Attorney General Hangs Up A Telemarketer



The Attorney General puts a stop to a telemarketer calling local residents with a pre-recorded message.
Raleigh, NC -- An Illinois telemarketer that made illegal prerecorded calls to collect information about potential customers and then sold it to satellite television dealers has been ordered to stop calling people in North Carolina, Attorney General Roy Cooper announced today.

"This telemarketer bothered people who'd made it clear they didn't want to get sales calls at home," said Cooper. "Not only were these calls illegal, but the telemarketers weren't even selling what they were pitching. Instead, they were trolling for potential customers so they could turn around and sell their names to another company."

In a preliminary injunction granted today in Wake County Superior Court by Judge Donald W. Stephens, Guardian Communications of Moline, Illinois is barred from calling North Carolinians while the case goes forward.

Cooper's office is also seeking to permanently stop Guardian's telemarketing calls into the state and make them pay fines and penalties.

In a complaint filed in Wake County Superior Court this week by Cooper's office, Guardian Communications is alleged to have called North Carolina homes to pitch satellite television service using illegal tactics such as prerecorded messages and calling numbers listed on the Do Not Call Registry. The company, which does not actually provide satellite service, then sold the information it collected about people to satellite firms who were looking for potential customers.

One consumer from Summerfield, NC described the call she got from Guardian in March 2005: "When I said 'Hello' no one responded," she said. "After a delay, a sales representative continued to speak in the same speed and tone.

It was obviously a pre-recorded message and I hung up immediately." Under North Carolina law, prerecorded telemarketing calls are illegal unless a live operator first asks if the consumer wishes to listen to the message.

North Carolina's case against Guardian was brought by Cooper's Telemarketing Fraud Task Force, funded by a grant from the US Department of Justice. Since the Do Not Call Registry began in 2003, Cooper's Task Force has taken dozens of telemarketers to court for breaking Do Not Call laws and recovered more than $250,000 from violators.

"When someone puts their phone number on the Do Not Call list, companies need to respect their wishes and stop calling. If you've placed your number on the list but still get calls, let my office know about it," said Cooper.

To report Do Not Call violators, call the Attorney General's Office at 1-877-5-NO-SCAM. To place your number on the Do Not Call Registry, call (888) 382-1222 from the number you wish to register or visit the state's "Do Not Call" website.


Telemarketer behind many illegal (206) calls. (206 415 8940) (206 415 8880) (206 415 9327) (206 415 9390) etc. Please post if you have any info.

http://www.ncdoj.com/DocumentStreamerClien...le=Guardian.pdf

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=78

DirecTV fined $5.3 million
Not sure if this is related to the Guardian Communications case. If anybody has info on the numbers these companies used, please post.

Posted at FTC site
Directv to Pay $5.3 Million Penalty For Do Not Call Violations
Penalty is Largest Ever for Violation of the Do Not Call Law
Satellite television provider DIRECTV will pay $5,335,000 to settle FTC charges that, since October 2003, DIRECTV and companies it hired to promote DIRECTV programming have been violating the Do Not Call (DNC) provisions of the Commission’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). This is the largest civil penalty the FTC has ever announced in a case enforcing any consumer protection law.
At the Commission’s request, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed the complaint and stipulated settlements in Federal District Court in Los Angeles. The complaint names as defendants DIRECTV, five firms that telemarketed on its behalf, and six principals of those telemarketing firms. Settlements with DIRECTV and two of the telemarketing firms and their principals were filed along with the complaint.
“This multimillion dollar penalty drives home a simple point: Sellers are on the hook for calls placed on their behalf,” said Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras. “The Do Not Call Rule applies to all players in the marketing chain, including retailers and their telemarketers.”
The Complaint
The complaint alleges that telemarketers calling on behalf of DIRECTV contacted consumers on the National DNC Registry. In addition, the complaint alleges that one of the telemarketers – Global Satellite, directly or through another entity – abandoned calls to consumers by failing to put a live sales representative on the line within two seconds after the called consumer completes his or her greeting, as required under the law.
Finally, the complaint alleges that DIRECTV provided substantial assistance and support to Global Satellite, even though it knew or consciously avoided knowing, that Global Satellite was violating the TSR.
Terms of the Court Orders
The FTC announced proposed stipulated final orders with DIRECTV and two telemarketers, Communications Concepts and its principal and American Communications of the Triad and its principal.
The first order requires DIRECTV to pay $5,335,000 in civil penalties. The proposed settlement agreement also prohibits DIRECTV, whether acting directly or through its authorized telemarketers, from violating the TSR. The proposed settlement tracks the relevant Telemarketing Sales Rule provisions, prohibiting calls to consumers on the DNC Registry, calls to consumers who asked not to receive calls on behalf of a particular seller, and abandoned calls.
The proposed settlement also requires DIRECTV to terminate any marketer of its products who DIRECTV knows or should know is making cold calls to consumers without express, written authorization from DIRECTV. The proposed settlement also prohibits DIRECTV from assisting and facilitating any telemarketer it knows or consciously avoids knowing is violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule. Finally, the proposed settlement imposes extensive monitoring requirements on DIRECTV mandating that the company oversee those marketers selling its goods or services.
The orders against Communication Concepts and American Communications require the companies to pay civil penalties of $25,000 and $50,000, respectively and bar both companies and their principals from future violations of the TSR and its component DNC Rule. The orders contain judgments of $205,000 against Communications Concepts and $746,300 against American Communications, both which have been suspended based on those companies’ inability to pay.
Settling Defendants and Ongoing Litigation
The proposed settlements announced today, if adopted by the court, would settle the Commission’s complaint and end its litigation against the following five defendants: DIRECTV, Inc.; Communication Concepts, LLC, also doing business as (dba) Rogers Group; Jim Turner, individually and as an officer of Communication Concepts; American Communications of the Triad; and Michael Gibson, individually and as an officer of American Communications of the Triad.
Litigation continues with the following seven defendants: D.R.D., Inc., also dba Power Direct; Daniel R. Delfino, individually and as an officer of D.R.D.; Nomrah Records, also dba Direct Activation; Mark Harmon, individually and as an officer of Nomrah Records; Global Satellite, LLC., also dba Mavcomm; William King, individually and as an officer of Global Satellite; and Michael Gleason, individually and as an officer of Global Satellite.
The Commission vote approving the complaint against DIRECTV and the five corporate defendants and their principals was 4-0, as was the vote to approve the stipulated final orders against DIRECTV and the two corporate defendants and their principals. The complaint and stipulated final orders were filed by the DOJ on the FTC’s behalf on December 12, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division.

DISH NETWORK continues to call people. My last call was from (734 298 7802). According to the North Carolina Attorney Generals office Guardian Communications (309 277 1222) (309 277 0682) is one of the companies that provides numbers to Dish Network. Call (888 332 1486) to file a complaint with Dish Network. Also file a complaint with your Attorney General.

Texas issues DNC warning to Dish Network
Posted at San Antoino Business Journal

PUC issues warning to Dish Network over do-not-call violations
Catherine Dominguez

Satellite television provider Dish Network has 20 days to rectify or contest allegations that they violated Texas No-Call list regulations over a nine-month period in 2005.

» DISH Network

In a Jan. 3 letter, legal staff members of the Public Utility Commission of Texas notified the Englewood, Colo.-based company, which provides services in San Antonio, that the regulator had received numerous reports of violations from Texas residents.
If the company is found to have indeed violated the Texas Business and Commerce Code's No-Call list regulations, it could be fined $1,000 for each violation. Additionally, the letter states that Dish Network failed to purchase the Texas No-Call lists published in March, June and September 2005.
According to the PUC Substantive Rule 26.37 (d)(2), telemarketers are required to purchase the Texas No-Call list, which is published every 60 days. Failing to purchase the list carries a fine of $750 for each violation.
The Texas No-Call list was established through Texas House Bill 210 and became effective in January 2002. The law allows a Texas resident to place his or her name, address and telephone number on this list, to identify themselves as a consumer who does not wish to receive telemarketing calls. The list prevents telephone solicitations to residential and wireless phone numbers from all telemarketers operating in Texas.
Serious warning
According to a memorandum sent by PUC staff members to W. Lane Lanford, executive director of the PUC, this is not the first time the company has violated the statute.
"Commission staff issued a letter to Dish Network in February 2005 reminding the company of its obligation related to the Texas No-Call list and warning the company that additional non-compliance could lead to an enforcement action by the commission," the memorandum states. "Since the issuance of that letter, staff has determined that Dish Network has continued to engage in telemarketing activities and, based upon information received from customer complaints, made 14 prohibited calls during the period March 2005 to November 2005."

The company could face a fine up to $17,000 for the violations.
"Now that this letter has been sent to us, we will investigate (the allegations)," says Marc Lumpkin, spokesman for Dish Network. "Our legal department will get involved and investigate it."
Lumpkin says Dish operates two large call centers in Texas located in Harlingen and El Paso, but says the company does not make telemarketing calls from those locations. He explains that Dish Network has independent satellite television retailers throughout the state that purchase Dish Network equipment and resell it. Dish Network customers subscribe to their satellite service through those retailers.
Some of those retailers do make telemarketing calls and, Lumpkin adds, have violated the Texas No-Call list in the past despite Dish Network's efforts to follow all rules and regulations of the state.
"We educated them on that," he says. "They have to follow all laws. They have to adhere to all local, state and national codes regarding do-not-call lists and they cannot violate them. If they do, they face possible termination as a Dish Network retailer."
Lumpkin says Dish Network, as a company, follows state do-not-call list regulations. He said exceptions to the laws allow the company to call current and former customers, including those with outstanding statements.
"As a general rule, we don't call out (to new customers). We take call-ins," Lumpkin says. "The independent retailers do all sorts of marketing activities."
Dish Network, an EchoStar Communication Corp. subsidiary, provides Direct Broadcast Satellite television products and services to 12 million customers nationwide.

Posted at KOTV the news at 6
Oklahoma AG Drew Edmondson Reaches Agreement With Telemarketing Company



OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson has reached an agreement with an Illinois telemarketing company as part of his investigation of a political consultant.

Officials say Guardian Communications Incorporated will pay a $3,000 civil penalty and won't face any legal action.

Edmondson filed a civil lawsuit last week accusing consultant Tim Pope of violating provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The act requires all prerecorded telephone messages to identify who is responsible for the call.

Pope acknowledged in The Oklahoman in January he paid for 20,000 calls accusing Oklahoma County Commissioner Jim Roth of "advancing the homosexual agenda in Oklahoma County."

The lawsuit seeks a $500 fine for each call, meaning Pope could be ordered to pay $10-million.

Illegal telemarketer Guardian Communications cited by FCC

*Pages 1--4 from Microsoft Word - 59360.doc*
Federal Communications Commission DA 06- 1726
August 30, 2006
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Guardian Communications, Inc.
Attn: Kevin Baker, President
3322 38 th Avenue Moline, IL 61625
RE: EB- 06- TC- 157
Dear Mr. Baker: This is an official CITATION, issued pursuant to section 503( b)( 5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), 47 U. S. C. § 503( b)( 5), for violations of the Act and the Federal Communications Commission’s rules that govern telephone solicitations and unsolicited advertisements. 1 As explained below, future violations of the Act or Commission’s rules in this regard may subject you and your company to monetary forfeitures. It has come to our attention that your company, acting under your direction, has delivered one or more prerecorded messages to a residential telephone line or lines in violation of section 227( b)( 1)( B) of the Act and section 64.1200( a)( 2) of the Commission’s rules, as described in the attached complaint( s). 2 Under Section 227( b)( 1)( B) of the Act and section 64.1200( a)( 2) of the Commission’s rules, it is unlawful for any person within the United States, or any person outside the United States if the recipient is within the United States . . . to initiate any telephone call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party, unless the call 1 47 U. S. C. § 227; 47 C. F. R. § 64. 1200. A copy of these provisions is enclosed for your convenience. Section 227 was added to the Communications Act by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 and is most commonly known as the TCPA. The TCPA and the Commission’s parallel rules restrict a variety of practices that are associated with telephone solicitation and use of the telephone network to deliver unsolicited advertisements, including prerecorded messages to residential telephone lines. We refer in this citation to the Commission’s rules as they existed at the time of the violations in this matter. Revised rules in this area took effect on August 1, 2006. 2 We have attached the 3 complaints at issue in this citation. At least 12 additional similar complaints are not attached but are available from the FCC’s complaint database.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20554 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 06- 1726 2 (i) Is made for emergency purposes, 3 (ii) Is not made for a commercial purpose, (iii) Is made for a commercial purpose but does not include or introduce an unsolicited advertisement 4 or constitute a telephone solicitation, 5 (iv) Is made to any person with whom the caller has an established business relationship 6 at the time the call is made, or (v) Is made by or on behalf of a tax- exempt nonprofit organization. Accordingly, it is generally unlawful to use an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver an advertisement or telephone solicitation to a residential telephone line unless the call is made: (1) by or on behalf of a tax- exempt nonprofit organization; (2) with the prior express consent of the called party; or (3) to a person who has an established business relationship with the caller. The attached information indicates that your company, acting under your direction, delivered an unsolicited advertisement or telephone solicitation, through a prerecorded message, to one or more residential telephone subscribers who either (1) had not expressly invited or 3 The term “emergency purposes” means calls made necessary in any situation affecting the health and safety of consumers.” 47 C. F. R. § 64. 1200( f)( 2). 4 The term “unsolicited advertisement” means “any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person’s prior express invitation or permission.” 47 U. S. C.§ 227( a)( 4); 47 C. F. R. § 64. 1200( f)( 10). 5 The term “telephone solicitation” means the initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services, which is transmitted to any person, but such term does not include a call or message: (i) To any person with that person's prior express invitation or permission; (ii) To any person with whom the caller has an established business relationship; or (iii) By or on behalf of a tax- exempt nonprofit organization. 47 U. S. C. § 227( a)( 3); 47 C. F. R.§ 64. 1200( f)( 9). 6 The term “established business relationship” means a prior or existing relationship formed by a voluntary two- way communication between a person or entity and a residential subscriber with or without an exchange of consideration, on the basis of the subscriber's purchase or transaction with the entity within the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding the date of the telephone call or on the basis of the subscriber's inquiry or application regarding products or services offered by the entity within the three months immediately preceding the date of the call, which relationship has not been previously terminated by either party. (i) The subscriber's seller- specific do- not- call request, as set forth in paragraph (d)( 3) of this section, terminates an established business relationship for purposes of telemarketing and telephone solicitation even if the subscriber continues to do business with the seller. (ii) The subscriber's established business relationship with a particular business entity does not extend to affiliated entities unless the subscriber would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or services offered by the affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. 47 C. F. R. § 64. 1200( f)( 3) 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 06- 1726 3 authorized the call( s) or (2) did not have an established business relationship with you or your company (a transaction within 18 months prior to the call( s), or an inquiry or application within 3 months prior to the call( s)).
As explained above, this action violates section 227( b)( 1)( B) of the Communications Act and section 64.1200( a)( 2) of the Commission’s rules. Separately, it appears that you and your company have also violated other Commission rules that govern all prerecorded messages. Under section 64.1200( b), prerecorded messages must, at the beginning of the message, state clearly the identity of the business (the name under which the business is registered to conduct business with the State Corporation Commission or comparable regulatory authority), individual, or other entity that is responsible for initiating the call. In addition, the telephone number 7 or address of such business, or individual, or other entity must be provided either during or after the prerecorded message. According to the attached information received by the Commission, it appears that your telephone solicitation( s) did not contain all of the required information.
If, after receipt of this citation, you or your company violate the Communications Act or the Commission’s rules in any manner described herein, the Commission may impose monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation. 8 You may respond to this citation within 30 days from the date of this letter either through (1) a personal interview at the Commission’s Field Office nearest to your place of business, or (2) a written statement. Your response should specify the actions that you are taking to ensure that you do not violate the Commission’s rules governing telephone solicitation and unsolicited advertisements, as described above. The nearest Commission field office appears to be the Chicago Office in Park Ridge, IL, 60068- 1460; please contact Al McCloud at (202) 418- 2499 if you wish to schedule a personal interview. You should schedule any interview to take place within 30 days of the date of this letter. You should send any written statement within 30 days of the date of this letter to: 7 Any telephone number so provided may not be for (1) an autodialer or prerecorded message player that placed the call, (2) a 900 number, or (3) any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. In addition, any such telephone number provided in connection with prerecorded sales message to a residential telephone subscriber must permit any individual to make a do- not- call request during regular business hours for the duration of the telemarketing campaign. 8 See 47 C. F. R. § 1.80( b)( 3). 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 06- 1726 4
Kurt A. Schroeder
Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission
445- 12 th Street, S. W. Rm. 4- C222 Washington, D. C. 20554
Reference EB- 06- TC- 157 when corresponding with the Commission. Reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Include a description of the accommodation you will need including as much detail as you can. Also include a way we can contact you if we need more information. Please allow at least 5 days advance notice; last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an e-mail to fcc504@ fcc. gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau: For sign language interpreters, CART, and other reasonable accommodations: 202- 418- 0530 (voice), 202- 418- 0432 (tty); For accessible format materials (braille, large print, electronic files, and audio format): 202- 418- 0531 (voice), 202- 418- 7365 (tty). Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U. S. C. § 552( a)( e)( 3), we are informing you that the Commission’s staff will use all relevant material information before it, including information that you disclose in your interview or written statement, to determine what, if any, enforcement action is required to ensure your compliance with the Communications Act and the Commission’s rules. The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U. S. C. § 1001.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.
Sincerely, Kurt A. Schroeder
Deputy Chief Telecommunications Consumers Division Enforcement Bureau

Telemarketer CTC Marketing takes over where Guardian Communications left off

231 224 2054 (CTC Marketing) illegal survey from
United Public Opinion Group.
Robert Johnson pres.
110 West 9th. Street Room 934
Wilmington, DE 19801.
302 661 1390

Call offers two free cruise tickets for answering ten questions. Many calls in violation of DNC laws in US and Canada.

231 224 2050 (Fremont MI / CTC Marketing) Pre-recorded calls about saving money on credit card interest rates. The operator would only say Accounts Management when I asked the name of the company. He said it was in the "DSW Area" Texas. He hung up when I asked for an address.

Still looking for information on CTC Marketing. It may be a fake name. It is definitely not the CTC marketing (Coast To Coast) that sells insurance in Michigan. If you have any info. on this company please post.
They also use 231 224 2056, 231 224 2058, 231 224 2057, 231 224 2053, 231 224 2051, 616 980 2196, 616 980 2188, 231 224 2055, 616 980 2191

Report all illegal calls to your Attorney General and the FTC.

Guardian Communications shut down by F.T.C.

Posted at Quad City Times

Telemarketing companies face federal lawsuit

By Dustin Lemmon
Thursday, November 08, 2007

A federal lawsuit has been filed against two telemarketing companies based in Moline that have allegedly violated laws related to the national do-not-call registry and use of automated dialers.

According to the suit filed by the U.S. Attorney’s office in U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois, the companies have abandoned calls, failed to transmit caller identification information and placed calls on behalf of sellers who had not paid National Do Not Call Registry fees.

The defendants include Guardian Communications, in the 1600 block of 7th Street, United States Voice Broadcasting Inc., in the 1900 block of 7th Street, and Kevin Baker, owner and president of Guardian Communications.

Efforts to reach the defendants for comment Wednesday were unsuccessful. A phone number for Guardian Enterprises, which has the same address as Guardian Communications, was disconnected.

The Federal Trade Commission issued a news release Wednesday saying the suit is one of five nationwide filed this week against companies that have violated various telemarketing laws.

The FTC said a stipulated final order was filed with the suit and the two companies will pay $150,000 to settle the case with a remaining $7.8 million judgment suspended because they’re unable to pay.

According to the suit, since 2004 the companies through a joint venture have sold a voice message delivery service that can be used to deliver pre-recorded messages to consumers and their answering machines through a service described as “voice broadcasting.”

The sellers record a message, and the companies use an automated dialer to place calls to a database of telephone numbers either provided by the companies or the seller, the suit states, adding the companies can place up to 20 million phone calls a day.

The defendants have violated federal laws by “abandoning” or not connecting calls to a live representative within two seconds of the consumer answering the phone, the suit states.

According to the suit, the defendants have programmed their equipment to either play a recorded message to the person answering the phone or cancel the call after determining that the phone was not answered by an answering machine or voice-mail system.

“Guardian blasted phone numbers with pre-recorded telemarketing pitches, immediately terminating calls when a live consumer answered,” the FTC said in its news release.

The companies also violated laws requiring that either the name of the telemarketer or seller be displayed to the consumer’s caller ID service, the suit states, adding the calls would say “Cust Service,” “Services, Inc.,” “Card Services,” “LTR” or “DWC.”

The suit further claims that the companies since October 2003 have called numerous numbers in various area codes without their sellers having paid an annual fee for access to telephone numbers included in the National Do Not Call Registry.

The suit claims the defendants could be fined $11,000 for each violation of the FTC Telemarketing Sales Rule. The suit also asks for a court order permanently enjoining the defendants from further violations.

Dustin Lemmon can be contacted at

(563) 383-2493 or dlemmon@qctimes.com.

Thanks to everybody who helped shut down this illegal telemarketer. It took over two years, but stopping 20 million calls a day should allow a few people to enjoy a peaceful dinner. Visit anti206 to see the history of this fight.