| > Has anyone here successfully sued a telemarketing company? My
> understanding is that you can collect up to $1000 if the same company
> continues to call after you've asked to be placed on their "do not call
> list".
The minimum is $500, the maximum is $1,500. That is PER CALL.
See:
http://www.nolo.com/nn199.html
I have not tried this, I just let my answering machine answer
the phone and listen for a familiar voice.
|
| I extracted the following from http://www.saxton.org/telemarket/tips.html.
Some punctuation changes were made by myself to make it more readable.
-Andy
------------------------------
Tips on Receiving Funds from Telemarketers
This information is based on one person's experiences. Your success may
vary.
Things to be aware of:
Chances are you won't be able to recover anything if the only violation
is the telemarketer's failure to provide an address or phone number;
wait for the second call before asking for payment.
Consider settling for a reduced amount. You may get less money than
you're entitled to, but could avoid having to actually sue to receive
anything. Usually when there is a violation, the company knows it's in
the wrong and is pretty sure it will lose in court. They want to avoid
the legal costs and time involved, but mainly they want to avoid
adverse publicity. So they're usually willing to settle out of court
for a reduced sum. Getting any payment from a company is painful for
them, and if enough people collect, telemarketing would become too
expensive and the industry would disappear.
There is a small loophole in the law that states that if a company
calls a second time, they can use as an excuse that it was an
inadvertent mistake. In cases that do go to court, usually the judge
admonishes the company to be more careful, but the plaintiff loses.
However, if the same company calls a third time, then it's obvious that
the second call wasn't an inadvertent mistake, and the plaintiff can
usually collect for the second and third calls.
Violations to watch for:
When you receive a written copy of a do-not-call policy, check to see
what they require for a customer to be put on the do-not-call list. If
it requires your address, that's a violation -- it's excessive
information; they can only require a name and phone number.
Suggestions for contacting the telemarketing company:
Your first step would be to write a formal business letter to the
president of the company, stating that this letter is a formal claim
for $XXX (state the amount you're claiming) for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.
- Set forth all of the particulars of the calls, including dates, times,
the name of the person/people who called, names of any supervisors you
spoke to, the date you requested to be put on the do-not-call list, and
anything else you feel is pertinent.
- Tell them how you arrived at the amount you're claiming -- remember,
$500 for each violation.
- If you're willing to settle for a reduced amount, let them know that
you're willing to negotiate.
- Give them a reasonable amount of time to fork over the money (like 3
weeks).
- Tell them if you haven't received the money by the deadline, that
you'll report the violations to the Federal Trade Commission, the
Federal Communications Commission, your State Attorney General, and
your local Office of Consumer Affairs; and that you will seek redress
in Small Claims Court.
- Send the letter Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested.
- Be sure to ask for a written copy of the company's do-not-call policy
in your letter. Failure to provide it can net you another $500.00.
You may be required to sign a release before you can receive the
payment. Read it carefully and make sure you are willing to agree to
its terms before you sign. Feel free to change anything you don't like.
Make sure the release has an expiration date -- if you haven't received
the $$$ by that date, then the release is void. If they don't agree to
the changes, then you won't have a settlement; but you can still sue.
Tell them that if they don't meet your terms, you'll feel free to
publicize the incident in the media.
Last updated on January 25, 1997.
|