Suing a franchisee

[gordon hall]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Alabama

I want to sue a franchisee for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Would I sue just the particular franchise in Alabama that violated the act or would I sue the franchise itself, whose corporate office is licated in another state?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

[HomeGuru]

Originally Posted by gordon hall

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Alabama

I want to sue a franchisee for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Would I sue just the particular franchise in Alabama that violated the act or would I sue the franchise itself, whose corporate office is licated in another state?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

**A: state exactly what the violation was.

[gordon hall]

An unsolicited pre-recorded call was made to my home telephone number and captured on my answering machine. I have no business relationship with the company.

[racer72]

The TCPA does not give individuals the right to sue for unwanted calls. Only the FCC can issue warnings or fines due to unwanted calls. From the TCPA site:

The FCC can issue warning citations and impose fines against companies violating or suspected of violating the do-not-call rules, but does not award individual damages. If you receive a telephone solicitation that you think violates any of these rules, you can file a complaint with the FCC. There is no charge for filing a complaint. You can file your complaint using an on-line complaint form found at [url=http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm]FCC Consumer Complaints[/url]. You can also file your complaint with the FCC’s Consumer Center by e-mailing [email]fccinfo@fcc.gov[/email]; calling 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322) voice or 1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-835-5322) TTY; faxing 1-866-418-0232; or writing to:

Federal Communications Commission
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
Consumer Inquiries & Complaints Division
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554.


Some states give consumers the right to sue for violating do not calls lists, Alabama does not at this time. You can file a complaint with your state's Consumer Services Division at 1-800-392-8050.

[gordon hall]

The TCPA gives plaintiffs an exclusive right to action in state courts.
[url]www.jtexconsumerlaw.com/Telephone.pdf[/url]

Your statement about Alabama not giving consumers the right to sue under the TCPA is wrong. "There is no need for a state to pass enablng legislation and "opt-in" to the TCPA." Robert Bickerstaff, "State Courts and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991: Must states opt in? Can states opt-out?" 33 Conn L. Rev 407 (2001).
[url=http://www.tcpalaw.com/free/articles.htm]Legal Articles Related to the TCPA[/url]

In "Lary v. Flasch Bus. Consulting," 878 So. 2d 1164-1165 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003), the court rejected the propostion that states must "opt-in" with respect to the TCPA's enforcement provisions. It further concluded that the Alabama Legislature had not "opted-out" of that enforcement scheme.

[gordon hall]

You stated "The TCPA does not give individuals the right to sue for unwanted calls." This is false.

Under Paragraph 3 of 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 (b) individuals are given a private right of action in state courts.

The Direct Mail Marketing Assoc. recognizes this saying
"The individual who receives a call after a name removal request has been given to the caller is GRANTED A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION IN A LOCAL COURT and may sue for $500 for each violation. Similar suits may be filed for violations of the TCPA's provisions regarding faxes, autodialers, and artificial or pre-recorded messages."
[url=http://www.the-dma.org/guidelines/tcpa.shtml]Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)[/url]

h

[gordon hall]

I have been waiting for you to step up and admit you were wrong about the TCPA. Apparently, you prefer hide in other forums now.

After each of your posts you smugly write, "If you feel my answer is rude, mean, snarky or in anyway not to your liking, I did my job. You don't need to tell me." But I am telling you this: the only job you did was on yourself when you revealed your ignorance.

Think about that the next time you ridicule someone for posting an errorneus answer to an O.P.'s question. More than likely, they simply lacked the knowledge. But your answer was rooted in sloppy research and sheer negligence. It was worthless.

If anybody wants to know how to deal with telemarketers by suing them in small claims court, go to [url]www.fighttelemarketers.com[/url] The website is well-run, entertaining, and unlike the blatherings of Laggard 72, I mean, Racer 72, the advice is factual.

[Proserpina]

Originally Posted by gordon hall

I have been waiting for you to step up and admit you were wrong about the TCPA. Apparently, you prefer hide in other forums now.

After each of your posts you smugly write, "If you feel my answer is rude, mean, snarky or in anyway not to your liking, I did my job. You don't need to tell me." But I am telling you this: the only job you did was on yourself when you revealed your ignorance.

Think about that the next time you ridicule someone for posting an errorneus answer to an O.P.'s question. More than likely, they simply lacked the knowledge. But your answer was rooted in sloppy research and sheer negligence. It was worthless.

If anybody wants to know how to deal with telemarketers by suing them in small claims court, go to [url]www.fighttelemarketers.com[/url] The website is well-run, entertaining, and unlike the blatherings of Laggard 72, I mean, Racer 72, the advice is factual.

You do understand what a "signature message" is, yes? And how it is not aimed at any particular poster?

(And it would be "erroneous". Jes' sayin')

[Zigner]

Gordon -

In your initial post, you never stated that you had put your # on the Do Not Call Registry. If you don't list all the details, don't get huffy.

[gordon hall]

Dogmatique: The fact that the signature message is not aimed at any particular poster is not the issue. The issue is the rude, sarcastic and condescending manner of responding to other posters who offer advice. Racer 72 has a nasty habit of doing that, most recently to yyarboro, (Consumer Contracts forum, topic "Purchase Protection, Buyer's Remorse) who simply advised an O.P to seek a second opinion from Washington's Consumer Protection Office. It wasn't necessary for Racer 72 to add that yyarboro's reply was "of no help at all."

(I appreciate your pointing out my spelling typo of "erroneus." You might also want to go back to Racer 72's reply to yyarboro and correct his ungrammatical reply. "Buyer remorse is not just caused to cancel a contract." That should read "just cause." Jes' sayin.')

Zigner: The fact that I never stated whether or not I had placed my name on the Do Not Call registry has no bearing on Racer 72's incorrect information about the TCPA. He wrote "The TCPA does not give individuals the right to sue for unwanted calls." That statement is false. So is the statement that Alabama does not give consumers the right to sue for violating the Do Not Call list. I am "huffy" about Racer 72's attitude, and I replied to him in the same way he replies to others.