Law360, New York (September 4, 2014, 12:03 PM EDT) -- A year ago, a Federal Communication Commission declaratory ruling addressed the issue of whether parties who did not actually place telemarketing robocalls could be either directly or vicariously liable for calls made on their behalf in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. How has the declaratory ruling been applied since then? Seeking to understand significant trends and identify takeaways for businesses aiming to avoid vicarious liability exposure risk, we took a careful look at 12 federal court decisions issued since then.
The Declaratory Ruling
In its ruling, the FCC clarified that sellers who did not actually place calls cannot be...
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
Access to case data within articles (numbers, filings, courts, nature of suit, and more.)
Access to attached documents such as briefs, petitions, complaints, decisions, motions, etc.
Create custom alerts for specific article and case topics and so much more!