Markets Wired - Page 1056 of 1422 - Global Financial Market News and Press Releases

FTC Shuts Down Fraudulent Debt Relief Operation

The defendants behind an alleged credit card interest rate reduction scam are banned from selling debt relief services and from telemarketing any goods or services.

A federal court judge in Florida approved and signed a stipulated order against Innovative Wealth Builders, Inc., (IWB) and its three Florida-based principals: Carly Janene Pelland (also known as Carly Zurita), Sheryl Leigh Lopez, and Tamara Dawn Johnson. The defendants agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations that they falsely promised to substantially reduce consumers’ credit card interest rates and save them thousands of dollars on their credit card debts.

The FTC will continue to move forward with litigation against Independant Resources Network Corp. (IRN), the payment processor that allegedly assisted and facilitated the scam. In June, the FTC amended its original complaint to name IRN as a defendant in the case.

According to the FTC’s complaint, the settling defendants, IWB and its three principals, violated the FTC Act by misrepresenting credit card interest rate reduction services, misrepresenting refund policies, and billing consumers without authorization. The complaint also alleges the defendants violated the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule by misrepresenting the debt relief services they were selling, charging a fee before providing these services, and billing consumers without their express informed consent.

The stipulated order also prohibits the settling defendants from making any material misrepresentations in connection with advertising, marketing, promotion, offering for sale, or sale of any financial related product or service. The order includes a $9.9 million judgment against IWB and its three principals.

The Commission’s vote authorizing staff to file the stipulated final order was 4-0. The FTC filed the stipulated final order for permanent injunction in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. The District Court judge signed and approved the order on Sept. 10, 2013.

NOTE: Stipulated orders have the force of law when signed and approved by the District Court judge.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

FTC Settlement Bans Defendants from Engaging in Debt Collection and Interest Rate Reduction Schemes

Under settlements with the Federal Trade Commission, the defendants in two Tampa, Florida-area operations that allegedly bilked consumers of millions of dollars are banned from providing various types of financial services used in their schemes. In the spring of 2012, at the request of the FTC, a court shut down the two operations.

According to the FTC, the defendants used phony debt collection calls from India and bogus claims that they would reduce consumers’ credit card interest rates to bilk consumers. Brett Fisher, a repeat offender who settled charges with the FTC in 2009 in a scam involving both advance-fee credit cards and bogus interest-rate reduction claims, masterminded both schemes, the FTC alleged.

The settlements impose a $25.3 million judgment against Fisher, and require other settling defendants to surrender available assets to satisfy their monetary judgments. Defendants Pro Credit Group, LLC, Consumer Credit Group, LLC, and My Success Track, LLC, are not parties to these settlements, are not currently represented, and are facing default judgments.

Debt Collection Scheme: The Defendants Took More Than $5 Million Consumers Did Not Owe to Them, or Did Not Owe at All

The FTC alleged that between January 2010 and August 2011, defendants Fisher, Andre Keith Sanders, Pro Credit Group, LLC, and Sanders Legal Group, P.A. set up U.S.-based financial accounts for a call center operation based in India to unfairly collect payday loan debts from consumers who either did not owe them, or owed them to somebody else. The operation’s callers used threats, lies, and abusive tactics to collect debts from consumers who had previously applied for or received loans from online payday loan companies and had supplied sensitive personal financial information that later found its way into the hands of those involved with the scam.

Once consumers agreed to pay, Fisher and attorney Sanders used Sanders Legal Group, P.A. to process at least $5 million from consumers whom the India-based callers had misled. Although numerous consumers complained to the local Better Business Bureau chapter about the abusive tactics of the callers, and many consumers tried unsuccessfully to get refunds, the defendants continued processing consumers’ payments.

The FTC has brought two similar cases involving allegedly phony debt collectors, American Credit Crunchers and Broadway Global Masters, as well as a case involving an allegedly phony payday loan brokering service, Vantage Funding.

According to the FTC, from at least January 2010 until it brought its action, defendants Fisher, Sanders, Dale Robinson, William Balsamo, and five companies they controlled – Pro Credit Group, Sanders Law, Consumer Credit Group, LLC, My Success Track, LLC, and First Financial Asset Services, Inc. – deceived consumers by offering a bogus service to negotiate lower interest rates. As part of their scheme, defendants allegedly used prerecorded telemarketing robocalls, including one from “Rachel” at “cardholder services” that urged consumers to press a number and speak to a live representative in order to obtain lower interest rates. According to the complaint, defendants’ telemarketers falsely represented that they had established relationships with consumers’ lenders and often assured consumers that, if they did not see the promised results, they would receive full refunds.

According to the FTC, the defendants violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule by allegedly charging consumers between $695 and $995 up front for their bogus service and failing to obtain written approval from consumers before sending them robocalls. The agency halted five similar robocall operations in November 2012.

The settlements include the following provisions:

Impose a $25.3 million judgment on Fisher, which he agrees will not be discharged as a result of his pending bankruptcy filing.
Ban Fisher from telemarketing, promoting financial goods and services, and debt collecting.
Ban Sanders, Sanders Legal Group, P.A., and Sanders Law P.A. from debt collection and telemarketing – with narrow exceptions that allow him to continue practicing law. He is required to turn over available assets to satisfy a $23.8 million judgment.
Ban Robinson from telemarketing and debt relief services, and require him to turn over available assets to satisfy a $7.2 million judgment.
Ban Balsamo and First Financial Asset Services, Inc. from providing debt relief services; and prohibit them from making or helping others with making robocalls, making or helping others with making outbound sales calls unless they document and record them, and helping anyone outside the United States who telemarkets to U.S. consumers. Balsamo is required to turn over available assets to satisfy an $11.2 million judgment.

For consumer information about avoiding financial scams, see Fake Debt Collectors and Credit Card Interest Rate Reduction Scams.

The Commission vote approving the proposed consent decrees was 4-0. The FTC filed the proposed consent decrees in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, and they were entered by the court on September 5, 2013.

NOTE: Consent decrees have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

FTC Seeks Public Comment on Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc.’s Application to Divest Ameristar Casinos, Inc.’s Assets in Lake Charles, Louisiana to GNLC Holdings, Inc.

The Federal Trade Commission is seeking public comment on an application by Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. for approval to divest Ameristar Casinos, Inc.’s casino and hotel project under construction in Lake Charles, Louisiana to GNLC Holdings, Inc. In a proposed order, the FTC requires Pinnacle to divest these assets to a Commission-approved buyer to resolve charges that its acquisition of Ameristar would reduce competition among casinos in Lake Charles, in violation of the antitrust laws. Pinnacle also is required by the order to divest a casino and two hotels in St. Louis, Missouri.

According to the FTC’s complaint, Pinnacle’s acquisition of Ameristar would result in increased prices and lower quality for casino customers in the St. Louis and Lake Charles areas. Pinnacle currently operates a casino in Lake Charles, where Ameristar is building a casino on an adjacent property, scheduled to open in 2014. In its application, Pinnacle requests FTC approval to sell all of the assets associated with Ameristar’s development and construction of its casino in Lake Charles to GNLC Holdings, Inc., the parent company of Landry’s Inc., which owns the Golden Nugget casinos in addition to approximately 450 restaurants. Pinnacle has not yet submitted an application to the FTC regarding the required divesture of the St. Louis casino assets.

The Commission will decide whether to approve the proposed divestiture after expiration of the public comment period. Public comments may be submitted until October 10, 2013. Written comments should be sent to: FTC Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20580. Comments also can be submitted electronically. Copies of the application also can be found on the FTC’s website and as a link to this press release. (FTC File No. 131-0064, Docket No. 9355; the staff contact is Daniel P. Ducore, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-2526; see related press release dated August 12, 2013)

The FTC’s Bureau of Competition works with the Bureau of Economics to investigate alleged anticompetitive business practices and, when appropriate, recommends that the Commission take law enforcement action. To inform the Bureau about particular business practices, call 202-326-3300, send an e-mail to [email protected], or write to the Office of Policy and Coordination, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 601 New Jersey Ave., N.W., Room 7117, Washington, DC 20001. To learn more about the Bureau of Competition, read Competition Counts. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

FTC Seeks Public Comment on Imperium, LLC, Proposal for Parental Verification Method Under COPPA Rule

The Federal Trade Commission is seeking public comment on a proposed verifiable parental consent method that Imperium, LLC, has submitted for Commission approval under the agency’s Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule.

Under the rule, online sites and services directed at children must obtain permission from a child’s parents before collecting personal information from that child. The rule lays out a number of acceptable methods for gaining parental consent, but also includes a provision allowing interested parties to submit new verifiable parental consent methods to the Commission for approval.

In a Federal Register notice to be published shortly, the FTC is seeking public comment about the proposed Imperium verifiable parental consent method; whether the proposed method is already covered by the existing methods included in the rule; and whether it meets the rule’s requirement that it be reasonably calculated to ensure that the person providing the consent is actually the child’s parent. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the program poses a risk to consumers’ information and whether that risk is outweighed by the benefits of the method. The comment period will last until Oct. 9, 2013.

NOTE: Publication of this Federal Register notice does not indicate Commission approval of the program. The Commission has 120 days to review proposed verifiable parental consent methods and must set forth its conclusions in writing.

FTC Announces Appointments to Agency Leadership Positions

Federal Trade Commission Chairwoman Edith Ramirez announced three appointments to leadership positions in the agency.

“It’s gratifying to have such great additions to the FTC’s leadership team,” Ramirez said. “I know they will assist the agency in advancing its mission on behalf of American consumers.”

Martin Gaynor, who will serve as Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Economics starting October 1, joins the agency from Heinz College at Carnegie Mellon University, where he is a professor of economics and public policy and holds the E.J. Barone Chair in Health Systems Management. Gaynor has an extensive teaching background and has received numerous awards for research in health care economics. He earned doctoral and master’s degrees in economics from Northwestern University, and an honors degree in economics from the University of California, San Diego.

David B. Robbins has rejoined the agency as Executive Director, having been managing director/chief operating officer for the Federal Communications Commission and associate administrator for the Small Business Administration’s Office of Management and Administration. He previously served as an assistant director, attorney, and senior program manager in the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. Robbins earned a JD from Seton Hall University School of Law and a bachelor degree from Rutgers University. The Office of Executive Director is responsible for the administration and management of the Commission.

Thomas N. Dahdouh has been named Regional Director of the FTC’s Western Region offices in San Francisco and Los Angeles, having served as Assistant Regional Director from September 2012 to May 2013. He had been a staff attorney in the San Francisco office for 14 years, handling antitrust and consumer protection matters, and previously served as an Assistant to the Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, and as an Attorney Advisor to former FTC Commissioners Dennis Yao and Christine Varney. Dahdouh is an honors graduate of Harvard Law School and Yale University.

FTC Staff Issues Advisory Opinion That Information Exchange Program Proposed by United States Money Transmitters Is Unlikely to Harm Competition and May Enhance Consumer Protection Goals

Staff of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Competition has issued an advisory opinion to The Money Services Round Table (TMSRT) concerning its proposal to establish an information exchange database to collect information from and disseminate information to licensed U.S. money transmitters, regarding terminated U.S. agents. TMSRT is a trade association comprised of six licensed national money transmitters. Money transmitters are non-bank entities that transfer funds from one individual or institution to another by wire, check, computer network, or other means.

According to the opinion, TMSRT’s program appears unlikely to harm competition and FTC staff has no present intention of recommending an enforcement action challenging the proposed information exchange. The opinion notes that the goal of the information exchange does not appear to be anticompetitive, nor is the exchange designed to further coordination among U.S. money transmitters. In addition, the proposed information exchange will contain several safeguards to lessen the risk of harm to competition and consumers, such as the appointment of a third-party vendor to maintain and secure the information exchange database. Finally, the information exchange is likely to improve the money transmitters’ ability to comply with federal and state laws designed to prevent money laundering, terrorist financing, and other criminal behavior, and enhance consumer welfare by preventing the appointment of fraudulent or criminal money transmitter agents.

The advisory opinion is limited to the competition law analysis requested by TMSRT, and is available on the FTC’s website and as a link to this press release. (The staff contact is Michael J. Bloom, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-2475.)

The FTC’s Bureau of Competition works with the Bureau of Economics to investigate alleged anticompetitive business practices and, when appropriate, recommends that the Commission take law enforcement action. To inform the Bureau about particular business practices, call 202-326-3300, send an e-mail to antitrust{at}ftc{dot}gov, or write to the Office of Policy and Coordination, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 601 New Jersey Ave., N.W., Room 7117, Washington, DC 20001. To learn more about the Bureau of Competition, read Competition Counts. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

Marketer of Internet-Connected Home Security Video Cameras Settles FTC Charges It Failed to Protect Consumers’ Privacy

A company that markets video cameras designed to allow consumers to monitor their homes remotely has settled Federal Trade Commission charges that its lax security practices exposed the private lives of hundreds of consumers to public viewing on the Internet. This is the agency’s first action against a marketer of an everyday product with interconnectivity to the Internet and other mobile devices – commonly referred to as the “Internet of Things.”

The FTC’s complaint alleges that TRENDnet marketed its SecurView cameras for purposes ranging from home security to baby monitoring, and claimed in numerous product descriptions that they were “secure.” In fact, the cameras had faulty software that left them open to online viewing, and in some instances listening, by anyone with the cameras’ Internet address.

“The Internet of Things holds great promise for innovative consumer products and services. But consumer privacy and security must remain a priority as companies develop more devices that connect to the Internet,” said FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez.

In its complaint, the FTC alleges that, from at least April 2010, TRENDnet failed to use reasonable security to design and test its software, including a setting for the cameras’ password requirement. As a result of this failure, hundreds of consumers’ private camera feeds were made public on the Internet.

According to the complaint, in January 2012, a hacker exploited this flaw and made it public, and, eventually, hackers posted links to the live feeds of nearly 700 of the cameras. The feeds displayed babies asleep in their cribs, young children playing, and adults going about their daily lives. Once TRENDnet learned of this flaw, it uploaded a software patch to its website and sought to alert its customers of the need to visit the website to update their cameras.

The FTC also alleged that, from at least April 2010, TRENDnet transmitted user login credentials in clear, readable text over the Internet, even though free software was available to secure such transmissions. In addition, the FTC alleged that TRENDnet’s mobile applications for the cameras stored consumers’ login information in clear, readable text on their mobile devices.

Under the terms of its settlement with the Commission, TRENDnet is prohibited from misrepresenting the security of its cameras or the security, privacy, confidentiality, or integrity of the information that its cameras or other devices transmit. In addition, the company is barred from misrepresenting the extent to which a consumer can control the security of information the cameras or other devices store, capture, access, or transmit.

In addition, TRENDnet is required to establish a comprehensive information security program designed to address security risks that could result in unauthorized access to or use of the company’s devices, and to protect the security, confidentiality, and integrity of information that is stored, captured, accessed, or transmitted by its devices. The company also is required to obtain third-party assessments of its security programs every two years for the next 20 years.

The settlement also requires TRENDnet to notify customers about the security issues with the cameras and the availability of the software update to correct them, and to provide customers with free technical support for the next two years to assist them in updating or uninstalling their cameras.

The Commission vote to accept the consent agreement package containing the proposed consent order for public comment was 4-0. The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through October 4, 2013, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final.

Interested parties can submit written comments electronically or in paper form by following the instructions in the “Invitation To Comment” part of the “Supplementary Information” section. Comments can be submitted electronically. Comments in paper form should be mailed or delivered to: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form near the end of the public comment period be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions.

NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $16,000.

At the FTC’s Request, Court Halts Alleged Phony Payday Loan Broker

At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a U.S. district court has halted a Tampa, Florida-based operation that promised to help consumers get payday loans. Instead of loans, the defendants used consumers’ personal financial information to debit their bank accounts in increments of $30 without their authorization, the FTC alleged.

Claiming to be affiliated with a network of 120 potential payday lenders, the defendants misrepresented that 80 percent of applicants got loans in as soon as one hour, according to the FTC. The court order freezes the defendants’ assets to preserve the possibility of providing redress to consumers.

“Repeatedly, we’ve seen situations where consumers provide sensitive financial information when inquiring about a payday loan online, and that information falls into the wrong hands,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC is committed to shutting down these fraudulent operations.”

The FTC alleged that defendants Sean C. Mulrooney and Odafe Stephen Ogaga and five companies they controlled used websites with the names Vantage Funding, Ideal Advance, Loan Assistance Company, Palm Loan Advances, Loan Tree Advances, Pacific Advances, and Your Loan Funding to collect consumers’ names, Social Security numbers, bank routing numbers, and bank account numbers, which allowed them to access consumers’ checking accounts.

The defendants obtained other consumers’ financial information by paying more than $500,000 to third parties, and debited those consumers’ accounts without authorization as well, according to documents filed with the court. In all, the defendants victimized tens of thousands of consumers, taking more than $5 million from their bank accounts. Many of the victims were in difficult financial straits to begin with, and as an added insult, often began receiving harassing telemarketing and debt collection calls shortly after the defendants made their unauthorized withdrawals, according to the FTC. Consumers who complained to Defendants’ Philippines-based customer service agents were frequently offered refunds and $100 gasoline vouchers that never materialized, according to the FTC.

Mulrooney and Ogaga apparently used proceeds from their allegedly illegal scheme to finance a lavish lifestyle. Mulrooney is the registered owner of a 2012 Maserati GranTurismo, while Ogaga owns a 2011 Rolls Royce Ghost and a 2006 Ferrari 430, according to documents filed with the court.

This is the FTC’s third recent case involving allegedly fraudulent online payday-loan-related operations, and the first one in which the defendants claimed to broker payday loans. In two previous cases, American Credit Crunchers, LLC and Broadway Global Master Inc., the defendants allegedly attempted to collect on payday loan debts that either did not exist or weren’t owed to them.

The complaint charges the defendants with violating the Federal Trade Commission Act by using unfair billing practices, and by misrepresenting that they will help consumers find a payday loan and use their personal and financial information to get the loan. The complaint also alleges that the defendants untruthfully claim four of five consumers who applied were approved for a payday loan.

For more consumer information on this topic, see Online Payday Loans.

In addition to Mulrooney and Ogaga, the Vantage Funding complaint names Caprice Marketing LLC; Nuvue Partners LLC; Capital Advance LLC; Loan Assistance Company LLC; and Ilife Funding, LLC, formerly known as Guaranteed Funding Partners LLC.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the Vantage complaint was 4-0. The complaint and request for a temporary restraining order were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On August 29, 2013, the court granted the FTC’s request.

NOTE: The Commission a files complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The case will be decided by the court.

FTC Halts Two Automobile Dealers’ Deceptive Ads

Two car dealers from Maryland and Ohio have agreed to settle the Federal Trade Commission’s charges that they falsely advertised the cost or available discounts for their vehicles. The settlements, part of the FTC’s continuing crackdown on deceptive motor vehicle dealer practices, prohibit the dealers from advertising discounts or prices unless the ads clearly disclose any qualifications or restrictions.

The FTC charged that Timonium Chrysler, Inc., of Cockeysville, Md., violated the FTC Act by advertising discounts and prices that were not available to a typical consumer. Ganley Ford West, Inc., in Cleveland, also is charged with misrepresenting that vehicles were available at a specific dealer discount, when in fact the discounts only applied to specific, and more expensive, models of the advertised vehicles.

New 2013 Ford Fusion. Lease for $180 per month or 25% off MSRP!

Excerpt from Ganley Ford West Ad, Exhibit A showing vehicle discounts available. See full ad under Related Resources.

“Buying a car is a huge financial commitment, and people often calculate what they can pay down to the penny,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “They should be able to depend on the dealers to provide truthful information, and they can depend on the FTC to enforce consumer protection laws on the lot.”

Timonium Chrysler’s website touted specific “dealer discounts” and “internet prices,” but allegedly failed to disclose adequately that consumers would need to qualify for a series of smaller rebates not generally available to them. The complaint further alleges that, in many instances, even if a consumer qualified for all the rebates, the cost of the vehicle was still greater than the advertised price.

Ganley Ford West advertised its discounted vehicles on its website and in local newspapers, and it allegedly failed to disclose that its advertised discounts generally only applied to more expensive versions of the vehicles advertised.

The proposed orders settling the FTC’s charges against Timonium Chrysler and Ganley Ford West are designed to prevent them from engaging in similar deceptive advertising practices in the future. The two auto dealers cannot advertise prices or discounts unless accompanied by clear disclosures of any required qualifications or restrictions. The auto dealers are also barred from misrepresenting:

the existence or amount of any discount, rebate, bonus, incentive, or price;
the existence, price, value, coverage, or features of any product or service associated with the motor vehicle purchase;
the number of vehicles available at particular prices; or
any other material fact about the price, sale, financing, or leasing of motor vehicles.

The dealers must maintain and make available copies of all advertisements and promotional materials to the Commission for inspection upon request for the next five years, and they are required to comply with the FTC’s order for 20 years.

Consumers in the market for a new or used vehicle should read the FTC’s Car Ads and Buying and Owning a Car.

The Commission vote to issue the administrative complaints and accept the consent agreement packages containing the proposed consent orders for public comment was 4-0. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through October 3, 2013, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Interested parties can submit written comments electronically for Timonium Chrysler and Ganley Ford West or in paper form.

Comments submitted in paper form should be mailed or delivered to: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20580. The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form near the end of the public comment period be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions.

FTC Updates Telemarketer Fees for the Do Not Call Registry as of October 1, 2013

The Federal Trade Commission has announced updated fees starting on October 1, 2013, for telemarketers accessing phone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry.

All telemarketers calling consumers in the United States are required to download the numbers on the Do Not Call Registry to ensure they do not call those who have registered their phone numbers. The first five area codes are free, and organizations that are exempt from the Do Not Call rules, such as some charitable organizations, may obtain the entire list for free. Telemarketers must subscribe each year for access to the Registry numbers.

The access fees for the Registry are being increased as required by the Do‑Not‑Call Registry Fee Extension Act of 2007. Under the Act’s provisions, in fiscal year 2014 (from October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2014), telemarketers will pay $59, an increase of $1, for access to Registry phone numbers in a single area code, up to a maximum charge of $16,228 for all area codes nationwide, an increase from the previous maximum of $15,962. Telemarketers will pay $1 more per area code for numbers they subscribe to receive during the second half of the 12‑month subscription period, for a total of $30 per area code.

For consumers who want to add their phone number to the Registry, registration is free and does not expire.

The Commission vote authorizing publication of the Federal Register notice announcing the new fees was 4-0. (FTC File No. P034305; the staff contact is Ami Dziekan, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 202‑326‑2648)

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: