unsolicited fax advertising
John Meissen
I just received an unsolicited fax promoting fax advertising.
Not only are these idiots violating Federal law but they're
actively engaged in a business which encourages others to
also violate the law.
According to The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, Section 227, subsection
(b), paragraph (3):
Private right of action: 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 -
(A) an action based on a violation of this subsection or the
regulations prescribed under this subsection to enjoin such
violation,
(B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such a
violation, or to receive $500 in damages for each such violation,
whichever is greater, or
(C) both such actions. If the court finds that the defendant
willfully or knowingly violated this subsection or the regulations
prescribed under this subsection, the court may, in its discretion,
increase the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more
than 3 times the amount available under subparagraph (B) of
this paragraph.
I think these idiots need to be stopped, and quickly. I would
like to file for damages, but don't know how to proceed. If
anyone can provide me with some guidelines I would appreciate it.
john-
Steve Knight
wrote:
>
>I just received an unsolicited fax promoting fax advertising.
>Not only are these idiots violating Federal law but they're
>actively engaged in a business which encourages others to
>also violate the law.
>
do like my brother did made three copies taped them into a loop and faxed it
back for over an hour (G)
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes +Galoot Made Products-
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com
For prices and ordering instructions.
Jim Seymour
news:OEU_4.194$ru5....@typhoon.aracnet.com...
>
> I just received an unsolicited fax promoting fax advertising.
> Not only are these idiots violating Federal law but they're
> actively engaged in a business which encourages others to
> also violate the law.
> I think these idiots need to be stopped, and quickly. I would
> like to file for damages, but don't know how to proceed. If
> anyone can provide me with some guidelines I would appreciate it.
If it's the same one I got today, it's from an outfit called "American
Blastfax". Apparently, the Texas Attorney General found them just as
offensive:
http://www.junkfaxes.org/abf_tx.htm
Also, my fax listed a phone number to call to be removed from the list. I
did a search on that phone number at http://www.reversephonedirectory.com/
and got a name and address. It appears to be a residential listing.
John Meissen
Jim Seymour <j...@cipher.com> wrote:
>"John Meissen" <jmei...@shell1.aracnet.com> wrote in message
>news:OEU_4.194$ru5....@typhoon.aracnet.com...
>>
>> I just received an unsolicited fax promoting fax advertising.
>
>Blastfax". Apparently, the Texas Attorney General found them just as
>offensive:
>http://www.junkfaxes.org/abf_tx.htm
>
>Also, my fax listed a phone number to call to be removed from the list. I
>did a search on that phone number at http://www.reversephonedirectory.com/
>and got a name and address. It appears to be a residential listing.
>
Could be, but maybe not. This one was promoting the advantages
of fax advertising, and the only phone number (anywhere - there
was no identifier at the top; another violation) was a fax number
to use for sending contact info to get more information. It was
an Oregon number.
john-
Dave Goldman
unsolicited faxes. I have no idea whether they work or not. But at least,
unlike e-mail spam, they can't harvest anything useful from me in the
process. (They already know that my fax number works.)
My impression of the law, from glancing at my US West phone book last
week, is that it's only illegal to send an unsolicited fax to someone who
has already told you to not do so.
Does anybody have a firmer grasp of the details of Oregon's law on
unsolicited faxes?
Dave Goldman
Research Software Design
John Meissen
Dave Goldman <da...@rsd-erase-this-bit.com> wrote:
>
>My impression of the law, from glancing at my US West phone book last
>week, is that it's only illegal to send an unsolicited fax to someone who
>has already told you to not do so.
Absolutley not true. You can see for yourself by going to
http://uscode.house.gov/usc.htm
and entering '47' in the Title box and '227' in the Section box and
hitting Search. Actually, exactly the opposite is true. You can
only send such faxes to someone with whom you already have a
business relationship, or who has given you prior approval.
>
>Does anybody have a firmer grasp of the details of Oregon's law on
>unsolicited faxes?
I don't know about Oregon law. IANAL, but I don't believe state law
can apply less strict restrictions than federal.
John Meissen
A followup to my own post...
A nicely formatted and very readable copy of the law is posted at
http://www.terabyte.net/Title47.htm
Quoting from the text:
(e) Effect on State law
(1) State law not preempted
Except for the standards prescribed under subsection (d) of this
section and subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, nothing
in this section or in the regulations prescribed under this section
shall preempt any State law that imposes more restrictive intrastate
requirements or regulations on, or which prohibits -
(A) the use of telephone facsimile machines or other electronic
devices to send unsolicited advertisements;
(B) the use of automatic telephone dialing systems;
(C) the use of artificial or prerecorded voice messages; or
(D) the making of telephone solicitations.
So it seems that, regardless of any local Oregon laws, the minimum
standard that can be applied is US Code Title 47 Section 227. It
would be nice to know if Oregon has more restrictive laws.....
john-
Dave Goldman
jmei...@shell1.aracnet.com (John Meissen) wrote:
> A nicely formatted and very readable copy of the law is posted at
> http://www.terabyte.net/Title47.htm
Thanks!
Hmm. This 1991 law appears to leave a _whole_ lot of details to the
regulations that the Commission was supposed to then produce. You wouldn't
happen to have a lead on those, would you?
Dave