8 ms·
Another Joke Fine Shows US Authorities Do Not Take Illegal Telemarketing Serious
- nerdjon 3y agoThis feels very light on any actual information? First it says one of the five companies given in the press release, so does that mean that 4 out of the 5 are actually going to be paying exactly what the FTC said in their press release? Where do the fines for the other 4 relate to what they claimed for this one? As in if the other fines are still higher than the claimed for this one, it still seems like a success and not "Do Not Take Illegal Telemarketing Serious". Why exactly is there such a discrepancy? I don't see any explanation for why this is the case.
- refulgentis 3y agoSelective complaining, there was a press round on the $300M fine so they’re counteracting by complaining histrionically about a smaller one and not mentioning larger ones. I don’t quite get the motivation either but it beggars belief they got into the weeds on this fine and don’t know the other happened, given they’re right next to eachother in press releases and documentation
- jdmichal 3y agoEven the 1 out of 5 that was selected, the press release was very clear that it's a partially-suspended fine. I understand that the language is a bit weaselly -- 99% suspended feels like a stretch for the word "partial". But it's also just suspended, which means that the company and owner have a $13.6m axe hanging over them to behave properly into the future. Also, this settlement did not include Vision Solar, the actual beneficiary of the marketing. My guess would be that most of the profits went to Vision Solar, and so the result will be proportionately larger.
- shkkmo 3y agoWhy can't we just start putting the CEOs of robocall companies that break the law in jail?
- Supermancho 3y agoIf you take the stance that these calls are impacting the US infrastructure and falls under the Homeland Security umbrella, these robocall farms would be stopped with appropriate resources. Right now, violating DNC (the various lists) is not a criminal violation.
- shiftpgdn 3y agoI get something to the order of 60-100 spam calls a day regarding medicare benefits (my number has somehow been associated with a retiree who shares my name). I fully support drone strikes on overseas call centers.
- shkkmo 3y agoDrone strikes on call centers would punish the poor employees with little to no power for the unethical choices of their bosses. You should be ashamed of this kind of call for violence, even if you intended it as a joke.
- rolph 3y agono violence needed: We made a Drone to Toilet Paper houses! https://yt.artemislena.eu/watch?v=QMb1FH_YEME https://yt.artemislena.eu/watch?v=QMb1FH_YEME
- shiftpgdn 3y agoThe people working in these call centers know what they're doing by defrauding the most vulnerable members of our society and should be considered enemy combatants if their host government is unwilling to act on their crimes.
- lupire 3y agoThe people working those call centers are more vulnerable than rich Americans.
- 3y ago
- helsinkiandrew 3y ago> That means the FTC has negotiated a settlement where the distress caused by harassing the same person 100 times in a row, day after day over the period of a few months, merits the measly penalty of $1.25. Honest question: why can’t the victims sue the company for harassment? (or rather a lawyer start a class action). I’m sure a jury trial would award very large damages, or is this protected by free speech in the US?
- alexmarcy 3y agoIn most cases because it is impossible to find out who is doing the calling because the numbers are spoofed. For example, when my phone receives a call from my own phone number am I going to sue myself? There is no way to track down the actual caller in most cases.
- RajT88 3y agoWhen you ask for the company name, they hang up on you usually. You have to sound like a potential buyer (sucker) in order for them to properly identify themselves. This is true for Auto Warranty, Medicare, Timeshares, etc. robocallers.
- ipython 3y agoExactly right. It’s actually a fun exercise in social engineering, and can be a fascinating sociological experiment if you’re into that sort of thing. The most successful persona unfortunately is that of a slightly senile senior citizen. Senile enough that you seem gullible to the caller, but believable that you have enough money and sense to continue with the transaction.
- RajT88 3y agoCorrect. Sounding old and slightly senile is what gets them on the hook most effectively. Unfortunately - when they're calling, they also seem to have all your personal info, and know your name and how old you are. So I put on my best senile guy voice, they confirm my name, and then they hang up. It's actually quite concerning!
- rolph 3y agoI have the feeling, FTC doesnt want to destroy business that has a theoretically valid model, rather it [FTC] is interested in the illegal behaviours exhibited. fines should be of magnitude that discourages the behaviour, but should not be so large as to be an instant kill for what could be a legal business if not for the behaviour. there should be a negative reinforcement that provides a window of opportunity to learn and adapt, or else fold up.
- shkkmo 3y agoThe negative reinforcement needs to be strong enough to make the behavior unprofitable or it is completely ineffective. The fines exhibited here don't do that so your justification falls flat. I also really don't see the economic harm in killing robocall companies. It seems like a net win to me.
- rolph 3y agonot trying to justify low fines, there should be a sweet spot amount that clearly indicates, a repeat means you FAAFO
- shkkmo 3y agoI don't think that such a "sweet spot" necessarily exists for every company. Many of the companies depend on these illegal business practices to be profitable. If you levy fines that make those illegal practices unprofitable, there are companies that will no longer exist (and shouldn't have been allowed to exist in the first place.) The bigger problem, is that many of these companies are structured in a way that profits get extracted to the owners while liabilities don't. So even if you fine these companies out of existence, you don't necessarily make the practice unprofitable. This is why we need these fines to also pierce liability limiting corporate structures and why we need laws to allow us to put the people profiting from these illegal acts in jail.
- devonbleak 3y agoThe telcos making money from these calls disagree with your assessment of the economic harm of killing them. It'd be shut down in a heartbeat if they were costing them money.
- Tade0 3y agoApparently regardless of how annoying it is, it's still worth it for the perpetrators. Over here in the EU I can start off with asking who is the data controller, but results are still mixed - from hanging up, through trying to weasel out of a response to finally telling me who is mismanaging my data like this[0]. I think I'm still getting labeled as "asking too many questions", because it's subsidised. Also, robocalls still happen occasionally - can't do anything about that. [0] A guy producing shell company after shell company - twelve such entities since mid 2020.
- appplication 3y agoDoes that mean asking who provided your phone number to them? Is there a legal requirement to disclose?
- diego_sandoval 3y agoI had a hard time parsing the title. Was I the only one?
- cubefox 3y agoI was irritated as "serious" should be an adverb here, i.e. "seriously". (Not a native English speaker though)
- rolph 3y agoi hang with jamaican dudes a lot, that is probably the root of the deviant syntax. Here is the full title: "Another Joke Fine Shows US Authorities Do Not Take Illegal Telemarketing Calls Seriously" i had to shed 9 characters
- causi 3y agoThe older I get the more I think we need a constitutional amendment saying the monetary fine for lawbreaking must exceed the profit gained by the lawbreaking.
- candiddevmike 3y agoExcess fines pierce the corporate veil starting with the CEO, board of directors, and the rest of the C-suite until satisfied.
- 8note 3y agoShouldn't piercing the corporate veil target the owners?
- lightbendover 3y agoShould probably include verbiage about shell companies and the like. It would get messy fast and a lot of... more-innocent... people would take the fall instead of the people actually responsible.
- causi 3y agoThat already happens.
- tracker1 3y agoUnless I'm mistaken, is there even assurance that said fine can/will be collected? Isn't a lot of this from a foreign source?
- gagged_s_poster 3y ago[dead]
- lupire 3y agoWhenever I'm on a jury, I refuse to judge blue-collar criminals more harshly than the government treats white-collar criminals.