ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> International Law Blogs -> Trade Regulation Talk

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

International Law

: Trade Regulation Talk

ADVERTISEMENTS

No Private Action under Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Prerecorded Political Calls

This posting was written by Thomas A. Long, Editor of CCH Privacy Law in Marketing.

An individual could not pursue claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) against candidates and promoters of candidates for public office for making, or causing to be made, prerecorded political campaign calls soliciting votes that failed to contain the telephone number of the business or entity responsible for making the calls, a Maryland state appellate court has determined.

Because the calls were political in nature, they were not prohibited by Sec. 227(b) of the TCPA, which provided a private right of action to recipients of unsolicited, prerecorded commercial telephone calls., according to the court.

Technical and Procedural Standards

Section 227(d) of the TCPA prohibited phone calls that did not comply with certain technical and procedural standards for automatic telephone dialing systems. Those standards were detailed in underlying regulations that required all prerecorded telephone message to clearly state the identity of the entity responsible for initiating the call, as well as the entity's telephone number. There was no private right of action under Sec. 227(d), the court said.

Preemption

The individual's Maryland Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims were preempted by the TCPA, the court held. Section 227(e) of the TCPA provided that states may create their own more-restrictive standards than the federal statute, except with regard to the technical and procedural standards set by Sec. 227(d).

The September 15 decision, Worsham v. Ehrlich, appears at CCH Privacy Law in Marketing ¶60,250.

Full post as published by Trade Regulation Talk on October 15, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0128 secs (new cache)