Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In the event of a violation of the TCPA, a subscriber may (1) sue for up to $500 for each violation or recover actual monetary loss, whichever is greater, (2) seek an injunction, or (3) both. [4] In the event of a willful violation of the TCPA, a subscriber may sue for up to three time the damages, i.e. $1,500, for each violation. [5]
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) was passed to cut down the number of unsolicited calls that consumers were receiving. Among its provisions, the TCPA disallowed the use of automated dialers from being used to contact consumers through services that may cost the consumer money, such as through cell phones or text messaging, with violations accessed and fined by the Federal ...
Congress first addressed the issue of junk faxes in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA). Although this legislation dealt broadly with larger issues of nuisance telemarketing tactics, it included provisions making it illegal for any person to send an unsolicited advertisement to a fax machine. [2]
Through a private suit, the recipient can either recover the actual monetary loss that resulted from the TCPA violation, or receive $500 in damages for each violation, whichever is greater. The court may triple the damages for each violation if it finds that the defendant acted willingly or knowingly.
The law established the FTC's National Do Not Call Registry in order to facilitate compliance with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. [2] A guide by FTC addresses a number of cases. [3] Registration for the Do-Not-Call list began on June 27, 2003, and enforcement started on October 1, 2003.
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 American Ass'n of Political Consultants, Inc. , 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the use of robocalls made to cell phones , a practice that had been banned by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), but which exemptions had been made by a 2015 amendment ...
The Kansas City Health Department cited these operations for seven or more critical violations: Tavernonna Italian Kitchen , 106 W. 12th St., had 10 critical violations during a Nov. 18 routine ...
On October 9, 2000, a lawsuit against Johnson's consulting firm, Perry Johnson, Inc. was filed for sending 'junk faxes' en masse. This was a result of the FCC citing Perry Johnson Inc. for violating the TCPA by mass faxing. Johnson's firm agreed to pay up to $424.75 in compensation to any company or person who had received a 'junk fax.'