Lead GenerationLegal test
Do Not Call (DNC)

Author
Berkeley Robinson, Esq.
Managing Attorney, Robinson Law Firm PLLC
Author
Berkeley Robinson, Esq.
Managing Attorney, Robinson Law Firm PLLC
Berkeley has served as the go-to counsel for many scaling businesses in a transactional and litigation management capacity. Before becoming an attorney, Berkeley grew sales teams, ran online marketing campaigns, and did everything else an entrepreneur does—and still does today as the founder of two online businesses.
Definition
“Do Not Call (DNC)” is used in more than one setting, and its meaning depends on the context. In consumer protection, it means “the “do-not-call” registry, maintained by the Federal Trade Commission, of consumers who do not wish to receive certain types of telemarketing calls”. Source: Complaint for Civil Penalties, Permanent Injunction, and Other Relief (The Telemarketing Sales Rule and the National Do Not Call Registry) A seller’s own list of people who have asked it not to call is a separate, entity-specific list. Source: Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction, Civil Penalty Judgment, and Other Relief as to Defendants Solar Xchange LLC and Mark Getts (Definitions) The term also names a different, specialized registry: federal law directs the creation of a Do-Not-Call registry for public safety answering points, and the implementing rule bars operators of automatic dialing or robocall equipment from using that equipment to contact a registered number other than for an emergency purpose. Source: 47 U.S.C. § 1473(a)
Key legal rules
Two separate prohibitions make up the do-not-call rules, one tied to the national registry and one tied to a seller’s own list of people who asked not to be called. The main rules are these:
- Initiating an outbound telephone call to a person whose number is on the “do-not-call” registry maintained by the Commission, of persons who do not wish to receive outbound telephone calls to induce the purchase of goods or services, is barred unless the seller or telemarketer qualifies for an exception, the first of which is an express agreement in writing. Source: 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B)
- The first exception requires the seller or telemarketer to be able to demonstrate that the seller has obtained the person’s express agreement, in writing, which must clearly evidence authorization for calls made by or on behalf of a specific party and must include the telephone number to be called and the person’s signature. Source: 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B) (as reproduced in an FTC order appendix)
- The second exception requires the seller or telemarketer to be able to demonstrate an established business relationship with the person, and it is lost once that person has stated that he or she does not wish to receive outbound telephone calls under the seller-specific rule. Source: 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B) (as reproduced in an FTC order appendix) Under the current definition, an established business relationship rests on the person’s purchase, rental, or lease of the seller’s goods or services, or a financial transaction with the seller, within the 540 days before the call. Source: 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(q) (as reproduced in the order) It may also rest on the person’s inquiry or application regarding a good or service offered by the seller within the 90 days before the call. Source: 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(q) (as reproduced in the order)
- Separately from the registry, sellers and telemarketers may not initiate an outbound telephone call to a person who has previously stated that he or she does not wish to receive an outbound call made by or on behalf of the seller whose goods or services are being offered. Source: Complaint for Civil Penalties, Permanent Injunction, and Other Relief (Ameriquest Mortgage Company)
- A seller or telemarketer is not liable for a registry or entity-specific call if it can demonstrate that, as part of its routine business practice, it has met the safe-harbor elements. Source: 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b) (as reproduced in Appendix A to the stipulated order) Those elements include established and implemented written procedures. Source: 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b) (as reproduced in Appendix A to the stipulated order) They also include a process that prevents calls to listed numbers using a version of the registry obtained from the Commission no more than 31 days before the call, with records documenting that process. Source: 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b) (as reproduced in Appendix A to the stipulated order)
For the sake of space, this page lists only the primary rules related to this term that most businesses should follow. More may apply to your situation, and your unique facts affect how they apply.
Send us a message through our online form to talk through yours.
Send a messageWhy these rules exist
The national registry replaced a system that depended on each consumer opting out of each caller separately, and that system did not work: even if consumers told one telemarketer not to call, another would, and state registries were uneven in their effectiveness. Source: United States v. Dish Network, L.L.C. (C.D. Ill.), Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Injunctive Relief) One national list lets a consumer make a single choice that every covered caller has to honor, and the FTC described the 2003 registry as a response to widespread concerns about unwanted telemarketing calls and the invasion of personal privacy, a decision Congress expressly ratified. Source: Brief for Respondents, Federal Trade Commission (Statement of the Case, Statutory and Regulatory Background) A Commissioner’s statement accompanying the 2003 rulemaking puts the same point in terms of a consumer’s “right to be let alone.” Source: Commissioner’s statement, “The National Do-Not-Call Registry,” FR Doc. 03-1811 (filed Jan. 20, 2003), reproduced in Stip Final Order and Permanent Injunction as to Albert Mouyal - Hanson Publications
The harm the rule targets is specific. In the Dish Network case, the court reasoned that a registry call injures the consumer because the seller calls someone who registered specifically to avoid such calls, and the seller is on notice from the registry that the consumer does not want the call. Source: United States v. Dish Network, L.L.C. (C.D. Ill.), Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Count XII) The FTC has argued that protecting privacy in the home is a substantial governmental interest sufficient to justify regulating commercial telemarketing. Source: Brief for Respondents, Soundboard Association v. FTC (D.C. Cir. July 28, 2017), describing FTC v. Mainstream Marketing Services, Inc., 345 F.3d 850 (10th Cir. 2003) The duties follow from that harm. Telemarketers must “scrub” registry numbers from their lists so that registered numbers are never dialed. Source: FTC Memorandum in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Ignoring the DNC Registry and Do Not Call Requests) Access to the registry is conditioned on a certification that it will be used only to comply with the rule, so the list of people who asked not to be called does not itself become a source of calls. Source: 16 C.F.R. § 310.8(e) (as reproduced in Appendix A to the stipulated order)
Enforcement examples
United States v. Corporations for Character, L.C. (family-film DVDs and theater tickets)
Memorandum Decision and Order, Case No. 2:11-cv-419-RJS (Mar. 31, 2015)
In the “Kids First” campaign, C4C telemarketers first asked call recipients to volunteer, which meant agreeing to receive two free family-friendly DVDs and give feedback on them, and then asked the volunteers on a second call to buy two additional DVDs. Source: Memorandum Decision and Order, United States v. Corporations for Character, L.C., Case No. 2:11-cv-419-RJS (Mar. 31, 2015) It was undisputed that the defendants called numbers on the Registry during that campaign. Source: Memorandum Decision and Order, United States v. Corporations for Character, L.C., Case No. 2:11-cv-419-RJS (Mar. 31, 2015) The defendants argued that the calls fell within the TSR’s exemption for solicitations to induce charitable contributions. Source: Memorandum Decision and Order, United States v. Corporations for Character, L.C., Case No. 2:11-cv-419-RJS (Mar. 31, 2015) In a separate campaign for the film The Velveteen Rabbit, they called numbers in the areas where the film was being released, including numbers on the Registry, with scripts that promoted the film and induced consumers to purchase tickets. Source: Memorandum Decision and Order, United States v. Corporations for Character, L.C., Case No. 2:11-cv-419-RJS (Mar. 31, 2015)
Outcome. The court held that, although the campaign’s purpose was to raise money for a charity, the solicitations did not fall within the TSR’s meaning of “charitable contribution.” Source: Memorandum Decision and Order, United States v. Corporations for Character, L.C., Case No. 2:11-cv-419-RJS (Mar. 31, 2015) It also held that the first call did not create an established business relationship, because it solicited volunteers to watch and review films. Source: Memorandum Decision and Order, United States v. Corporations for Character, L.C., Case No. 2:11-cv-419-RJS (Mar. 31, 2015) For the ticket calls, it rejected the argument that they were merely informational, because they were aimed at selling movie tickets. Source: Memorandum Decision and Order, United States v. Corporations for Character, L.C., Case No. 2:11-cv-419-RJS (Mar. 31, 2015) The court granted summary judgment to the FTC on the registry-call claim for both campaigns. Source: Memorandum Decision and Order, United States v. Corporations for Character, L.C., Case No. 2:11-cv-419-RJS (Mar. 31, 2015) (Conclusion)
United States v. Media Mix 365, LLC (home solar lead generation)
Media Mix 365: Agreement to Enter Permanent Injunction Order - June 25, 2019
The complaint alleged that the defendants, as part of a campaign to market home solar energy systems, initiated millions of calls to people who had registered on the Do Not Call Registry. Source: Complaint for Permanent Injunction, Civil Penalties and Other Equitable Relief, United States v. Media Mix 365, LLC (C.D. Cal. 2019) It also alleged that the defendants had not scrubbed their calls against a registry file obtained from the Commission within 31 days of each call. Source: Complaint for Permanent Injunction, Civil Penalties and Other Equitable Relief, United States v. Media Mix 365, LLC (C.D. Cal. 2019)
Outcome. The agreed order set a civil penalty judgment of $7,600,000 against the defendants, jointly and severally. Source: Agreement to Enter Permanent Injunction Order, United States v. Media Mix 365, LLC (June 25, 2019) (Monetary Judgment for Civil Penalty) Defendants paid $264,000 in installments. Source: Agreement to Enter Permanent Injunction Order, United States v. Media Mix 365, LLC (June 25, 2019) (Monetary Judgment for Civil Penalty) The remainder was suspended on that payment, subject to the truthfulness of their sworn financial statements. Source: Agreement to Enter Permanent Injunction Order, United States v. Media Mix 365, LLC (June 25, 2019) (Monetary Judgment for Civil Penalty) The two individual defendants were permanently barred from initiating, causing, or assisting any call to a registered number. Source: Agreement to Enter Permanent Injunction Order, United States v. Media Mix 365, LLC (June 25, 2019) (Permanent Ban)
FTC v. Day Pacer LLC (post-secondary education lead generation)
Memorandum Opinion and Order, No. 19-cv-1984 (Sept. 1, 2023)
Day Pacer, which also did business as EduTrek, bought phone numbers from websites whose users had entered their contact information on pages focused mainly on job opportunities rather than education. Source: Memorandum Opinion and Order, No. 19-cv-1984 (Sept. 1, 2023) (Liability for Calls Made by the LLC Defendants) It was undisputed that the LLC defendants made at least 3,669,914 calls to numbers on the registry between March 2014 and June 2019. Source: Memorandum Opinion and Order, No. 19-cv-1984 (Sept. 1, 2023) (Factual Background) The defendants did not subscribe to the registry and did not scrub their calling lists. Source: Memorandum Opinion and Order, No. 19-cv-1984 (Sept. 1, 2023) (Factual Background) Their consent defense failed because the defendants had the burden to show consent, and the court held that a consumer’s later agreement to be transferred did not show consent to the original call: “the train had left the station.” Source: Memorandum Opinion and Order, No. 19-cv-1984 (Sept. 1, 2023) (Liability for Calls Made by the LLC Defendants)
Outcome. The court held the individual defendants liable for the LLC defendants’ violations of the Telemarketing Sales Rule. Source: Memorandum Opinion and Order, No. 19-cv-1984 (Sept. 1, 2023) (Liability of the Individual Defendants) As the FTC’s appellate brief described the result, the district court entered a permanent injunction and held all defendants jointly and severally liable for $28.7 million in penalties, or $6.88 per illegal call. Source: Brief for Respondents, Federal Trade Commission (Introduction) The FTC’s case summary added that the defendants were permanently banned from telemarketing and from assisting others in it. Source: FTC, FTC v. Day Pacer LLC (EduTrek, LLC) case page (Case Timeline)
United States v. Dish Network, L.L.C. (satellite television programming)
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Issued By the United States District Court - In the Matter of Dish Network
Dish authorized marketing businesses to use its Order Entry Tool to sell Dish Network programming. Source: United States v. Dish Network, L.L.C. (C.D. Ill.), Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Dish Order Entry Program) To decide whether it had an established business relationship with the people it called, Dish personnel looked to lists of current customers and disconnect dates rather than the date of each person’s last payment. The court found that Dish thereby made over 15 million illegal registry calls to people who had not paid Dish in more than 18 months. Source: United States v. Dish Network, L.L.C. (C.D. Ill.), Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Count I) Dish also produced no written scrubbing procedures or documentation that scrubbing procedures were followed, which the court said safe-harbor protection requires. Source: United States v. Dish Network, L.L.C. (C.D. Ill.), Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Safe Harbor)
Outcome. The court counted 11,573,390 registry calls for which Dish was liable under the registry count. Source: United States v. Dish Network, L.L.C. (C.D. Ill.), Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Count I Summary) That total included 5,664,273 calls caused by Dish through its retailer JSR. Source: United States v. Dish Network, L.L.C. (C.D. Ill.), Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Count I Summary) The court rejected good faith as an excuse. Source: United States v. Dish Network, L.L.C. (C.D. Ill.), Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Count I) It divided a large monetary award between the federal government and the states, with 60 percent of the total, or $168,000,000, going to the United States as civil penalties. Source: United States v. Dish Network, L.L.C. (C.D. Ill.), monetary award dividing penalties and statutory damages
United States v. Craftmatic Industries, Inc. (telemarketing through sweepstakes entry forms)
Craftmatic Industries, Inc., et al - Stipulated Judgment and Order for Permanent Injunction
The complaint alleged that Craftmatic and its subsidiaries placed hundreds of thousands of outbound calls to numbers on the Registry. Source: Complaint for Civil Penalties, Permanent Injunction, and Other Relief, United States v. Craftmatic Industries, Inc. (Defendants’ Business Activities) It said the sweepstakes entry forms made a consumer’s phone number the entry number, without telling consumers that giving the number authorized sales calls and without requesting the consumer’s signature. Source: Complaint for Civil Penalties, Permanent Injunction, and Other Relief, United States v. Craftmatic Industries, Inc. (Defendants’ Business Activities) The complaint cited Commission staff’s statement that attempting to obtain a consumer’s “express agreement” under false pretenses, such as through a prize promotion or sweepstakes entry form, is not an affirmative defense. Source: Complaint for Civil Penalties, Permanent Injunction, and Other Relief, United States v. Craftmatic Industries, Inc. (The Telemarketing Sales Rule and the National Do Not Call Registry)
Outcome. The stipulated final order enjoined the defendants from violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule and entered a civil penalty judgment of $4.4 million. Source: Reasons for Settlement, Craftmatic Industries, Inc., et al., Stipulated Judgment and Order for Permanent Injunction
United States v. ADT Security Services, Inc. (home security systems)
Consent Decree and Order for Civil Penalties, Injunction and Other Relief
ADT sold security alarm systems both through its own call center and through authorized dealers. Source: Complaint for Civil Penalties, Permanent Injunction, and Other Relief, United States v. ADT Security Services, Inc. (Defendant’s Business Activities) The complaint alleged that one or more of its authorized dealers placed calls to numbers on the Registry on ADT’s behalf, and that ADT offered or paid commissions or revenue sharing fees for the resulting subscriber accounts. Source: Complaint for Civil Penalties, Permanent Injunction, and Other Relief, United States v. ADT Security Services, Inc. (Defendant’s Business Activities)
Outcome. The consent decree entered a $2,000,000 civil penalty against ADT. Source: Consent Decree and Order for Civil Penalties, Injunction and Other Relief, United States v. ADT Security Services, Inc. (Civil Penalty) It also barred ADT from failing to conduct a reasonable due diligence investigation of a person before making that person an Authorized Telemarketer, including whether the person has effective procedures to prevent calls to registry numbers. Source: Consent Decree and Order for Civil Penalties, Injunction and Other Relief, United States v. ADT Security Services, Inc. (Monitoring of Authorized Telemarketers)
Exposure
A violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule, including a do-not-call violation, constitutes an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. Source: Complaint for Civil Penalties, Permanent Injunction, and Other Relief (The Telemarketing Sales Rule and the National Do Not Call Registry) A recent FTC complaint stated that the Telemarketing Act and the FTC Act authorize the court to award civil penalties of not more than $50,120 for each violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule assessed after January 11, 2023. Source: Complaint for Permanent Injunction, Civil Penalties, and Other Relief and Demand for Jury Trial (The Telemarketing Sales Rule and the National Do Not Call Registry) The violation is the call, not a failure to coordinate internal lists, so penalties are counted per call. Source: United States v. DISH Network L.L.C., 954 F.3d 970 (7th Cir. 2020) (Liability for Failure to Coordinate Do-Not-Call Lists) Civil penalties require that the violator had “actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances” that the act is prohibited by the rule. Source: United States v. DISH Network L.L.C., 954 F.3d 970 (7th Cir. 2020) (Statutory Defenses and Knowledge Requirement) In setting the amount the court takes into account the degree of culpability, any history of prior such conduct, ability to pay, effect on ability to continue to do business, and such other matters as justice may require. Source: United States v. Dish Network, L.L.C. (C.D. Ill.), Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (The Appropriate Amount of Monetary Relief), quoting 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(C)
The orders in these cases show how those figures play out. In the Dish Network case, 60 percent of the total monetary award, or $168,000,000, went to the United States as civil penalties, with the rest going to the states. Source: United States v. Dish Network, L.L.C. (C.D. Ill.), monetary award dividing penalties and statutory damages In Day Pacer, the court held the defendants jointly and severally liable for $28,681,863.88. Source: Order for Civil Penalties, FTC v. Day Pacer LLC (EduTrek, LLC) (Findings) In Media Mix 365, a $7,600,000 judgment was mostly suspended on payment of $264,000. Source: Agreement to Enter Permanent Injunction Order, United States v. Media Mix 365, LLC (June 25, 2019) (Monetary Judgment for Civil Penalty) The suspension can be lifted if the court finds the defendant failed to disclose a material asset or misstated its value or made any other material misstatement or omission in the financial representations. Source: Agreement to Enter Permanent Injunction Order, United States v. Media Mix 365, LLC (June 25, 2019) (Monetary Judgment for Civil Penalty) The same structure appears in the Kinaman order, which entered a $104,900 civil penalty judgment against an individual and suspended the remainder after a $2,000 payment, subject to being lifted if she failed to disclose any material asset. Source: Stipulation to Entry of Final Order for Permanent Injunction and Civil Penalty Judgment as to Defendant Kasia Kinaman (Monetary Judgment for Civil Penalty and Partial Suspension)
Orders also reach past money. The Media Mix order permanently barred the individual defendants from owning, managing, or holding an interest in any non-public company that makes calls to registered numbers. Source: Agreement to Enter Permanent Injunction Order, United States v. Media Mix 365, LLC (June 25, 2019) (Permanent Ban) In Day Pacer, the individuals were reached because the court found they either participated in the violative acts or practices and/or had authority to control them. Source: Order for Civil Penalties, FTC v. Day Pacer LLC (EduTrek, LLC) (Findings) Third parties that knowingly support a violating caller are exposed too, because the rule bars providing substantial assistance or support to a seller or telemarketer engaged in a violation of the abusive-practices section. Source: Complaint for Civil Penalties, Permanent Injunction, and Other Relief (Entrepreneurial Strategies and related defendants), describing 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(b)
FAQs
- 1.Complaint for Civil Penalties, Permanent Injunction, and Other Relief. Complaint for Civil Penalties, Permanent Injunction, and Other Relief (The Telemarketing Sales Rule and the National Do Not Call Registry)See also 15 U.S.C. § 6151. National Do-Not-Call Registry. 15 U.S.C. § 6151See also Memorandum and Order. Memorandum and Order, FTC v. Abraham (medical alert monitoring service) (Violation of Do Not Call Registry)
- 2.Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction, Civil Penalty Judgment, and Other Relief as to Defendants Solar Xchange LLC and Mark Getts. Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction, Civil Penalty Judgment, and Other Relief as to Defendants Solar Xchange LLC and Mark Getts (Definitions)
- 3.47 U.S.C. § 1473. 47 U.S.C. § 1473(a)See also 47 C.F.R. § 64.1202. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1202(c)
