursuant to the amendments, the FCC rules restrict, among other things, the number, duration and recipient of such robocalls, and they provide specifically that recipients can opt out of further calls. The FCC’s decision is available at: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-99A1.pdf
Further, the FTC’s update stated:
Federal debt collection robocalls (which may be an autodialed call, a prerecorded-voice call, an artificial-voice call, or a text message sent using an autodialer) may be made to a wireless number without the recipient’s prior express consent but only under certain conditions.
Who May Be Robocalled?
- Federal debt collectors and their agents and contractors may only make calls to debtors or other persons legally responsible for paying the debt, but not, for example, to friends, family, or persons referenced in debt paperwork.
Is Telemarketing Allowed?
- Robocalls are only permitted for purposes of collecting the federal debt and not for marketing or other unrelated purposes.
When May Federal Debt Collectors Place a Robocall?
- These calls may only be made: 1) while the debt is delinquent; or 2) in the case of certain debt servicing calls, subject to strict limits, following a “specific, time-sensitive event” and in the 30 days before such an event that affects the amount or timing of payments due (e.g., end of a deferment period or a recertification deadline).
Which Numbers May Be Called?
- Federal debt collectors may only make these calls to wireless telephone numbers that: 1) the debtor provided at the time the debt was incurred; 2) were subsequently provided by the debtor to the owner of the debt or the owner’s contractor; or 3) were obtained from an independent source by the federal debt collector so long as the number actually belongs to the debtor.
How Many Calls? What Time of Day?
- Consumers may be robocalled no more than three times within a 30-day period by each servicer or collector per type of loan. Calls need not be completed to count toward the three-call limit.
- Calls may only be placed between 8 am and 9 pm local time at the debtor’s location.
What About Opt-Out and Disclosure Requirements?
- Debtors have a right to opt out from receiving federal debt collection robocalls and robotexts at any time by any reasonable means (e.g., verbally, in writing, or by reply text).
- Federal debt collection robocalls and robotexts must disclose the debtor’s “stop-call” rights and include opt-out instructions.
What is the Limit on Call Length?
- Artificial-voice and prerecorded-voice calls are limited to 60 seconds in duration (not including required disclosures).
- Autodialed texts are limited to one text message of 160 characters. (Required disclosures may be sent separately.)
What is the Interplay with the TCPA and Other FCC Implementing Rules?
- All other provisions of the TCPA and the FCC’s implementing rules regarding autodialed and prerecorded calls still apply.
Have You Received Unwanted, Unsolicited or Harassing Telephone, Telemarketing, Autodial or Robocalls and/or Text Messages?
If you have received unwanted, unsolicited or harassing telephone, telemarketing, autodial or robocalls and/or text messages and would like to speak privately with an attorney to learn more about your potential legal rights, please complete the form to the right or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected]; John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected]; or send an e-mail to [email protected].
The Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to protecting investors and consumers from corporate fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoing. Driven by a strong and principled sense of social responsibility and obtaining justice for the aggrieved, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. represents plaintiffs seeking to recover investment losses resulting from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate wrongdoing or malfeasance, those harmed by anticompetitive practices, and consumers victimized by fraud, negligence, false claims, deception, data breaches or whose rights to minimum wage and overtime compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage and hour laws have been violated.
Aug 17, 2017 | Blog
Overdraft – CFPB’s “Know Before You Owe” Disclosure Prototypes
Consumers Typically Pay Almost $450 More in Fees
On August 4, 2017, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced
. . . new Know Before You Owe overdraft disclosure prototypes designed to improve the model form that banks and credit unions already provide to consumers weighing overdraft coverage. The [CFPB] is currently testing four prototypes that each have a simple, one-page design aimed at making the costs and risks of opting in to overdraft coverage easier to understand and evaluate. People who frequently attempt to overdraw their checking accounts typically pay almost $450 more in fees if they opted in to debit card and ATM overdraft coverage, according to a new CFPB study . . . [which] found that most of these frequent overdrafters are financially vulnerable, with lower daily balances and lower credit scores than people who do not overdraft as often.
“[The CFPB’s] study shows that financially vulnerable consumers who opt in . . . risk incurring a rash of fees when using their debit card or an ATM,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Our new Know Before You Owe overdraft disclosure prototypes are designed to help consumers better understand the consequences of the opt-in decision.”
According to the CFPB’s press release:
An overdraft occurs when consumers lack the funds in their account to cover a transaction, but the bank or credit union pays anyway. Financial institutions may charge a fee for this service, typically around $34 per transaction, and require that the account deficit be repaid with subsequent deposits. In 2010, federal regulations began requiring financial institutions to obtain a consumer’s consent in advance before charging overdraft fees on most debit card transactions and ATM withdrawals. Consumers who do not opt in to overdraft coverage will generally have debit card purchases and ATM withdrawals declined with no charge if their account doesn’t have enough funds to cover the transaction at the time they attempt it.
In addition to debit card transactions and ATM withdrawals, consumers can overdraw their account through checks, online bill payments, or direct debits from lenders or other billers. Banks and credit unions can charge overdraft fees on checks or electronic payments made through the Automated Clearing House system, and on debit card payments set up on a recurring basis. Charging these fees does not require the consumer to opt in, because those fees are not covered by the 2010 rule.
CFPB Says “Know Before You Owe”
The CFPB’s announcement stated that
[b]ecause of the possibility of racking up fees, choosing whether to opt in to debit card and ATM overdraft services can be an important decision for consumers. Federal regulations already require financial institutions to give consumers certain overdraft information, and the regulations provide a model form. The four one-page prototype model forms unveiled today, like the Bureau’s Know Before You Owe disclosures for mortgages and prepaid accounts, are designed to give consumers more clarity about a key financial decision. The CFPB developed the prototypes through interviews with consumers, and is now testing them more widely. The prototypes are aimed at making it easier to:
- Understand the costs of opting in:The updated designs are aimed at helping consumers to better understand opt-in costs by clearly laying out the size of the fees and when they can be charged. They are intended to clarify the institution’s overdraft polices. They also explain that the opt-in decision applies only to one-time debit card and ATM transactions, and that it does not affect overdraft on checks and other electronic transactions.
- Evaluate the risks and benefits of opting in:The prototypes are intended to better assist consumers in making their own choice about whether they want overdraft services for most debit card transactions. They make clear that debit card and ATM overdraft is optional, and that consumers are not required to opt in.
These updated prototypes, if adopted, could also make it easier to provide customers with the disclosure form. The CFPB would make any new Know Before You Owe model overdraft form available on its website. Institutions would be able to plug their specific program information into the online form and then quickly download it for free. This new approach could make it seamless for banks and credit unions to use a new model form within their existing compliance systems, and easier to update their disclosures following future overdraft program changes. However, as the Bureau tests these prototypes further and considers changes to existing requirements, the model form provided in the 2010 rule continues to apply.
The Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to protecting investors and consumers from corporate fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoing. Driven by a strong and principled sense of social responsibility and obtaining justice for the aggrieved, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. represents plaintiffs seeking to recover investment losses resulting from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate wrongdoing or malfeasance, those harmed by anticompetitive practices, and consumers victimized by fraud, negligence, false claims, deception, data breaches or whose rights to minimum wage and overtime compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage and hour laws have been violated.
Aug 3, 2017 | Blog
Robocalls – FTC Releasing Daily Data on Consumer Complaints
On August 1, 2017, the FTC issued a press release, FTC Escalates the Fight against Illegal Robocalls Using Consumer Complaints to Aid Industry Call-Blocking Solutions, stating, among other things, that:
[e]very day American consumers report tens of thousands of illegal robocalls to the Federal Trade Commission, and now the FTC is helping put that information to work boosting industry efforts to stop unwanted calls before they reach consumers.
Under a new initiative announced by the FTC, when consumers report Do Not Call or robocall violations to the agency, the robocaller phone numbers consumers provide will be released each day to telecommunications carriers and other industry partners that are implementing call-blocking solutions.
. . .
Unwanted and illegal robocalls are the FTC’s number-one complaint category, with more than 1.9 million complaints filed in the first five months of 2017 alone. By reporting illegal robocalls, consumers help law enforcement efforts to stop the violators behind these calls. In addition, under the initiative announced today, the FTC is now taking steps to provide more data, more often to help power the industry solutions that block illegal calls.
The consumer complaint data is crucial because many of today’s call-blocking solutions rely on “blacklists” — databases of telephone numbers that have received significant consumer complaints — as one way to determine which calls should be blocked or flagged before they reach consumers’ phones.
The new data that FTC is making available also will include the date and time the unwanted call was received, the general subject matter of the call (such as debt reduction, energy, warranties, home security, etc.), and whether the call was a robocall.
Have You Received Unwanted, Unsolicited or Harassing Telephone, Telemarketing, Autodial or Robocalls and/or Text Messages?
If you have received unwanted, unsolicited or harassing telephone, telemarketing, autodial or robocalls and/or text messages and would like to speak privately with an attorney to learn more about your potential legal rights, please complete the form to the right or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected]; John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected]; or send an e-mail to [email protected].
The Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to protecting investors and consumers from corporate fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoing. Driven by a strong and principled sense of social responsibility and obtaining justice for the aggrieved, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. represents plaintiffs seeking to recover investment losses resulting from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate wrongdoing or malfeasance, those harmed by anticompetitive practices, and consumers victimized by fraud, negligence, false claims, deception, data breaches or whose rights to minimum wage and overtime compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage and hour laws have been violated.
Jun 19, 2017 | Blog
The FTC, in a June 16, 2017 post by Rosario Méndez, Attorney, Division of Consumer and Business Education, FTC, provided information for consumers about the “signs of a debt relief scam.”
According to the FTC’s post:
. . . a call from someone who says they can reduce or eliminate your debts might sound like the answer to your problems. But in many cases, unscrupulous people are behind these calls. They don’t have any intention of helping you, but are very interested in taking your money. How can you tell if you’re dealing with a debt relief scammer? Because they ask you to pay them before they do anything for you.
That’s what the FTC and the Florida Attorney General said happened in a massive debt relief scam they were able to stop last month. The defendants told people they would pay, settle, or get rid of their debts. But they didn’t. Instead, they just took people’s money. Over time, people found out that their debts were not paid, their accounts were in default, and their credit scores were severely damaged. Some people even got sued by their creditors, or were forced into bankruptcy.
According to the posting, . . . scammers try to take advantage of those dealing with debt – but there’s legitimate help . . .. [Individuals] can talk to [their] creditors directly to negotiate a modified payment plan. [Individuals] also can look for credit counseling.
The FTC posting also recommends that [t]o find reputable help, start with a credit union, local college, military base, or the U.S. Cooperative Extension Service.
Importantly, the FTC posting states that if a person decides to work with a debt relief service to remember the following:
- A legitimate debt relief company won’t make you pay up front. That’s illegal.
- No one can guarantee that your creditors will forgive your debts.
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to protecting investors and consumers from corporate fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoing. Driven by a strong and principled sense of social responsibility and obtaining justice for the aggrieved, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. represents plaintiffs seeking to recover investment losses resulting from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate wrongdoing or malfeasance, those harmed by anticompetitive practices, and consumers victimized by fraud, false claims, deception or data breaches. Together, the partners of the Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. have spent more than 30 years prosecuting precedent-setting securities and financial fraud cases in federal and state courts on behalf of institutional and individual clients.
May 3, 2017 | Blog
Have You Received Unwanted, Unsolicited or Harassing Telephone, Telemarketing, Autodial or Robocalls and/or Text Messages?
Recently, a number of class action lawsuits have been filed against companies alleging telemarketing and debt collection calls and practices that violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA”). Enacted in 1991, the TCPA places restrictions on making telemarketing calls and the use of automatic telephone dialing systems or prerecorded or artificial voice messages. It also provides for statutory damages.
Federal Communications Commission & TCPA
According to the Federal Communications Commission, the TCPA requires the following:
For telemarketing calls:
- Requires anyone making a telephone solicitation call to your home to provide his or her name, the name of the person or entity on whose behalf the call is being made, and a telephone number or address at which that person or entity can be contacted.
- Prohibits telephone solicitation calls to homes before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m.
- Requires telemarketers to comply immediately with any do-not-call request made during a call.
For robocalls/texts:
- Requires a consumer’s permission, regardless of any existing relationship, before a robocall/text can be made to a wireless phone. These calls can include political, polling, and other non-telemarketing robocalls.
- Allows consumers to take back their permission to be called or texted in any reasonable way.
- Consent to be called or texted cannot be a condition of a sale or other commercial transaction.
- Requires callers to update their lists after dialing a wrong number the first time.
TCPA & The National Do-Not-Call Registry
The TCPA also established the National Do-Not-Call Registry that covers all telemarketers (with the exception of certain non-profit organizations), applies to both landline and wireless phones, as well as interstate and intrastate calls.
What Can I Do If I Believe My Rights Have Been Violated?
If you have received unwanted, unsolicited or harassing telephone, telemarketing, autodial or robocalls and/or text messages and would like to speak privately with an attorney to learn more about your potential legal rights, please complete the form to the right or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected]; John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected]; or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to protecting investors and consumers from corporate fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoing. Driven by a strong and principled sense of social responsibility and obtaining justice for the aggrieved, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. represents plaintiffs seeking to recover investment losses resulting from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate wrongdoing or malfeasance, those harmed by anticompetitive practices, and consumers victimized by fraud, false claims, deception or data breaches. Together, the partners of the Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. have spent more than 30 years prosecuting precedent-setting securities and financial fraud cases in federal and state courts on behalf of institutional and individual clients.
