This article explains the results of a survey of state regulators regarding enforcement of telemarketing laws in their jurisdictions. The article particularly examines the validity and efficacy of state registration requirements for telemarketers. The article also critiques the exemption for charitable solicitors found in most laws.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Breard v Alexandria, 341 US 622 (1951).
2.
BrunnerMaurice T.Recovery of Money Paid to Unlicensed Persons199474 A.L.R. 3d 637, 641
3.
Burger King Corp. v Rudzewicz, 471 US 462 (1985).
4.
RitaMarie CainCall Up Someone and Just Say BUY—Telemarketing and the Regulatory Environment 31Am. Bus. L.J1994641
5.
Rita Marie Cain, Misconceptions about Telemarketing Regulation, 10 J. of the Am. Telemarketing Assoc. 8 (1994).
6.
Central Hudson Gas E Electric v Public Service Commission, 447 US 557 (1980).
7.
Cincinnati v Discovery Network, 113 S. Ct. 1505 (1993).
8.
Devesa v Lysaght, 837 F Supp. 646.(D. NJ 1993).
9.
Direct Marketing Market Place—Networking Source of the Direct Marketing Industry (1994).
10.
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 501.611(4) (1993).
11.
Food Management, Inc. v Blue Ribbon Beef Pack, 413 F2d 716 (8th Cir 1969).
12.
Kovacs v Cooper, 336 US 77 (1949). [Upholding a local ban on the use of sound trucks in residential neighborhoods].
13.
Model Bus. Corp. Act § 15.02(a).
14.
Moser v FCC, 826 F Supp. 360 (D. Or 1993), reversed 46 F3d 970 (9th Cir 1995).
15.
National Funeral Services., Inc. v Rockefeller, 870 F2d 136 (4th Cir 1989).
16.
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 599B.105(1) (1993).
17.
Optimist Club v Riley, 563 F Supp. 847 (E.D.N.C. 1982).
18.
Planned Parenthood League v Attorney General, 464 NE2d 55 (Mass. 1984).
19.
State v Casino Marketing, 491 NW2d 882 (Minn. 1992) cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1648 (1993).
20.
SUNY v Fox, 492 US 469 (1989).
21.
Target Marketing, 21 “State of the Industry Report,” (Nov. 1992).
