According to the U.S. Chamber-affiliated Madison County Record, if lawyers are successful in pursuing an Illinois class action against mortgage broker Amerifirst over the meal-interrupting telephonic intrusions, “the lawyers would have to notify each and every aggrieved member of the class with an unsolicited phone call of their own.” (“Our View: All in the Family”, Oct. 28; Ann Knef, “Class plaintiff’s attorney-husband is TCPA specialist”, Oct. 24; “Lakin files class action against mortgage lender over pre-recorded messages”, Oct. 22).
“Hello! Don’t hang up, because you may have won a valuable…” [-click-]
According to the U.S. Chamber-affiliated Madison County Record, if lawyers are successful in pursuing an Illinois class action against mortgage broker Amerifirst over the meal-interrupting telephonic intrusions, “the lawyers would have to notify each and every aggrieved member of the class with an unsolicited phone call of their own.” (“Our View: All in the Family”, […]
3 Comments
First, the main thrust of the TCPA is to prevent prerecorded messages. If the firm in question personally calls each prospective class member, this generally cannot be a violation of the Act unless the member has previously instructed the firm not to call.
Second, the wording here (“each and every aggrieved member of the class”) smugly implies that the proposed action would require a volume of calls on par with what the predictive autodialer spews out, thereby subtly equating the conduct of the law firm with that of the telemarketers. But according to the second link, the proposed class numbers 39 (unless you want to argue that the “at least” could realistically mean they plan to include thousands more).
Third, what makes you think the plaintiff firm has to call? Where is it written that they are prohibited from sending a request by US Mail? Curiously none of the links above seem to allow for this possibility.
Finally, if you have a problem with the TCPA, rather than whining about it you should present a substantive critique of why the Act — which has been law since 1991 and has been upheld through numerous court challenges, despite vigorous and well-funded opposition by the DMA and its ilk — should be overturned. In particular, please explain why the plaintiff’s interpretation of the plain language of the statute is in some way incorrect. To argue, as the op-ed does, that the Act is somehow inapplicable to any marketer who dresses up a prerecorded solicitation as a “survey” fairly vitiates the whole point of the Act.
Absent any such substantial criticism, this entire post amounts to a thinly-veiled ad hominem attack on the plaintiff, and makes you sound like a snot-nosed brat rather than a thoughtful commentator.
Your comments were well-reasoned and articulate up to the point of “snot-nosed brat” at which point you went from a “thinly-veiled” to buck-naked ad hominem attack.
The pot calling the kettle black, if we assume your critique is accurate.
Businesses used to have like “business hours”, well most of the rest of us do as well, hang your automated intrusion device and if you have valid business with me, call during the same hours of operation.
If not, well we do have the national call registry. As I understand the single most participated in program the govt has EVER put in place, well sans SSA. eh?