| |
FTC vs Robocaller
|
| |
The advances in telecommunication technology over the years have served to make communication easier than ever for the outbound and inbound call center industry. Many consumers appreciate the ability to get in touch with the companies that offer the products and services that they use. However, not all of these technological advances have served to improve the lives of U.S. consumers. Anyone who has ever received a "robocall", an automated solicitation from a telemarketing call center, will likely agree with this sentiment.
While robocalls by telemarketers are technically a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, there are, unfortunately, plenty of less-than-scrupulous businesses out there that don't mind bending or breaking the rules in order to earn a few bucks. Earlier this year, the Federal Trade Commission took action to stop an outbound call center campaign that had been the source of hundreds of millions of robocalls directed at U.S. consumers. In response to a deluge of complaints, the FTC contacted a federal court to shut them down.
The calls were seemingly carried out at random, as not only did tens of thousands of individuals on the United States National Do Not Call Registry receive calls with these prerecorded messages, cell phones, government offices, answering services, places of business, and even 911 dispatchers were bombarded by unwanted calls. Many times, a number would receive several of these calls in a single day.
Not only was the calling campaign itself handled in an illegal manner, the service that was promoted by these calls was itself very deceptive. If the call recipient listened to the recorded message that they received, they would hear a warning that the warranty for their vehicle was about to expire and that they could press one if they wanted to speak to a live warranty specialist in order to extend that warranty. The person they spoke to would lead them to mistakenly believe that the call originated from a company affiliated with either the manufacturer of the consumer's vehicle or the dealership where it was purchased, offering what seemed to be an extension of the original warranty.
|
|
