I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message(twitter.com)
twitter.com
I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message
https://twitter.com/dweekly/status/1552148207248896001
144 comments
> As we head into election season, a lot of us are going to get unsolicited text messages like this. You too can sue for them!
Can you elaborate? Every source I've seen says that politicians have exempted themselves from the spam laws. e.g. a random google result: https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/202...
> That's because the National Do Not Call Registry does not apply to political text messages.
If you know a way around this, please spill the beans!
Can you elaborate? Every source I've seen says that politicians have exempted themselves from the spam laws. e.g. a random google result: https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/202...
> That's because the National Do Not Call Registry does not apply to political text messages.
If you know a way around this, please spill the beans!
I would LOVE to be able to sue political spammers. I donated to many candidates in 2016 and have been getting crazy amounts of text spam from pols ive never heard of for the past 5 years.
Politicians shouldn't have zero consequences for selling my personal data.
Politicians shouldn't have zero consequences for selling my personal data.
You will never be able to do so; campaign calls are exempt from FCC rulemaking not because the FCC is particularly warm to political campaigns (though maybe they are), but because the Constitution forbids them from restricting political speech in this manner.
Municipalities run into a similar problem with those awful circulars that pile up on your front stoop: ordinances to prohibit them have been struct down as unconstitutional. And that's not even political speech, generally!
Municipalities run into a similar problem with those awful circulars that pile up on your front stoop: ordinances to prohibit them have been struct down as unconstitutional. And that's not even political speech, generally!
Stand by while I make the case that politicians filling my phone with texts and voice messages is a violation of the third amendment.
> because the Constitution forbids them from restricting political speech in this manner
What if texts cost you money per-message though? Isn't that why most places get permission before texting you? Do politicians have a constitutional right to drain your money this way?
What if texts cost you money per-message though? Isn't that why most places get permission before texting you? Do politicians have a constitutional right to drain your money this way?
Freedom of speech isnt freedom to make people listen. If I tell someone to stop calling me and they dont its harassment.
> You will never be able to do so
Could the constitution not be amended, at least in theory? Or the supreme court create a new interpretation?
Could the constitution not be amended, at least in theory? Or the supreme court create a new interpretation?
> Could the constitution not be amended, at least in theory?
Sure, but amending the Constitution for the purpose of permitting the government to impose greater limits on political speech is...going to be a hard sell for a lot of people, and have a high risk if successful of having pretty severe unintended (for non-autocratic supporters of whatever the particular measure is) consequences.
> Or the supreme court create a new interpretation?
Easier than passing an amendment, similar downsides.
Sure, but amending the Constitution for the purpose of permitting the government to impose greater limits on political speech is...going to be a hard sell for a lot of people, and have a high risk if successful of having pretty severe unintended (for non-autocratic supporters of whatever the particular measure is) consequences.
> Or the supreme court create a new interpretation?
Easier than passing an amendment, similar downsides.
Not in our generation. The current thought process of conservative jurists is that money is speech and the founders wanted corporate entities to have unencumbered speech.
I wasn't paying attention and used one my primary email addresses when donating. Account is basically worthless now. So much spam. Even from candidates in states I've never lived in or currently reside in.
I did too, and so far I've been able to end the messages with "STOP"
They all appear to comply with that older school SMS norm. Who knew?
If you do it for a few, they tend to end overall. Now, instead of getting a few a day (right?!?), I get one out of the blue.
I did not "STOP" Bernie. I like Bernie. I don't like how it went with Bernie and all the people trying for better. Those messages have been considerate, infrequent, etc...
So far, all of the others hit pretty hard and fast, but do "STOP"
This suggests some entities, like Bernie for example, do maintain a list but are not necessarily sharing it. Other entities either share their lists, or will send messages for hire.
Your mileage may vary. Hope sharing these experiences helps.
They all appear to comply with that older school SMS norm. Who knew?
If you do it for a few, they tend to end overall. Now, instead of getting a few a day (right?!?), I get one out of the blue.
I did not "STOP" Bernie. I like Bernie. I don't like how it went with Bernie and all the people trying for better. Those messages have been considerate, infrequent, etc...
So far, all of the others hit pretty hard and fast, but do "STOP"
This suggests some entities, like Bernie for example, do maintain a list but are not necessarily sharing it. Other entities either share their lists, or will send messages for hire.
Your mileage may vary. Hope sharing these experiences helps.
I saw that as well on the FTC's website [0]. Curious if you can actually prevent them.
[0] https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/national-do-not-call-regis...
[0] https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/national-do-not-call-regis...
Political txt, email and calls are (mostly)protected by the first amendment as free speech. It would be unconstitutional for the government to restrict it with very limited exceptions, mostly related to imminent threats of violence.
Commercial speech can be regulated provided certain requirements are met that are more widely applicable, a four part test is used. See Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission. Also under Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel the government can compel commercial speech, require advertisers to include factual disclaimers.
So laws like the CAN-SPAM act prohibit unsolicited commercial advertising via txt or email if certain requirements are not met.
Commercial speech can be regulated provided certain requirements are met that are more widely applicable, a four part test is used. See Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission. Also under Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel the government can compel commercial speech, require advertisers to include factual disclaimers.
So laws like the CAN-SPAM act prohibit unsolicited commercial advertising via txt or email if certain requirements are not met.
There's a big difference between "freedom of speech" and "requirement to listen". You can speak all you like, but you cannot intrude upon others and force everyone to listen to you.
I'm not constitutionally required to let political campaigners onto my private property (my home), and I shouldn't be required to receive their text messages on my private property (my phone).
I'm not constitutionally required to let political campaigners onto my private property (my home), and I shouldn't be required to receive their text messages on my private property (my phone).
> I shouldn't be required to receive their text messages on my private property (my phone).
A lot of people agree with you but that’s not typically how it works IRL for USPS either. Generally if you keep trying to deny delivery of junk mail your letter carrier will tell you “you can’t just refuse mail”.
Although I think maybe you are supposed to be able to refuse it, just doesn’t work IRL? People are also supposed to be able to send the mail regardless.
I do think it’s a cost issue. Should cost the standard $0.60 stamp per each bulk mailer (bulk mailers are much cheaper.
Text messages and emails should also cost something reasonable which would dissuade abuse. Perhaps “accepting” a text (or at least not rejecting it) would waive/reimburse that fee so “good” texts could be free? Seems easy for this to be abused though by the body public when temporarily enraged against a corporation/small business.
A lot of people agree with you but that’s not typically how it works IRL for USPS either. Generally if you keep trying to deny delivery of junk mail your letter carrier will tell you “you can’t just refuse mail”.
Although I think maybe you are supposed to be able to refuse it, just doesn’t work IRL? People are also supposed to be able to send the mail regardless.
I do think it’s a cost issue. Should cost the standard $0.60 stamp per each bulk mailer (bulk mailers are much cheaper.
Text messages and emails should also cost something reasonable which would dissuade abuse. Perhaps “accepting” a text (or at least not rejecting it) would waive/reimburse that fee so “good” texts could be free? Seems easy for this to be abused though by the body public when temporarily enraged against a corporation/small business.
USPS will always deliver mail, but you can refuse to accept it. If your mail carrier doesn't follow procedure, then... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
https://faq.usps.com/s/article/Refuse-unwanted-mail-and-remo...
I agree with your other points. Stop the subsidies. I'm not sure why spam makes me so irrationally angry, but it does.
https://faq.usps.com/s/article/Refuse-unwanted-mail-and-remo...
I agree with your other points. Stop the subsidies. I'm not sure why spam makes me so irrationally angry, but it does.
But they cant use automated means. That’s what allows them to blast out texts.
Generally, there are two subcategories of TCPA claims: DNC (227(c)) and ATDS/prerecorded voice (227(b)). The latter claims are still available against politicians, last I checked. The latter claims regulate the technology that allows blast calls and messaging with pre-recorded messages.
not legal advice
Generally, there are two subcategories of TCPA claims: DNC (227(c)) and ATDS/prerecorded voice (227(b)). The latter claims are still available against politicians, last I checked. The latter claims regulate the technology that allows blast calls and messaging with pre-recorded messages.
not legal advice
At least in San Francisco, I took my phone number and email off my voter registration years ago and now almost never get any political texts, calls, or email, despite being quite politically active.
He mentioned the exact jurisdiction where it happened. Can you point at least one thing, that is wrong?
Sure, I know of no jurisdiction that requires a pre-suit demand for a TCPA claim.
“Issue a notice of demand explaining that you are seeking payment for TCPA violation and give them 10 days to respond. Send mail with signature delivery. (You can't sue without having issued a notice of demand.)”
You do have to serve them once you file the case, but generally, I’m aware of no pre-suit-demand obligation for a TCPA case in small claims court that prevents you from filing.
not legal advice
“Issue a notice of demand explaining that you are seeking payment for TCPA violation and give them 10 days to respond. Send mail with signature delivery. (You can't sue without having issued a notice of demand.)”
You do have to serve them once you file the case, but generally, I’m aware of no pre-suit-demand obligation for a TCPA case in small claims court that prevents you from filing.
not legal advice
Well, there is an article on this on Californian Court website: https://www.courts.ca.gov/9739.htm?rdeLocaleAttr=en
"Small claims cases require that you ask the other side for payment before you go to court (unless there is a good reason why you cannot). You can ask in person, by phone, or in writing. You will have to tell the court you did this and how on your court form."
It does not specifically exclude TCPA statutory damage, so I think it does apply in this case.
And it does logically apply here too, small claims court is somewhere between an actual court and mediation and it is in place to save cost when possible. So it is reasonable to expect they want an attempt to resolve it before even before to file.
Anything else?
"Small claims cases require that you ask the other side for payment before you go to court (unless there is a good reason why you cannot). You can ask in person, by phone, or in writing. You will have to tell the court you did this and how on your court form."
It does not specifically exclude TCPA statutory damage, so I think it does apply in this case.
And it does logically apply here too, small claims court is somewhere between an actual court and mediation and it is in place to save cost when possible. So it is reasonable to expect they want an attempt to resolve it before even before to file.
Anything else?
In California small claims court, they typically want you to try and make a demand. But you don’t have to make a demand in all instances to sue. OP made a blanket statement that you have to make a demand or you can’t sue. That’s not correct under CA law, and that’s generally not correct in other jurisdictions. And we will set aside a preemption analysis because the TCPA is a federal law for another day. (I don’t know if there is one. But could be.)
Ultimately, OP was recounting what he did, and, as I said, I think OP did great. But he shared it for a reason, and so I wanted to make clear that everyone’s circumstances and judicial systems may be different. This is why I said:
“Depending on your jurisdiction, the way you can pursue a case like this is going to vary, so I’m not going to give any hard and fast rules in this comment.”
A couple other potential, and admittedly minor, misstatements from OP
Trebling under the TCPA does not necessarily turn on whether you were on the DNC list (as OP states), it generally turns on a showing willfulness.
And winning a judgment does not mean that the Court just seizes the defendants property. I think that was addressed in another comment.
I wasn’t trying to crap on OP. I simply wanted to point out that OP‘s experience was specific, localized, and not universal. I thought this important because OP’s tweets read sort of like a how-to, and I want to educate others to the nuance that may be required in their specific jurisdictions.
not legal advice
Ultimately, OP was recounting what he did, and, as I said, I think OP did great. But he shared it for a reason, and so I wanted to make clear that everyone’s circumstances and judicial systems may be different. This is why I said:
“Depending on your jurisdiction, the way you can pursue a case like this is going to vary, so I’m not going to give any hard and fast rules in this comment.”
A couple other potential, and admittedly minor, misstatements from OP
Trebling under the TCPA does not necessarily turn on whether you were on the DNC list (as OP states), it generally turns on a showing willfulness.
And winning a judgment does not mean that the Court just seizes the defendants property. I think that was addressed in another comment.
I wasn’t trying to crap on OP. I simply wanted to point out that OP‘s experience was specific, localized, and not universal. I thought this important because OP’s tweets read sort of like a how-to, and I want to educate others to the nuance that may be required in their specific jurisdictions.
not legal advice
OP here - really appreciate these bits of nuance and correction. That's how everyone learns!
Meta: I wish that Twitter had a better format for iterative discussion: "Hey, I just did X, I wonder how broadly it is applicable?" -> people join in with experience and data points offering nuance about the above -> output reference document with rough consensus and nuance. (This is kind of what happened with my Guide to Stock and Options like 10 years ago - I only got it materially right on the third draft after people constructively dogpiled in with the things I got wrong on the first two takes!)
Now back to the thread - is there case history showing whether presence on DNC constitutes (or doesn't) a wilful TCPA violation? My presumption was that an unsolicited text to a DNC number de facto constituted a wilful violation since best practice is to scrub DNC numbers from cold outreach.
Meta: I wish that Twitter had a better format for iterative discussion: "Hey, I just did X, I wonder how broadly it is applicable?" -> people join in with experience and data points offering nuance about the above -> output reference document with rough consensus and nuance. (This is kind of what happened with my Guide to Stock and Options like 10 years ago - I only got it materially right on the third draft after people constructively dogpiled in with the things I got wrong on the first two takes!)
Now back to the thread - is there case history showing whether presence on DNC constitutes (or doesn't) a wilful TCPA violation? My presumption was that an unsolicited text to a DNC number de facto constituted a wilful violation since best practice is to scrub DNC numbers from cold outreach.
> I wasn’t trying to crap on OP.
Fair, I did not imply that you are, just being genuinely curious.
> In California small claims court, they typically want you to try and make a demand. But you don’t have to make a demand in all instances to sue. OP made a blanket statement that you have to make a demand or you can’t sue. That’s not correct under CA law.
I don't understand this part, the court page says that you "must" do it. Is there a CA law that prohibits CA court from requiring this? My vague understanding is that many things in judicial system are "customary" or administratively driven. Maybe this is the case, while not required by CA law, but required by courts as an optimization technique.
> And we will set aside a preemption analysis because the TCPA is a federal law for another day.
Ah, this is actually interesting. So the TCPA is a federal law and he used it as a basis for his lawsuit in the CA court. How does it work? Can you bring a lawsuit based on federal law in a state law? I just pulled TCPA [1] and in the PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION section it clearly mentions a state court:
[1] https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/tcpa-rules.pdf
Fair, I did not imply that you are, just being genuinely curious.
> In California small claims court, they typically want you to try and make a demand. But you don’t have to make a demand in all instances to sue. OP made a blanket statement that you have to make a demand or you can’t sue. That’s not correct under CA law.
I don't understand this part, the court page says that you "must" do it. Is there a CA law that prohibits CA court from requiring this? My vague understanding is that many things in judicial system are "customary" or administratively driven. Maybe this is the case, while not required by CA law, but required by courts as an optimization technique.
> And we will set aside a preemption analysis because the TCPA is a federal law for another day.
Ah, this is actually interesting. So the TCPA is a federal law and he used it as a basis for his lawsuit in the CA court. How does it work? Can you bring a lawsuit based on federal law in a state law? I just pulled TCPA [1] and in the PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION section it clearly mentions a state court:
A person or entity may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State, bring in an appropriate court of that State
[1] https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/tcpa-rules.pdf
Related question I’m hoping you know the answer to: can I use this as a recourse against debt collection calls or texts? I get numerous calls and texts for the prior owner of my cell phone number (to whom I have no relation to be clear) that have persisted for ~6 years despite repeatedly informing them I am not the individual they want to contact and asking to be removed from their records.
This is actually one of the most common TCPA claims out there these days.
They are sometimes referred to as “wrong number“ claims, or “reassigned number“ claims. You get a cell phone with a new number, and the old owner of that number was, for lack of a better word, a deadbeat. You spend the next 5 years being hounded by the previous owner’s collectors. This can potentially give rise to Claims under the TCPA
They are sometimes referred to as “wrong number“ claims, or “reassigned number“ claims. You get a cell phone with a new number, and the old owner of that number was, for lack of a better word, a deadbeat. You spend the next 5 years being hounded by the previous owner’s collectors. This can potentially give rise to Claims under the TCPA
OP here. I'm definitely not a lawyer, so apologies for incorrect statements made in the thread. I'd love to learn more about correct framing / case history / rights here to avoid sharing misinformation. If you'd rather provide the feedback privately / off-the-record, my email is david at weekly dot org. Thank you!
The only thing that I noticed was not 100% correct is:
5. [..] courts will seize from them what you are owed
The process to get a court to do this is extremely difficult. It often starts with Debtor Examination followed by filing a bunch of documents to start the seizing process. If the person really doesn’t want to pay the judgement though, good luck. For example, during the Debtor Examination they have to answer truthfully under oath where their bank accounts and other property are. And then as soon as the meeting is over they can move to a different bank.
Getting a judgement is the easy part. Collecting it is the hard part.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-is-debtor-exami...
5. [..] courts will seize from them what you are owed
The process to get a court to do this is extremely difficult. It often starts with Debtor Examination followed by filing a bunch of documents to start the seizing process. If the person really doesn’t want to pay the judgement though, good luck. For example, during the Debtor Examination they have to answer truthfully under oath where their bank accounts and other property are. And then as soon as the meeting is over they can move to a different bank.
Getting a judgement is the easy part. Collecting it is the hard part.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-is-debtor-exami...
Ah! Yes, my statement was incorrect. I had observed wage garnishment on the other side of the fence as an employer and had assumed courts would do this processing after a default judgement. This turned out to be a wrong assumption.
No problem. Wage garnishment is interesting by the way - some states don’t allow it for judgements like this.
It really makes it almost impossible to collect judgements in those states for a determined debtor.
It really makes it almost impossible to collect judgements in those states for a determined debtor.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Campaign calls and texts are explicitly exempt from the Do Not Call registry, as they must be.
>as they must be.
Why is there legally allowed spam? Because it's for democracy? I don't care, I don't want to receive calls and texts related to it. Spamming my phone is more likely to make me go out and vote for the opposition out of spite than anything.
Why is there legally allowed spam? Because it's for democracy? I don't care, I don't want to receive calls and texts related to it. Spamming my phone is more likely to make me go out and vote for the opposition out of spite than anything.
Because the government's ability to regulate communications is at its absolute nadir when it concerns political speech regarding an upcoming election. Your best bet to press your case on this policy issue is to invent a time machine and plead your case to James Madison.
You can vote for the opposition if that makes you feel better, but know right now that the opposition, whatever it may be, for any major political office is doing exactly the same thing. Every significant political party has list-making and trading as one of its highest priority goals.
You can vote for the opposition if that makes you feel better, but know right now that the opposition, whatever it may be, for any major political office is doing exactly the same thing. Every significant political party has list-making and trading as one of its highest priority goals.
But they cant use automated means. That’s what allows them to blast out texts and calls with a pre-recorded voice.
Generally, there are two subcategories of TCPA claims: DNC (227(c)) and ATDS/prerecorded voice (227(b)). The latter claims are still available against politicians, last I checked. The latter claims regulate the technology that allows blast calls and messaging with pre-recorded messages.
not legal advice
Generally, there are two subcategories of TCPA claims: DNC (227(c)) and ATDS/prerecorded voice (227(b)). The latter claims are still available against politicians, last I checked. The latter claims regulate the technology that allows blast calls and messaging with pre-recorded messages.
not legal advice
So, someone hired you to try and monetize their inbound spam? How lucrative is that?
Very. There’s a whole industry around it. Folks on record is saying that this law has made more millionaires in the plaintiff’s bar than any other law.
Check out TCPAworld.com if you want to go down the rabbit hole!
Check out TCPAworld.com if you want to go down the rabbit hole!
I would love to do this, but the few times that I've tried to look up the company, there's no real evidence as to who it is. And I'm fairly sophisticated at that kind of research, I know most of the tricks- however, these companies do successfully hide their identity.
I did, one time, find the likely CEO of one of these companies, and I called his cell phone late on a Friday night to mess with him. However, I didn't really have 'rises to the level of evidence that you could present in court' type certainty
I did, one time, find the likely CEO of one of these companies, and I called his cell phone late on a Friday night to mess with him. However, I didn't really have 'rises to the level of evidence that you could present in court' type certainty
(OP here) In this case the spam text linked to a legit website that clearly belonged to a CA business, which then I was able to find on the CA SoS business search website. I've also found that Terms of Service & Privacy Policy pages usually have a legal address for a company and email for legal concerns.
This part is actually pretty simple.
You simply keep responding that you’re interested. Click their link. Fill out their form. Eventually you’ll get to a real person at a real company that was benefiting from the illegal spam.
You simply keep responding that you’re interested. Click their link. Fill out their form. Eventually you’ll get to a real person at a real company that was benefiting from the illegal spam.
Could this make the lawsuit more difficult since you've signaled consent? (Yes, they made the first move prior to your consent, but I wonder if that would be a murkier narrative in the courtroom.)
It's typically some affiliate-relationship that's conveniently structured to permit plausible deniability on the part of the ultimate recipient of the funds.
This brings up an interesting point about the TCPA. Individual employees and owners can be personally liable, not just their companies. It’s a vicious angle to TCPA litigation.
I think a much easier way would be if we just taxed phone calls at 1 cent each. I mean absolutely everything else is already taxed: you pay taxes just to stay alive. the least that could be done is add a 1 cent tax to each phone call, just enough to stop the mass phone calling.
An online game, Eve Online, let's you set a fee for anyone not in your contacts to message you, with a default fee. You get some of it and "the government" (the game) gets the rest. The first time you message someone, you get prompted to pay the fee or discard your message.
I want this in real life. Set a default of a $1 or so. Your carrier gets $0.25, you get $0.75. You can adjust the fee to $0 or $1000. Carrier gets 25%.
I want this in real life. Set a default of a $1 or so. Your carrier gets $0.25, you get $0.75. You can adjust the fee to $0 or $1000. Carrier gets 25%.
Interesting. Would it work per device or would there be a central repository that stores everyone's contact list?
These calls are already illegal. There is a Do not call list. The gov has just been completely inept at enforcement, I don’t think we need extra tax, just enforce the laws we have.
The point is that, if there is a per-call cost that everybody has to pay, it becomes much harder for spammers to justify automatically calling hundreds of thousands of numbers per day, while regular people who make one or two calls a day won't notice.
"enforcing the laws we have" isn't enough because spoofing exists and many of the spammers operate across borders.
"enforcing the laws we have" isn't enough because spoofing exists and many of the spammers operate across borders.
clearly the current model doesn't work well enough. US laws don't stop Nigerian scammers abusing weak telecom systems. Adding a tax paid by the carrier incentivises them to collect it from the upstream chain all the way back to the caller.
Us laws COULD stop these scammers, but the govt has been too scared to actually lock out the carriers that are carrying these spam calls or selling these big blocks of local numbers. It seems like they are starting to play hardball, but we’ll see:
“ The Cox/Jones/Sumco Panama operation appears to be responsible for making more than eight billion unlawful prerecorded message calls to American consumers since at least 2018. The robocalls include prerecorded marketing messages which encouraged consumers to follow prompts to speak with a “warranty specialist” about extending or reinstating their car warranty.
As announced on July 7, the enforcement bureau issued a notice authorizing all voice service providers to cease carrying any traffic originating from the Cox/Jones/Sumco Panama operation consistent with FCC regulations.
At the same time, the Bureau sent cease-and-desist letters to eight voice service provider to warn them to stop carrying this suspicious traffic. The eight service providers have not responded to the letters and so, as provided in the public notice, the bureau is directing all other carriers to refuse to carry this traffic.”
Basically what the FCC decided to do was ID this org, tell the carriers who sell to this org to stop, and if they don’t stop, require other carriers to lock out the carriers who sell to the spammer.
https://www.mykxlg.com/news/national/fcc-targeting-phone-ser...
“ The Cox/Jones/Sumco Panama operation appears to be responsible for making more than eight billion unlawful prerecorded message calls to American consumers since at least 2018. The robocalls include prerecorded marketing messages which encouraged consumers to follow prompts to speak with a “warranty specialist” about extending or reinstating their car warranty.
As announced on July 7, the enforcement bureau issued a notice authorizing all voice service providers to cease carrying any traffic originating from the Cox/Jones/Sumco Panama operation consistent with FCC regulations.
At the same time, the Bureau sent cease-and-desist letters to eight voice service provider to warn them to stop carrying this suspicious traffic. The eight service providers have not responded to the letters and so, as provided in the public notice, the bureau is directing all other carriers to refuse to carry this traffic.”
Basically what the FCC decided to do was ID this org, tell the carriers who sell to this org to stop, and if they don’t stop, require other carriers to lock out the carriers who sell to the spammer.
https://www.mykxlg.com/news/national/fcc-targeting-phone-ser...
How many years and millions of dollars does it take for an enforcement action like this? I think a per-call fee that can be cheaply assessed by carriers on callers that renders such spamming unprofitable in the first place is likely to be a far more efficient approach.
Easy solution: The telco automatically credits 75% of the tax to your account. They then attempt to collect 100% of the tax from the caller.
At that point, the free market gets to decide if it's cheaper to eat the cost of the call (remember, each subscriber sets the amount of the tax), or secure their infrastructure.
At that point, the free market gets to decide if it's cheaper to eat the cost of the call (remember, each subscriber sets the amount of the tax), or secure their infrastructure.
Yep, and folks could even have a credit of 500 phone calls a month, or whatever a reasonable number would be, so no cost to consumers at all. Instead of a tax, it should be a minimum charge that goes to the carriers. So that they would be incentivized to collect it.
In a world where we pay for stamps, why didn't bulk unsolicited mail go away? This won't work.
It's a fair fee though. It pays for my attention as a recipient. It prevents an externality. It's no different than having to deposit a quarter to take a shopping cart, to incentivize you to return it. A tenth of a cent would probably be just as effective btw; the problem is that you can send a million text messages, wasting a million seconds of other people's time assuming they spend an average of 1 second looking at it, all for far less than the value of all that time wasted.
Nobody is talking about TSA, what a non sequitur.
Nobody is talking about TSA, what a non sequitur.
If only we could get paid by ad companies for trying to steal our attention.
It doesn't have to go away entirely to be worth making a change. I get probably 100x more email spam than physical mail
Why wouldn't this solve the problem? Phone calls have a real cost, however small it may be, to both the recipient and the carriers. Everyone accepts paying for stamps. What makes paying for calls different, and such an abhorrent idea that we shouldn't even discuss it?
EDIT: Parent comment was replaced with something completely different so my reply makes no longer makes sense, but I'm leaving it unchanged.
EDIT: Parent comment was replaced with something completely different so my reply makes no longer makes sense, but I'm leaving it unchanged.
In a world where we pay for stamps, why didn't bulk unsolicited mail go away? Why would it work for telephones?
> In a world where we pay for stamps, why didn't bulk unsolicited mail go away? Why would it work for telephones?
Different situation. Bulk mail is not illegal, in fact the USPS subsidizes it. Spam calls ARE illegal. Hopefully phone carriers will not give discounts for explicitly illegal uses of their networks, but we can deal with that later if it happens.
Different situation. Bulk mail is not illegal, in fact the USPS subsidizes it. Spam calls ARE illegal. Hopefully phone carriers will not give discounts for explicitly illegal uses of their networks, but we can deal with that later if it happens.
You are right back at the same "distinguishing legal from illegal calls" problem.
The whole point of this scheme is that it treats all callers equally, and works without needing to distinguish legal from illegal calls.
If paying for stamps can't stop junk mail, I don't see how paying for calls could stop cold callers.
Different situation. Bulk mail is not illegal, in fact the USPS subsidizes it. Spam calls ARE illegal.
I think you're saying that the cure described is worse than the disease, and that the bureaucracy to maintain such regulation would expand beyond its original mandate.
I think that's assuming that things always go poorly, and that there is no possible way for it to go well. Sometimes things go well.
I think that's assuming that things always go poorly, and that there is no possible way for it to go well. Sometimes things go well.
How much more junk mail would we get if postage was free? Orders of magnitude more, I imagine.
Bulk mail is priced to maximize profit to the postal service. Raising the rate 1000% would effectively end bulk mail. Adding a penny cost per spam would be more than a 1000% increase, and would effectively end the spam.
Companies have to pay for commercials and billboards, why don't those go away?
That escalated quickly
An impractical and difficult to implement idea that would have terrible unintended consequences.
> difficult to implement idea
A lot of carriers has been billing by minute since the dawn of mobile telecom. And it's still in place in many (most?) countries. Only US/Canada/Mexico are used to unlimited phone calls.
A lot of carriers has been billing by minute since the dawn of mobile telecom. And it's still in place in many (most?) countries. Only US/Canada/Mexico are used to unlimited phone calls.
A note, though: A prepaid phone in the US makes you pay for both incoming and outgoing calls unless things have changed. A prepaid phone in Norway only charges you for outgoing calls.
Yep, same in Eastern Europe.
I like the idea, but I suspect the companies doing this make enough from the 1 person that falls for their scam that they can afford to spend 1 cent on everyone who doesn't. I don't know what the monetary tipping point would be where this type of scam stops being worth it for scammers, but I suspect it would be high enough that it would be equally prohibitive for actual consumers.
There was a similar proposal (cannot find RFC) to add it to Email protocols. Would cut spam immediately.
It was even more advanced -- Recepient could choose how much sender should pay, and sender could agree to that (or do it non-interactively, i.e. send an email message with "Max-To-Pay" header, same as you can do it currently with international SMS).
Unfortunately, the proposal never got any adoption, because us, email users and providers.
It was even more advanced -- Recepient could choose how much sender should pay, and sender could agree to that (or do it non-interactively, i.e. send an email message with "Max-To-Pay" header, same as you can do it currently with international SMS).
Unfortunately, the proposal never got any adoption, because us, email users and providers.
And then after it was implemented we'd get political reasons why it still isn't implemented. No thanks. I also don't want people legally spamming me for a penny.
"Judge in LOCATION blocks new phone tax"
I mean, great, but that's seriously complicated.
Who pays the tax and how are you going to collect? Do you pay to receive a call? (I know this used to be normal practice in the US, but it isn't where I'm located)? If the call begins or ends in a different country, who pays the tax? Would this make calls unaffordable for poor folks - and what about services like google voice? Are some exempt (like non-emergency hospital, school, and police calls?)
Why wouldn't it just be a charge on your phone bill and included in there?
Who pays the tax and how are you going to collect? Do you pay to receive a call? (I know this used to be normal practice in the US, but it isn't where I'm located)? If the call begins or ends in a different country, who pays the tax? Would this make calls unaffordable for poor folks - and what about services like google voice? Are some exempt (like non-emergency hospital, school, and police calls?)
Why wouldn't it just be a charge on your phone bill and included in there?
Unfortunately, all of the text spam I get is of the scammy misrepresentation variety, and is going to fail on the "identify the other party" step.
Edit: for instance https://imgur.com/D780jAX -- after I naïvely responded to the first few like this and got their pivot, I started to recognize the style.
Edit: for instance https://imgur.com/D780jAX -- after I naïvely responded to the first few like this and got their pivot, I started to recognize the style.
If you spend a few minutes and get them on the phone and say "I want to wire you funds right now!", they will give you a bank account.
Maybe you’d get a bank account but it wouldn’t actually be theirs.
Yeah, you’ll get the bank account of some other person who has been scammed into a “no experience necessary work-from-home job” transferring money
Do you know that or are you guessing?
Because my guess is it won't be that simple.
Because my guess is it won't be that simple.
Yeah, my guess is they would say “oh, we can just do an ACH debit and save you the trouble. What's your account number?”
Spitballing here:
You can place ACH blocks on accounts, at some banks anyway. I don’t know if the bank will give you the transaction information if a transfer is attempted. If they will, shouldn’t it be possible to set up a honeypot account in order to get the ACH info? Is that info enough to trace back to the spammers?
This opens up other legal questions though. It’s entirely possible that you could then be on the hook for non payment or something.
You can place ACH blocks on accounts, at some banks anyway. I don’t know if the bank will give you the transaction information if a transfer is attempted. If they will, shouldn’t it be possible to set up a honeypot account in order to get the ACH info? Is that info enough to trace back to the spammers?
This opens up other legal questions though. It’s entirely possible that you could then be on the hook for non payment or something.
Oh yeah, I forgot that some banks allow that. Maybe an even easier thing to try is telling the scammer you need their ACH so you can whitelist it with your bank own bank?
I get those as well. Did you find out who's sending them?
There was an article about this phenomenon not too long ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31949731
Just a plain old scam attempt.
Just a plain old scam attempt.
Winning a lawsuit and actually collecting are two different things, and from my experience the legal system does not care at all once they've issued a judgement. It worked out for that person and that's great, but these types of lawsuits tend to take a while to get a hearing, require a bunch of paperwork, and if the other party does not play ball, the odds of you getting any $$ out of it are pretty slim.
(OP here) I'm learning that in this case I was lucky that the party was A: identifiable, B: also in CA, C: responsive to a suit, and D: willing to settle out-of-court (mailed me a check). I hadn't realized that collections of a small claims judgement could be super-involved but apparently I was simply naive on that topic.
This is fairly sad state of affairs.
Here in Germany if you have a court order and that isn't payed, the bailiff/marshall visit the recalcitrant party and confiscates cash or valuable items until the order is settled. (At least for companies; there are some regulations that individuals cannot be brought below the poverty line by such actions).
Here in Germany if you have a court order and that isn't payed, the bailiff/marshall visit the recalcitrant party and confiscates cash or valuable items until the order is settled. (At least for companies; there are some regulations that individuals cannot be brought below the poverty line by such actions).
This only works for the least common kind of a spammer: a real, registered business that you can identify. Most spammers are con artists, scammers, and phishers who know to keep their identities secret, let alone link you to their corporate website.
Eh, I rarely get any of that spam. I constantly get spam from politicians begging for money.
Though, to be fair, those could be scammers actually, I've never responded or confirmed that they are real.
To what extent can this be automated? There are apps to fight parking/speeding tickets... could the same be done for little lawsuits to sue spammers?
Maybe a lawyer could comment on feasibility of this.
Maybe a lawyer could comment on feasibility of this.
A few years ago there was a web service in my region that allowed you to send a traffic ticket, and they would take all the tickets into court to fight as many as possible and give all customers a flat 30% discount off the shared savings.
It was incredible. But somehow they got shut down when judges and cops didn't like what they were doing.
It was incredible. But somehow they got shut down when judges and cops didn't like what they were doing.
From a technical perspective, I think it would be hard to correctly identify who to sue. Phone numbers can be spoofed, gotten through a 3rd party like Twilio, or come from email to SMS gateways (if those still exist).
For texts, you can probably parse out a link they want you to click, but I would expect them to be using a WHOIS guard.
Phone calls are even worse, because you'd have to interact with the rep enough to get info on who's making the call.
If it starts filing bogus lawsuits, whoever's running it may end up paying a whole bunch of attorney's fees to people defending themselves, get banned from filing lawsuits, and be more annoying to the general populace than the spammers are. I'd rather get a bunch of spam calls than deal with a single unfounded lawsuit.
For texts, you can probably parse out a link they want you to click, but I would expect them to be using a WHOIS guard.
Phone calls are even worse, because you'd have to interact with the rep enough to get info on who's making the call.
If it starts filing bogus lawsuits, whoever's running it may end up paying a whole bunch of attorney's fees to people defending themselves, get banned from filing lawsuits, and be more annoying to the general populace than the spammers are. I'd rather get a bunch of spam calls than deal with a single unfounded lawsuit.
[deleted]
This is not my practice area but I’d guess tracking down the responsible party is a giant pain in the ass even in the best case scenario and nearly impossible in the worst.
> You're agreeing to not sue them again for the exact same violation.
I hope exact violation means that particular unsolicited text message and not the exact violation of sending unsolicited text messages.
I hope exact violation means that particular unsolicited text message and not the exact violation of sending unsolicited text messages.
yes it means the same text message
Something worth highlighting is that you need to be on the Federal Do Not Call registry for that.
https://www.donotcall.gov/
https://www.donotcall.gov/
India created a similar system (that is somewhat better) when one of the law minister in the government started getting unsolicited calls for loans. :)
Phone users can activate Do-Not-Disturb by calling or SMSing their provider. Users can opt for complete blackout of marketing messages or opt into "categories" where they would be open to marketing (like Real Estate, Auto etc). Marketers have to register themselves and the phone numbers / id they use to do the marketing. If a marketer contacts someone on the DnD list, a 3 strikes rule applies - warning, fine, ban. A marketer who uses an unregistered number (a business phone or their own personal number) to make a marketing call will be warned, fined and will face disconnection of service on repeated violations.
Users can file a complain by calling or sending a simple SMS to 1909 in the following format: complaint / nature of call, phone number or SMS id, date as dd/mm/yy. The service provider will then take the action. E.g. - https://imgur.com/uPO1HQS (screenshot of a list of complaints filed by me and the action taken by the service provider).
Phone users can activate Do-Not-Disturb by calling or SMSing their provider. Users can opt for complete blackout of marketing messages or opt into "categories" where they would be open to marketing (like Real Estate, Auto etc). Marketers have to register themselves and the phone numbers / id they use to do the marketing. If a marketer contacts someone on the DnD list, a 3 strikes rule applies - warning, fine, ban. A marketer who uses an unregistered number (a business phone or their own personal number) to make a marketing call will be warned, fined and will face disconnection of service on repeated violations.
Users can file a complain by calling or sending a simple SMS to 1909 in the following format: complaint / nature of call, phone number or SMS id, date as dd/mm/yy. The service provider will then take the action. E.g. - https://imgur.com/uPO1HQS (screenshot of a list of complaints filed by me and the action taken by the service provider).
The thread claims that not to be the case [1]:
> 2. Issue a notice of demand explaining that you are seeking payment for TCPA violation and give them 10 days to respond. Send mail with signature delivery. (You can't sue without having issued a notice of demand.) $500 damages, treble if you're on the Do Not Call registry.
[1] https://twitter.com/dweekly/status/1552151905433923585
> 2. Issue a notice of demand explaining that you are seeking payment for TCPA violation and give them 10 days to respond. Send mail with signature delivery. (You can't sue without having issued a notice of demand.) $500 damages, treble if you're on the Do Not Call registry.
[1] https://twitter.com/dweekly/status/1552151905433923585
I'd be curious if OP could chime in about that, since the service they posted claims they don't need you permission if you aren't on the Do Not Call list [0]
> Note: They don’t need your permission if you haven’t put your mobile number on the Federal Do Not Call list, but don’t worry, if you haven’t we tell you how to do that too!
[0] https://www.isipp.com/how-to-make-phone-and-sms-spammers-pay...
> Note: They don’t need your permission if you haven’t put your mobile number on the Federal Do Not Call list, but don’t worry, if you haven’t we tell you how to do that too!
[0] https://www.isipp.com/how-to-make-phone-and-sms-spammers-pay...
Yeah I'm with you, I trust the lawyer over David.
In Germany, any company telling you that you won something is required to provide that prize. Unfortunately, the scams I get tend to be from abroad, and/or the actors behind them impossible to identify (and they also often use vague language like "potentially won" or "won one of our prizes" vs. "YOU WON A BRAND NEW TESLA CYBERTRUCK").
Who is ultimately responsible for providing the prize? Let’s say a German marketing employee is fed up with their job and wants to go out in a blaze of glory à la JetBlue slide guy so they text a bunch of people “YOU WON A BRAND NEW TESLA CYBERTRUCK”. Would the employer or the employee be on the hook to supply the Cybertrucks?
Whoever sends the message. Remember, these cases get decided by human judges, not robots looking at e-mail headers.
I assume in your example a court would consider the employee to be the one sending the message.
Edit: And looking at the wording, this may mean no cybertrucks for anyone because the sender has to be a business (simplified) for the law to apply.
I assume in your example a court would consider the employee to be the one sending the message.
Edit: And looking at the wording, this may mean no cybertrucks for anyone because the sender has to be a business (simplified) for the law to apply.
Telling someone they won a Toy Yoda in text form just wouldn't work as well
Same in the US. Nearly all of the junk we get originates overseas.
When I lived in Canada, I was very excited when CASL (Canada's Anti-Spam Legislation) came out circa 2013. Having the ability to sue Canadian companies that ignored email opt-outs would have been great. The amounts are limited to $200 per violation, but up to $1 million per day total (in most cases, I'd get a few hundred dollars for 1-3 emails). And very easy to track since I generate unique aliases for each company I interact with.
Unfortunately, the ability for individuals to sue ("private right of action") was delayed in 2017, and delayed once more in 2019, IIRC. Apparently, companies complained that the max $1 million per day could be achieved by sending 5,000 unsolicited emails, which would be too easy to do if there was a mistake in their system or a new sales rep ham-fisted this without realizing the repercussions.
I love to see posts like this though, I'll be sure to attempt this if I ever get SMS spam here in USA.
Unfortunately, the ability for individuals to sue ("private right of action") was delayed in 2017, and delayed once more in 2019, IIRC. Apparently, companies complained that the max $1 million per day could be achieved by sending 5,000 unsolicited emails, which would be too easy to do if there was a mistake in their system or a new sales rep ham-fisted this without realizing the repercussions.
I love to see posts like this though, I'll be sure to attempt this if I ever get SMS spam here in USA.
"We are likely to break this law, therefore we shouldn't be punished when it happens"? Classic.
The US has a similar problem with CAN-SPAM. Ordinary citizens cannot sue.[1] All you can do is complain to the FTC, after which of course nothing will happen.
It makes these laws rather toothless if they're not actually enforced.
[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/inbox/can-spam_and_consumer_...
The US has a similar problem with CAN-SPAM. Ordinary citizens cannot sue.[1] All you can do is complain to the FTC, after which of course nothing will happen.
It makes these laws rather toothless if they're not actually enforced.
[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/inbox/can-spam_and_consumer_...
Settling for $1200 with predjudice is a mistake... get a lawyer experienced in the area. You should be able to get roughly 2x the statutory amount by playing hardball!
$1500 is already triple damages. Why would they settle for more than that, when they could just default and $1500 would be the amount they owe with no further legal costs.
$1500 is actually the amount if the person is on the DNC list and has told you to stop. I'll try to find a source
I guess what the cap on damages is not really what I was curious about. I mean if there is a statutory limit of $X, what is the motivation for a company to settle for 2*$X?
The sued party has legal hours. Settling for more than the damages for the promise of not incurring additional fees from their own lawyers.
My only question is around the loophole that political organizations can do this if they aren't using "robotexts". How do they prove this? I've received three texts from an organization I'd like to do this to. Every time they've messaged me, I've responded and asked whether this was a human sending the message. No response.
Maybe I'll just bite the bullet and try.
Maybe I'll just bite the bullet and try.
The punchline is a link in the last tweet of the thread: a non-affiliate link to OP’s acquaintance’s kit to file a lawsuit of your own. [0]
[0] https://www.isipp.com/how-to-make-phone-and-sms-spammers-pay...
[0] https://www.isipp.com/how-to-make-phone-and-sms-spammers-pay...
So you were able to sue, for example Google or Qualtrics because a spammer sent you one of their links? I'm confused on that part. Or did the legit company reveal the identity of the spammer to you? Seems like the case would get tossed because the entity you're suing didn't send the spam? How did that part work? Thanks
Not all heroes wear capes.
Has anyone tried this with real estate solicitors ? I get a message per day about selling my house.
Only 1? I get at least 6 unsolicited texts and 3-4 phone calls every damn day.
I get around 60 calls a day, many of them are repeat attempts. T-Mobile's app blocks 99% of them. I get around a dozen texts a day for the real estate nonsense. Messenger does a good job of marking those as spam.
I've tried a number of times to get identifiable information from those folks with little success. Friend of mine went through the process and met with someone on site at the property he was contacted about. He first had to let them send an inspector. The inspector was paid by a proxy which was not linked to the company that wanted to buy the property. The person he met with on site representing the property buyer was a lawyer, and that's who he had to go after. He ended up getting the $1500 after all of that effort, and told me the lawyer laughed and said the cost was just passed onto his client. It was a lot of effort.
I've tried a number of times to get identifiable information from those folks with little success. Friend of mine went through the process and met with someone on site at the property he was contacted about. He first had to let them send an inspector. The inspector was paid by a proxy which was not linked to the company that wanted to buy the property. The person he met with on site representing the property buyer was a lawyer, and that's who he had to go after. He ended up getting the $1500 after all of that effort, and told me the lawyer laughed and said the cost was just passed onto his client. It was a lot of effort.
Y'all are getting texts from political parties? That sounds like a nightmare
If I receive spam message almost daily for 2 years, and I've contacted the platform (competitor to Twilio) and they said they took care of it (nope!), then I assume the platform could be liable too, no?
[deleted]
I would love the same sort of "kit" available for CANSPAM.
Someone should make an app for that, LSaaS (Law Suite as a Service).
Law suit would just be one part of a Law suite.
Would this apply to unsolicited reachouts from recruiting firms?
Can someone explain why this part is necessary?
>7. Cash the check and dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice. (You're agreeing to not sue them again for the exact same violation.)
>7. Cash the check and dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice. (You're agreeing to not sue them again for the exact same violation.)
I would assume that it is legalese to put their minds at ease.
Part of settling a case is you ending your legal action. That’s your end of the bargain. Their end is cutting the check, (or whatever other terms you’ve agreed to.)
Being a non native English speaker I also found that wording a bit odd. To me reads like you don't sue them in the future if they commit the same exact type of violation, that is, if they spam you again, while it now seems clear that the purpose is to avoid being sued twice or more for one violation.
isn't there a possibility for constant unsolicited text message after the lawsuit??
if he agrees to not sure them for it....they can just keep sending them and probably increase the frequency? I mean. he could just block the number....but I guess he wanted 1k for his time and to prove it was doable.
if he agrees to not sure them for it....they can just keep sending them and probably increase the frequency? I mean. he could just block the number....but I guess he wanted 1k for his time and to prove it was doable.
Way to go, lil brother! :)
Tell us when you collect
This tweet is just linking to an expensive PDF from a lawyer, this is basically an ad
> expensive PDF
> $60
> "expensive"
> $60
> "expensive"
Some of what was said in the tweets regarding your rights and what you have to do to file a claim are, in my experience and opinion, not correct.
The general idea is right, but some of the asides about the law were simply incorrect.
Depending on your jurisdiction, the way you can pursue a case like this is going to vary, so I’m not going to give any hard and fast rules in this comment.
Just a heads up that if you want to try to replicate this, your steps will probably be different.
Not legal advice :)