Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Developments of Note
Final Settlements In DIRECTV
Do Not Call Actions Bring $100,000
Telemarketers charged with violating the terms of the National Do Not Call Registry when they tried to sell DIRECTV satellite-television subscriptions in 2005 settled with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) last month, agreeing to pay $100,000 and to not violate the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). In December 2005, the FTC charged that DIRECTV, and other defendants telemarketing for DIRECTV, had called consumers whose phone numbers were registered with the national Do Not Call (DNC) Registry. In settling the charges, DIRECTV itself paid $5.3 million ' the largest DNC-penalty payment the FTC has obtained. The stipulated final judgment settles FTC charges against D.R.D. Inc. (d/b/a Power Direct); Daniel R. Delfino, individually and as an officer of D.R.D.; Global Satellite LLC (d/b/a Mavcomm); William King, individually and as an officer of Global Satellite; and Michael Gleason, individually and as an officer of Global Satellite. The government said that the D.R.D. and Global Satellite defendants violated the DNC provisions of the TSR by telemarketing DIRECTV subscriptions to people who had put their numbers on the National DNC Registry. Global Satellite also violated the TSR by using pre-recorded telemarketing messages that resulted in abandoned calls. The Commission explained that under the TSR, each abandoned call is a violation if not connected to an operator within two seconds of the consumer answering. The parties are also to monitor and keep record of activities to ensure compliance. An FTC news release is available at www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/12/directv.htm.
Tele-scammers That Targeted Spanish-speaking
Consumers Reach Settlement with FTC
A telemarketing company will give up $235,000 in a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) over a complaint that the company, Del Sol, scammed Spanish-speaking consumers by offering them 'designer' merchandise but furnishing imitation goods and outdated electronics. The FTC charged that the company's actions in the matter broke federal laws, including the Do Not Call Rule. The government said that the telemarketers told the consumers they had been chosen to get a 'prize,' such as a computer or digital video camera. To claim the prize, the people had to buy 'designer' merchandise, such as watches and fragrances. The FTC alleges that the consumers got the knock-off merchandise and outdated electronics for their purchase, and not the prize of the laptop computer or digital video camera. The government's settlement with Del Sol prevents the firm from making misrepresentations when advertising or selling any product or service, and prohibits it and its principle from violating provision of the Telemarketing Sales Rule, including the Commission's Do Not Call Rule. A judgment of $1.6 million against the company was suspended because it couldn't pay, but the full amount, after the $235,000, will be due if the Commission discovers that the company misrepresented its financial status. The FTC noted that the settlement, under a stipulated final order, isn't an admission of any violation of law. An FTC news release is available at www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/12/delsol.htm.
This month's Developments of Note were written by Michael Lear-Olimpi, Editor-in-Chief of e-Commerce Law & Strategy. He can be reached at [email protected].
Final Settlements In
Do Not Call Actions Bring $100,000
Telemarketers charged with violating the terms of the National Do Not Call Registry when they tried to sell
Tele-scammers That Targeted Spanish-speaking
Consumers Reach Settlement with FTC
A telemarketing company will give up $235,000 in a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) over a complaint that the company, Del Sol, scammed Spanish-speaking consumers by offering them 'designer' merchandise but furnishing imitation goods and outdated electronics. The FTC charged that the company's actions in the matter broke federal laws, including the Do Not Call Rule. The government said that the telemarketers told the consumers they had been chosen to get a 'prize,' such as a computer or digital video camera. To claim the prize, the people had to buy 'designer' merchandise, such as watches and fragrances. The FTC alleges that the consumers got the knock-off merchandise and outdated electronics for their purchase, and not the prize of the laptop computer or digital video camera. The government's settlement with Del Sol prevents the firm from making misrepresentations when advertising or selling any product or service, and prohibits it and its principle from violating provision of the Telemarketing Sales Rule, including the Commission's Do Not Call Rule. A judgment of $1.6 million against the company was suspended because it couldn't pay, but the full amount, after the $235,000, will be due if the Commission discovers that the company misrepresented its financial status. The FTC noted that the settlement, under a stipulated final order, isn't an admission of any violation of law. An FTC news release is available at www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/12/delsol.htm.
This month's Developments of Note were written by Michael Lear-Olimpi, Editor-in-Chief of e-Commerce Law & Strategy. He can be reached at [email protected].
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.