Paste your Google Webmaster Tools verification code here
TCPA  Changes Affecting Telemarketing

TCPA Changes Affecting Telemarketing

What you Need to Know:

Callers cannot avoid obtaining consumer consent for a robocall simply because they are not ‘currently’ or ‘presently’ dialing random or sequential phone numbers.”

2. A called party “may revoke consent at any time and through any reasonable means.”

The FCC states that “a called party may revoke consent at any time and through any reasonable means. A caller may not limit the manner in which revocation may occur.”

The FCC also emphasized that “regardless of the means by which a caller obtains consent, under longstanding [FCC] precedent, if any question arises as to whether prior express consent was provided by a call recipient, the burden is on the caller to prove that it obtained the necessary prior express consent.”

3.  Consent must be specific to the type of call, and type of telephone service of the number being dialed.

4. Only “the consumer assigned the telephone number dialed and billed for the call” or “the non-subscriber customary user of a telephone number included in a family or business calling plan” may consent.

However, “providing one’s phone number evidences prior express consent to be called at that number, absent instructions to the contrary.”—I got a real problem with this part. Just because I give Google my phone number and post it on my webpage does not mean I consent for business to call and solicit me. I really hate the Google partner calls wanting to do my ads or SEO.   Wonder if this counts as an expressed revocation of acceptance of solicitation calls under TCPA ???

5. “Callers are liable for robocalls to reassigned wireless numbers when the current subscriber to or customary user of the number has not consented, subject to a limited, one-call exception for cases in which the caller does not have actual or constructive knowledge of the reassignment.”

6. The FCC rejected one Petitioner’s arguments (subsequently withdrawn) that “the TCPA’s protections are limited to telemarketing calls to wireless numbers and should not require consent for non-telemarketing robocalls made with a predictive dialer.”

7. “The TCPA’s consent requirement applies to short message service text messages (“SMS” or “text message”),” as well as “internet to phone text messages,” in addition to voice calls.

8. The FCC’s 2012 “prior express written consent” rule is waived “for certain parties for a limited period of time to allow them to obtain updated consent.”

9. “'[O]n demand’ text messages sent in response to a consumer request are not subject to TCPA liability.”

10. “[C]ertain free, pro-consumer financial- and healthcare-related messages” are exempt “from the consumer-consent requirement, subject to strict conditions and limitations to protect consumer privacy.”

The FCC imposed the following restrictions and requirements regarding these messages:

“voice calls and text messages must be sent, if at all, only to the wireless telephone number provided by the customer of the financial institution;

voice calls and text messages must state the name and contact information of the financial institution (for voice calls, these disclosures must be made at the beginning of the call);

voice calls and text messages are strictly limited to the [specified purposes] and must not include any telemarketing, cross-marketing, solicitation, debt collection, or advertising content;

voice calls and text messages must be concise, generally one minute or less in length for voice calls (unless more time is needed to obtain customer responses or answer customer questions) and 160 characters or less in length for text messages;

a financial institution may initiate no more than three messages (whether by voice call or text message) per event over a three-day period for an affected account;

a financial institution must offer recipients within each message an easy means to opt out of future such messages, voice calls that could be answered by a live person must include an automated, interactive voice- and/or keypress-activated opt-out mechanism that enables the call recipient to make an opt-out request prior to terminating the call, voice calls that could be answered by an answering machine or voice mail service must include a toll-free number that the consumer can call to opt out of future calls, text messages must inform recipients of the ability to opt out by replying ‘STOP,’ which will be the exclusive means by which consumers may opt out of such messages; and

a financial institution must honor opt-out requests immediately.”

The FCC also adopted the following conditions for each exempted message made by or on behalf of a healthcare provider:

voice calls and text messages must be sent, if at all, only to the wireless telephone number provided by the patient;

voice calls and text messages must state the name and contact information of the healthcare provider (for voice calls, these disclosures would need to be made at the beginning of the call);

voice calls and text messages are strictly limited to [certain specific healthcare-related purposes]; must not include any telemarketing, solicitation, or advertising; may not include accounting, billing, debt-collection, or other financial content; and must comply with HIPAA privacy rules;

voice calls and text messages must be concise, generally one minute or less in length for voice calls and 160 characters or less in length for text messages;

a healthcare provider may initiate only one message (whether by voice call or text message) per day, up to a maximum of three voice calls or text messages combined per week from a specific healthcare provider;

a healthcare provider must offer recipients within each message an easy means to opt out of future such messages, voice calls that could be answered by a live person must include an automated, interactive voice- and/or keypress-activated opt-out mechanism that enables the call recipient to make an opt-out request prior to terminating the call, voice calls that could be answered by an answering machine or voice mail service must include a toll-free number that the consumer can call to opt out of future healthcare calls, text messages must inform recipients of the ability to opt out by replying ‘STOP,’ which will be the exclusive means by which consumers may opt out of such messages; and

a healthcare provider must honor the opt-out requests immediately.”

https://www.fcc.gov/document/tcpa-omnibus-declaratory-ruling-and-order-order

If your right have been violated contact our office to discuss the matter.

 

Clearwater Bankruptcy,  28870 U.S. Hwy 19 #300, Hodusa Towers, Clearwater, FL 33761,

Phone: (727) 330-1627 email: [email protected]

King v. Burwell – ObamaCare Update

King v. Burwell – ObamaCare Update

Holding: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Section 36B’s tax credits are available to individuals who purchase health insurance on an exchange created by the federal government.   http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/king-v-burwell/

Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas and Alito, JJ., joined.

In the case of an applicable taxpayer, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this subtitle for any taxable year an amount equal to the premium assistance credit amount of the taxpayer for the taxable year.

(2) (a) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 [1] of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, […]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_v._Burwell

What this means to you.   You may keep the subsidies you receive for the insurance the government is forcing you to carry.

 

Clearwater Bankruptcy,  28870 U.S. Hwy 19 #300, Hodusa Towers, Clearwater, FL 33761,

Phone: (727) 330-1627 email: [email protected]

Compelling Borrowers To Produce Personal Financial Information To Facilitate Foreclosure Mediation No Longer Permitted

Compelling Borrowers To Produce Personal Financial Information To Facilitate Foreclosure Mediation No Longer Permitted

Morejon v. F&M Real Estate, Inc., et. al., 40 Fla. L. Weekly D823a (Fla. 2n DCA April 8, 2015). Unless a borrower voluntarily agrees to produce financial documents in advance of a mediation to allow a lender to evaluate possible mortgage options or options to foreclosure, court-ordered foreclosure mediations may become futile.  The 13th Judicial Circuit’s interlocutory order requiring borrowers to produce private financial records for court-ordered mediation, based upon their Uniform Order of Referral to Foreclosure Mediation which requires that the borrower provide a completed financial disclosure form and any additional documentation requested by the plaintiff at least 30 days prior to the scheduled mediation was quashed by the 2nd DCA.

 

Clearwater Bankruptcy,  28870 U.S. Hwy 19 #300, Hodusa Towers, Clearwater, FL 33761,

Phone: (727) 330-1627 email: [email protected]

Indiana And Pennsylvania District Courts Hold That Filing Proofs Of Claim On Time-Barred Debt Does Not Violate FDCPA

Indiana And Pennsylvania District Courts Hold That Filing Proofs Of Claim On Time-Barred Debt Does Not Violate FDCPA

In Donaldson v. LVNV Funding, LLC, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-01979-LJM-TAB (S.D. Ind. Apr. 7, 2015) and Torres v. Asset Acceptance, LLC Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-6542-ER (E.D. Pa. Apr. 7, 2015), the debt collectors filed proofs of claim in the plaintiffs’ Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases.  The Debtors  filed lawsuits under the FDCPA alleging that filing the proofs of claim violated the FDCPA by making false representations of the character, amount, or legal status of the debt, by threatening to take action that cannot legally be taken, by using false representations or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect the debts, and by using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect the debts. The Southern District of Indiana and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania  granted the creditors  Motion to Dismiss in both cases,  declining to follow the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC,  758 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2014). The 11th circuit found that the POC violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA” 1257 or “Act”). 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p (2006).

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15631228362360253615&q=Crawford+v.+LVNV+Funding,+LLC,++758+F.3d+1254+(11th+Cir.+2014)&hl=en&as_sdt=40006

 

Clearwater Bankruptcy,  28870 U.S. Hwy 19 #300, Hodusa Towers, Clearwater, FL 33761,

Phone: (727) 330-1627 email: [email protected]

 

 

FL App Ct (4th DCA) Reverses Judgment in Foreclosure Action, Because Prior Action Dismissed With Prejudice By Operation of Law

FL App Ct (4th DCA) Reverses Judgment in Foreclosure Action, Because Prior Action Dismissed With Prejudice By Operation of Law

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District,  reversed a mortgage foreclosure judgment, because the prior foreclosure action had been dismissed with prejudice by operation of law-  an adjudication on the merits, barring the second foreclosure action based on the same default under the doctrine of res judicata.

The Court held that the mortgagee was required to provide a new notice of breach of the mortgage agreement to support its foreclosure complaint in the second action, which the mortgagee did not do.

 

A new default would not have barred the 2nd foreclosure action

http://www.4dca.org/opinions/April%202015/04-08-15/4D13-4825.op.pdf 

Clearwater Bankruptcy,  28870 U.S. Hwy 19 #300, Hodusa Towers, Clearwater, FL 33761,

Phone: (727) 330-1627 email: [email protected]