Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Telemarketing Sales Rule Commentary — Cox Enterprises, Inc.
Telemarketing Sales Rule Commentary — Cox Enterprises, Inc.
Richmond Journal of Law & Technology
Cox Enterprises, Inc. (“CEI” or “Cox”) hereby submits these comments in response to the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking relating to the proposed amendment of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (the “TSR” or “Rule”). Cox welcomes this opportunity to comment on the proposed amended Rule, and strongly supports the efforts of the FTC to protect consumers from fraudulent and deceptive telemarketing.
The Do-Not-Call List’S Big Hang-Up, Jared Strauss
The Do-Not-Call List’S Big Hang-Up, Jared Strauss
Richmond Journal of Law & Technology
On October 1, 2003, the Federal Trade Commission’s National Do- Not-Call Registry was supposed to go into effect. By forbidding companies and telemarketers from making unsolicited calls to anyone who had registered their phone number on the list three months prior, this program culminated a decade’s worth of efforts to alleviate consumer frustration with unwanted sales calls. However, on September 27, 2003, the District of Colorado derailed the registry, holding that the rule made an unconstitutional distinction between commercial and noncommercial speech by covering commercial calls and exempting calls for charitable, religious, or political organizations.
Plaintiff’S Brief — Mainstream Marketing Services, Inc., Tmg Marketing, Inc. And American Teleservices Association
Richmond Journal of Law & Technology
This case is a cautionary tale about what happens when federal agencies allow perceived political imperatives to override legal and constitutional concerns.
Plaintiff’S Reply Brief — Mainstream Marketing Services, Inc., Tmg Marketing, Inc. And American Teleservices Association
Richmond Journal of Law & Technology
The government’s assumption that commercial speech restrictions should be judged by the same standard as time, place or manner restrictions fails to accurately set forth the relevant burden of proof articulated in more recent commercial speech cases.