1996
DOI: 10.1177/074391569601500113
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Recent Developments in Telemarketing Regulation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

1997
1997
2008
2008

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…§ 310), and cold calls to cell phones are prohibited (47 C.F.R. § 64; Cain 1996). Notably, activities of buzz agents might easily violate these provisions.…”
Section: Public Policy Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…§ 310), and cold calls to cell phones are prohibited (47 C.F.R. § 64; Cain 1996). Notably, activities of buzz agents might easily violate these provisions.…”
Section: Public Policy Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Solicitations to telephone fax machines and cellular telephones without prior consent are prohibited because of the pecuniary CBMCs incurred by the owners of those devices (47 C.F.R. part 64; Cain 1996). Consumers must buy paper for fax machines and typically pay for incoming calls on a cellular telephone.…”
Section: The Development and Regulation Of Cbmcsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lower courts generally have followed this logic in upholding the restrictions on telemarketing discussed previously (Cain 1996). For example, in Van Bergen v. Minnesota (1995), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found that automatic telephone dialing announcement devices were uniquely intrusive because, when answered, the machines would not terminate the call until the message was completed.…”
Section: First Amendment Issuesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This analysis suggests that a ban on unsolicited wam should be treated as a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction much like the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals treated both the ban on prerecorded messages to residences ( Moser v. FCC 1995) and the ban on unsolicited fax advertising ( Destination Ventures v. FCC 1995). In both cases, the Ninth Circuit upheld the bans despite challenges under the First Amendment (Cain 1996). Similarly, in Van Bergen v. Minnesota (1995), the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals held that a ban on automatic telephone dialing announcement devices was constitutional because, when answered, the machines would not terminate the call until the message was completed.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%