# National Do Not Call List may be illegal? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 24, 2003, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-do-not-call-list-may-be-illegal/203564 "2003-09-24T16:43:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-do-not-call-list-may-be-illegal/203564/81 "2003-09-25T21:01:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Larry Mudd \* > I hope it works out for y’all – sure like to see something similar up here. Is the telemarketing situation as bad in Canada as it is in the U.S.? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-do-not-call-list-may-be-illegal/203564/82 "2003-09-25T21:38:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monty \* > So long as telemarketers are using–and paying for–telephone calls, the phone companies will be very delighted to continue having their business. At least that’s my opinion. Especially since it creates demand for such services as caller ID. Jonathan Chance > [@](#): > > If it makes you feel affirmed to ruin some innocent receptionists day (and not have any impact at all) then you’ve got issues. The receptionists are being paid to have their day ruined. That’s why it’s called a **job**. And clearly it is having an impact; they had to abandon the previous number. gobear > [@](#): > > All you will accomplish is to swear at some poor woman making $9.75/hr, with no benefits. More precisely, it will mean that the company is now paying someone $9.75/hr to listen to people complain. Sounds like a benefit to me. Casey1505 > [@](#): > > To hijack my own thread, I’ve given this some serious thought, moreso to save on long distance, since most cell plans offer free nationwide long distance. The only thing really holding me back is that I have a dial-up connection for my computer, and to upgrade to cable in my area is kind of expensive. I don’t see the connection. Do you think that your cell phone will interfere with your dial-up connection? Do you think that your landline will only work if you plug a phone into it? ---
**Author:** ![SkipMagic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skipmagic/32/20706_2.png) [@SkipMagic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkipMagic)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-do-not-call-list-may-be-illegal/203564/83 "2003-09-25T21:39:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jonathan Chance \* > \*\*If it makes you feel affirmed to ruin some innocent receptionists day (and not have any impact at all) then you’ve got issues. \*\* It makes me feel much better knowing that they’re losing thousands (hopefully it’s that much, if not more) of dollars for all of those 800 number calls. Petty, sure. But I still feel better. And that receptionist? I’m sure if she/he gets overwhelmed, she/he can just–ahem–_call_ for help. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-do-not-call-list-may-be-illegal/203564/84 "2003-09-25T21:44:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > \*\* > That judge’s decision was obviously a festering pile of shit. His reasoning was that the Congress didn’t grant authority to the FTC to implement the list. Well what the fuck is THIS? > > [http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr395.html](http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr395.html) > \*\* That grants authorization to the FTC to collect fees to implement the list, not neccesarily to implement the list. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-do-not-call-list-may-be-illegal/203564/85 "2003-09-25T21:49:21Z")
Found it…here’s the actual decision. > **[dmadcorder.pdf](https://www.epic.org/privacy/telemarketing/dmadcorder.pdf)** > > 432.27 KB ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-do-not-call-list-may-be-illegal/203564/86 "2003-09-25T21:56:00Z")
> [@](#): > > The legislation upon which the FTC has relied does not unequivocally grant the FTC the authority under the TCFAP to promulgate a do-not-call registry. It merely recognizes that the FTC has done so… > > Admittedly, the elimination of telemarketing fraud and the prohibition against deceptive and abusive telemarketing acts or practices are significant public concerns; however “an adminstrative agency’s power to regulate in the public interest must always be grounded in a valid grant of authority from Congress.” 529 U.S. at 161. Absent such an grant of authority in this case, the Court finds the do-not-call provision to be invalid. I don’t see why people are mad at the judge. ---
**Author:** ![Casey1505](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dc4da7/32.png) [@Casey1505](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Casey1505)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-do-not-call-list-may-be-illegal/203564/87 "2003-09-25T22:19:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > I don’t see the connection. Do you think that your cell phone will interfere with your dial-up connection? Do you think that your landline will only work if you plug a phone into it? No. I know that a cell phone won’t interfere with dial-up, and I know that a land line will work without a phone. What I’m saying is, if I have to pay $xx.xx a month for a land line for the PC, then why not stick a phone in it, too? That wouldn’t make sense. My wife and I would really benefit from cell phones, for different reasons, but we can’t really afford it right now. If there was an affordable way we can get a cable hookup for the PC (which would also take care of the TV), then we can lose the land line altogether, and life off a shared minutes cell plan. I want one or the other (preferably cable), but not both. ---
**Author:** ![Tars\_Tarkas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tars\_Tarkas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tars_Tarkas)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-do-not-call-list-may-be-illegal/203564/88 "2003-09-25T23:25:30Z")
[Second Judge Knocks Down Do Not Call List](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20030925/ts_nm/telecoms_telemarketing_dc_26) Uh-oh! ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-do-not-call-list-may-be-illegal/203564/89 "2003-09-25T23:31:04Z")
> [@](#): > > U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham in Denver said, “The Federal Trade Commission has chosen to entangle itself too much in the consumers’ decision by manipulating consumer choice and favoring speech by charitable (organizations) over commercial speech.” Heh. Looks like I called it. The obvious answer is to go multiple choice. Give people the option of choosing who can and can’t call. Those who want to be called by pollsters, charities, politicians or telemarketers or any combination of the above can do so. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-do-not-call-list-may-be-illegal/203564/90 "2003-09-25T23:54:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jonathan Chance \* > \*\*If it makes you feel affirmed to ruin some innocent receptionists day (and not have any impact at all) then you’ve got issues. \*\* There are no innocents in the telemarketing industry. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-do-not-call-list-may-be-illegal/203564/91 "2003-09-25T23:57:20Z")
What about telemarketers that are part of a for-profit operation but represent themselves as charity? I’m thinking of the most persistent callers in my area, who say that they are calling “on behalf of” Big Brothers, (it used to be Developmental Disabilities,) asking for donations of clothing or consumer goods. They are actually Value Village – the single most profitable retail venture in Canada, (although they’re based in the U.S.) Great business model: solicit donations and resell them at prices way beyond what you’d expect to find at a genuine “thrift store.” They pass on a paltry 10% of the _net_ profit to the charity that they use to con people into supplying them with inventory. Is this a charity drive or a commercial call? They’re not exactly selling anything, but 90% of the benefit is for a commercial venture. Could exemptions for charities open the door for token charity affiliation for all telemarketers? “I’m calling on behalf of Faith United Church! We can steamclean your drapes and 5% of the profit will go towards gift certificates for the homeless and destitute!” ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-do-not-call-list-may-be-illegal/203564/92 "2003-09-25T23:58:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Miller \* > \*\*There are no innocents in the telemarketing industry. \*\* So, **Miller** , what you’re saying is, “Phone them all. Let God sort them out.”?😉 ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2003, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-do-not-call-list-may-be-illegal/203564/93 "2003-09-26T00:09:02Z")
How about, “The only good telemarketer is an ex-telemarketer”? ---
**Author:** ![Casey1505](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dc4da7/32.png) [@Casey1505](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Casey1505)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2003, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-do-not-call-list-may-be-illegal/203564/94 "2003-09-26T03:00:54Z")
“They can have my headset when they pry it from my cold, dead ear!” Bumpersticker on telemarketer’s car? ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2003, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-do-not-call-list-may-be-illegal/203564/95 "2003-09-26T03:33:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Larry Mudd \* > **Is this a charity drive or a commercial call? They’re not exactly selling anything, but 90% of the benefit is for a commercial venture.** Here, it would be considered a charity. The telemarketing shop I worked for was like that… they called on behalf of a nonprofit political organization to sell concert tickets. Some fraction of the ticket price was given to the nonprofit, but much or most of it stayed with the telemarketers. They were exempt from certain rules because they were calling for the nonprofit - I think they only had to keep people on the DNC list for one year instead of a few years, for example. ---
**Author:** ![easy\_e](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/eb8c5e/32.png) [@easy\_e](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/easy_e)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2003, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-do-not-call-list-may-be-illegal/203564/96 "2003-09-26T03:54:04Z")
IANAL, but I don’t see how the telemarketers have a legal argument. I could see that if the default was for a household to be placed on the do-not-call list, and people who wanted calls to have to opt in. But this list has people who are so dead-set against the calls that they will go through the effort (okay, it’s not much) to place their numbers on a list. And, believe it or not, there are plenty of people who “feel bad” about turning down telemarketers. The NY Times did an article about it several weeks ago (too tired to link right now). The thing I remember best is a woman who would instead lie to the telemarketers (say she didn’t own her house to get out of buying alumninum siding). I was floored. The only creatures I know that have that little of a spine are sponges. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji\_Kitakyusho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f0a364/32.png) [@Fuji\_Kitakyusho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji_Kitakyusho)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2003, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-do-not-call-list-may-be-illegal/203564/97 "2003-09-26T04:04:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Casey1505 \* > \*\*“They can have my headset when they pry it from my cold, dead ear!” \*\* Your proposal is acceptable. (draw, aim, fire, retrieve headset, go for beer) ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2003, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-do-not-call-list-may-be-illegal/203564/98 "2003-09-26T06:23:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Captain Amazing \* > \*\*I don’t see why people are mad at the judge. \*\* Sorry, but I don’t understand the judge’s reasoning. I can’t seem to select text in the document, but he cites a case saying: “Ratification may be effected by appropriation acts. But the appropriation must plainly show a purpose to bestow the precise authority which is claimed.” He then goes on to say that Congress did not grant such authority. Well, please explain how one could be more plain than PL 108-10: > [@](#): > > To authorize the Federal Trade Commission to collect fees for the implementation and enforcement of a `do-not-call’ registry, and for other purposes. The precedent clearly says that appropriations _are_ considered as bestowing authority. It’s clear what the appropriation was for, so what exactly is the argument? I don’t understand; do you and the judge think that the FTC was just supposed to collect the money and then do nothing with it? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2003, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-do-not-call-list-may-be-illegal/203564/99 "2003-09-26T06:43:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tars Tarkas \* > \*\*[Second Judge Knocks Down Do Not Call List](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20030925/ts_nm/telecoms_telemarketing_dc_26) > > Uh-oh! \*\* Oh, for fuck’s sake! Isn’t there precedent as to free speech being situational? I’m pretty sure I don’t have the right to point a bullhorn in my neighbor’s window at 3:00 in the morning and scream at them. You don’t have the right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded building. This is about not cold-calling people at home who have asked not to be cold-called. This isn’t an issue of unequal First Amendment rights, because it’s got fuck-all to do with the First Amendment. I think the FTC needs to get some better lawyers. ---
**Author:** ![Linus\_Van\_Pelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ebca7d/32.png) [@Linus\_Van\_Pelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Linus_Van_Pelt)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2003, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-do-not-call-list-may-be-illegal/203564/100 "2003-09-26T07:38:53Z")
So has the DMA repeated their often used lie that they “don’t want to call anyone that doesn’t want to be called” yet? I have mixed feelings about this whole thing. I hate telemarketing, but I’m getting pretty sick of all the people that I’m hearing quoted saying “50 million people can’t be wrong” (Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-Louisiana), or things along those lines, _as a response to the judge’s decision_. They keep waving around the number of people who have signed up for the list as if it’s relevant. I have no idea if the judge was right or wrong, but the number of registrants (and I’m one of them) means neither diddly nor squat in regard to whether or not it was legally implemented. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-do-not-call-list-may-be-illegal/203564.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/national-do-not-call-list-may-be-illegal/203564.md?page=6)