Don’t make the wrong call!

Ensuring compliance with the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) and Telephone Consumers Protection Act (TCPA)

* The FTC has long blazed a trail of consumer protection aimed at unscrupulous telemarketers.
* The FCC has strengthened its arsenal of weapons aimed at robocallers.
* Failure to incorporate the 2013 requirements can cost your company millions of dollars.
* Compliance Departments must engage all stakeholders in the organization.
* Building a compliant outbound calling & texting program will protect profits and the brand.


No longer can any sales and service organization naively believe that it will escape the notice of United States federal consumer protection regulators. If your organization uses a telephone to reach consumers, then the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are two such agencies for which regulatory compliance professionals must maintain a watchful eye.

In conjunction with the robust outbound communication activities that our sales and service operations undertake, careless violations of FTC and FCC consumer communications laws garner sizeable financial penalties. To understand the impact of the October 2013 FCC amendments, it is helpful to review the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule requirements.

FTC Telemarketing Sales Rule 2008 Amendments

The FTC administers the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). Amended in 2008, the TSR governs outbound telephone calls initiated by a telemarketer, including those involving dialing technology (“autodialers”) and pre-recorded messages. As defined by the FTC:

• “Outbound telephone call” to mean a telephone call initiated by a telemarketer to induce the purchase of goods or services or to solicit a charitable contribution;
• “Telemarketer” means any person who, in connection with telemarketing, initiates or receives telephone calls to or from a customer or donor; and
• “Telemarketing” means a plan, program, or campaign which is conducted to induce the purchase of goods or services or a charitable contribution, by use of one or more telephones and which involves more than one interstate telephone call.1

Some prerecorded messages still are permitted under these rules — for example, messages that are purely informational. That means a consumer may still receive calls to let him/her know a flight’s been cancelled, reminders about an appointment or messages about a delayed school opening. But the business doing the calling still isn’t allowed to promote the sale of any goods or services. Political calls, calls from certain healthcare providers and messages from a business contacting a consumer to collect a debt also are permitted. Prerecorded messages from banks, telephone carriers and charities also are exempt from these rules if the banks, carriers or charities make the calls themselves.2

While notifying consumers of a store address change is considered informational (thus not telemarketing), inviting them to a grand opening celebration at the new address could be considered part of a “plan, program or campaign” to induce the purchase of goods or services. That is, merely mentioning the grand opening could be the “hook” for a court or regulator to determine that the entire script is “telemarketing.”

The amended TSR expressly bars telemarketing calls that deliver prerecorded messages, unless a consumer previously has agreed to accept such calls from the seller.3 As a result, most businesses became required to obtain the consumer’s written permission before they could call a consumer with prerecorded telemarketing messages, or “robocalls”. In fact, a business has to make it clear it’s asking to call a consumer with these kinds of messages, and it can’t require a consumer to agree to the calls in order to get any goods or services. If the consumer initially agrees to receive robocalls, the consumer also retains the right to change his/her mind and rescind his/her opt-in.

The FTC takes enforcement of the TSR very seriously when it comes to robocall violators. A May 2013 FTC action resulted in a Department of Justice settlement4 resulting from an FTC-led complaint.5 Specifically, citing 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(l )(v)(A), the Defendant company was permanently restrained and enjoined from engaging in, causing others to engage in, or assisting other persons to engage in:

A. Initiating any outbound telephone call that delivers a prerecorded message to induce the purchase of any good or service unless, prior to making any such call, the seller has obtained from the recipient of the call an express agreement, in writing, that:
1. the seller obtained only after a clear and conspicuous disclosure that the purpose of the agreement is to authorize the seller to place prerecorded calls to such person;
2. the seller obtained without requiring, directly or indirectly, that the agreement be executed as a condition of purchasing any good or service;
3. evidences the willingness of the recipient of the call to receive calls that deliver prerecorded messages by or on behalf of a specific seller; and
4. includes such person’s telephone number and signature.

The Defendant was ordered to undergo federal compliance monitoring, extensive recordkeeping and detailed reporting for 10 years. Additionally, the settlement included judgment in the amount of $75,000 entered in favor of the FTC against Defendant as a civil penalty. The Defendant’s judgment was far more lenient that the $16,000 per call that the FTC is authorized to assess under the TSR.

FCC Telephone Consumer Protection Act 2012 Amendments

The FCC administers the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In alignment with the FTC position, revised FCC TCPA rules took effect on October 16, 2013 and require “prior express written consent” for pre-recorded telemarketing calls using autodialer technology made to both cell phones and land line phones. This rule change expressly amends the previous FCC rule which (1) had not required written consent; and (2) had allowed prerecorded telemarketing calls to land line phones where a business relationship existed.

The FCC has taken a very broad view of the use of autodialer technology. Although the rules provide a very specific definition of autodialer, regulators and the courts have interpreted the definition so broadly that any computerized dialing device could be viewed as an autodialer. It is advisable not to make non-consented calls to cellphones, unless your organization has an entirely manual process for initiating the call.

Misuse or misunderstanding the use of autodialer technology in the absence of receiving prior express written consent has expensive consequences. The TCPA has a private right of action and recent class action lawsuits have settled for tens of millions of dollars.6

Costly non-compliance

Non-compliance with the TSR and the TCPA exposes your organization to civil liability and regulatory sanctions and fines. At up to $1,500 per violation, non-compliance with the TCPA text message requirements alone could expose your organization to a sizeable civil judgment. A company that sends a mere 7,000 non-consented text messages could statutorily incur a fine in excess of ten million dollars.

This TCPA text message revision is anticipated to also invite predatory class action litigation as enterprising plaintiff attorneys seek to capitalize on the technical change to the law. Regulatory penalties and class action lawsuits give rise to negative publicity that have the potential to damage your organization’s profitability and its brand.

Build compliance into your outbound calling and texting programs

To address this potential reputational, regulatory, and legal risk exposure, compliance professionals should partner with the stakeholders in the organization who have a vested interest in outbound calling and texting programs. These stakeholder functions will likely include Sales, Marketing, E-Commerce, Call Centers, and Information Technology (yes, IT! They own the autodialer and messaging hardware and software your organization relies upon). And don’t forget those third-party service providers that may actually be managing your call lists, opt-ins, and outbound calling and texting programs.

Once you have marshaled your stakeholders, you will want to undertake:

(1) a review of existing outbound calling and texting programs, approval processes, and vendor contracts; and
(2) provide detailed guidance to management regarding required current changes and safeguards for current and future programs.

You will specifically want to address pre-recorded messages sent to both land line and cellular phones, as well as text messages sent to cellular phones.

Compliant pre-recorded messages

Your organization may call consumers who have provided written permission after being fully informed that they have expressly assented to receive prerecorded calls regarding your products and services. If your organization has not obtained such “prior express written consent” since October 16, 2013, you will want to solicit a revised affirmative written opt-in. Guidance interpreting the amended TCPA treatment of prerecorded calls suggests that a consumer must have the option to affirmatively check an unchecked box beside verbiage that explicitly and plainly explains that the consumer is opting into receiving prerecorded calls to his/her cell phone and/or land line phone.

A prerecorded message system must also adhere to the following opt-out language and activation safeguards:

• Businesses using robocalls are required by law to tell a consumer at the beginning of the message how to stop future calls, and must provide an automated opt-out the consumer can activate by voice or key press throughout the call.
• If the message could be left on voicemail or an answering machine, businesses also have to provide a toll-free number at the beginning of the message that will connect to an automated opt-out system the consumer can use any time.

Compliant text/SMS messages

Changes to existing text message marketing opt-in processes may be required at your organization to conform to the new “prior express written consent” standard. Recognizing that text messages are limited in character length, these changes should be customized for your purposes, but may resemble:

• New text/SMS enrollee receives: “Reply ‘AGREE’ to receive wkly XYZ Discount Alerts. Periodic msgs may be sent using autodialer. Consent not required for purchase. Msg&Data rates may apply” (to fulfill the FCC requirement of obtaining express written consent after the initial request is received AND that his/her consent is not required in conjunction with any other purchase)

• Once the consumer replies with ‘AGREE’, enrollee receives: “Thanks for confirming! You will receive weekly XYZ Discount Alerts! Stop reply ‘STOP XYZ’. Msg&Data rates may apply.” (to fulfill the FCC requirement of explicitly informing the requestor how he/she may rescind the opt-in)

Obtain new consent from current text/SMS subscribers

Your organization may currently have thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of subscribers. When the new rules took effect on October 16, 2013, all consent obtained under the old “prior express consent” standard were invalidated. When the FCC issued its revised rules in February 2012, the agency conveyed that once the new written consent rules became effective, companies would be required to obtain the revised “prior express written consent” before sending additional marketing messages. An established business relationship will also no longer relieve advertisers of prior written consent requirement after the effective date. You may thus seek to ensure that all current subscribers also receive the message inviting them to reply ‘AGREE’.

New text/SMS message marketing programs

These same FCC principles would apply to new text marketing programs that your organization may launch in the future. The FCC interprets “marketing” very broadly in its own favor, so you will want to ensure that your Compliance Department is involved at inception to review new text messaging programs.

Conclusion

As compliance professionals, we must daily balance our organization’s customer-focused mission with the consumer protection regulatory requirements. By taking swift action with your stakeholders now regarding the TSR and TCPA, you can reduce the risk that your organization will make the wrong call.

Notes

1 The Telemarketing Sales Rule, September 2009, http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0198-telemarketing-sales-rule.

2 Ibid.

3 FTC Issues Final Telemarketing Sales Rule Amendments Regarding Prerecorded Calls, August 19, 2008, http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/08/tsr.shtm.

4 United States of America v. Skyy Consulting, Inc., also d/b/a CallFire, a California corporation, United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, Case4:13-cv-02136-DMR, Document 3, Filed 05/13/13, http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/1223011/130514callfirestip.pdf.

5 United States of America v. Skyy Consulting, Inc., also d/b/a CallFire, a California corporation, United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, Case4:13-cv-02136-DMR, Complaint, Filed 05/09/13, http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/1223011/130514callfirecmpt.pdf.

6 Pari Najafi v. SLM Corporation, et al., United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 10-cv-0530 MMAAmended Settlement Agreement, October 7, 2011, http://www.manatt.com/uploadedFiles/Content/4_News_and_Events/Newsletters/AdvertisingLaw@manatt/Sallie%20Mae%20amended%20settlement%20agreement.pdf.

WHEN ETHICS AND EXPEDIENCY COLLIDE

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” ~Aristotle

“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” ~Ronald Reagan


As Compliance and Ethics Professionals, we are daily reminded that violations of law and dignity are no less common now than they were in ancient civilizations. We report upon and read about corporate, government, and personal scandals that boggle the mind. Acts and omissions that defy common sense are nonetheless undertaken out of expediency, greed and ignorance, only to eventually expose the perpetrators in the public square.

Why?

Why--with all the failed historical examples, complex laws, regulatory bodies, education and training—do some organizations continue to succumb to poor judgment and wrongdoing, while other organizations rise above?

While we speak often about the ‘tone at the top’, we must also acknowledge that ideas and actions emanate at all levels of our organizations. Driven by deadlines, profits, corporate goals, marketplace competition, etc., individuals contemplate ideas and execute upon those ideas. But not all ideas for generating revenue, decreasing expenses, or streamlining processes merit the same consideration.

An organization’s culture, modeled by its leaders at all levels, must unambiguously communicate that execution must meet its values. A healthy exchange of ideas should always be weighed sufficiently and transparently by knowledgeable stakeholders, so as to expose potential ethical, legal and financial pitfalls. Though we are charged with educating our operational and administrative colleagues about our Code of Conduct and our Legal and Regulatory obligations, we have the additional obligation to actively counsel them as well.

Leveraging our Anonymous Reporting Hotlines, Internal Audit Departments, and industry and regulatory trends, we ourselves must be prepared to actively engage our colleagues across our organizations to probe for prospective lapses. In a highly-charged competitive environment, we cannot idly sit by and fail to question if expediency is trumping ethical decision-making. Let’s not forget that we are the protagonists—not the villains—in this story.

YOUR DREAM TEAM: Where Everyone is a Compliance Leader

"In looking for people to hire, you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. And if they don't have the first, the other two will kill you." ~ Warren Buffet

“The supreme quality for leadership is unquestionably integrity. Without it, no real success is possible, no matter whether it is on a section gang, a football field, in an army, or in an office.” ~Dwight D. Eisenhower

Who leads legal and regulatory compliance at your organization?

How many of your employees are in a compliance role?

Before you respond, consider this…every employee in my organization is in a compliance role...and is charged with being a compliance leader. We only hire compliance leaders to fill each open position throughout the organization. Sales. Operations. Human Resources. Accounting. Facilities Maintenance.

You may be wondering why an organization would engage in such a hair-brained staffing strategy. (You may also be wondering how much longer such an organization could remain in business.) But hearkening back to the words of Warren Buffet and President Eisenhower above, how else could you possibly select talent?

In today’s increasingly complex international regulatory topography, no function within your organization escapes the need to develop policies, processes and training that will address compliance requirements at all employee levels. A CEO cannot simply rely upon on an Internal Audit function, a Legal Department, or a Regulatory Compliance team to identify and mitigate all enterprise-wide risks.

Further, day-to-day compliance and risk management responsibility cannot fall solely upon the shoulders of department heads or supervisors. As leaders, each of you knows that there are far more events occurring for which you are unaware than those that do rise to your attention. Each of our employees—from the most senior to the newly-hired—must understand his/her vital role in preventing, identifying, reporting, and resolving the compliance issues that affect his/her respective role and department.

We must hire individuals that bring the added skill of compliance awareness. I want:

• a talented facilities maintenance employee who also appreciates the impact the EPA and OSHA have at our organization;
• a certified public accountant who also appreciates the impact that the SEC and PCAOB can have;
• a customer-focused call center agent who also appreciates the impact that the FTC and FCC can have; and so forth.

Myself, I’d rather have thousands of sets of eyes mitigating risk globally than to rely only upon my own comparatively limited viewpoint. So, let me ask those questions a different way now…

Who doesn’t lead legal and regulatory compliance at your organization, and why not?

How many of your employees aren’t in a compliance role, and why not?

BUILDING EFFECTIVE COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS: It Takes a Village

“No member of a crew is praised for the rugged individuality of his rowing” ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

“If everyone is moving forward together, then success takes care of itself” ~Henry Ford

I had recently been contacted by an individual who had been tapped by her organization to launch a corporate compliance program. My colleague approached me with that perennial question, “How did you build your program?...” I paused to consider my response.

Despite the mythology to which some may wish to subscribe, individuals don’t design, build or improve corporate compliance programs alone. While certainly individuals contribute significant leadership, ideas, and work product to a successful compliance program, it is truly the efforts of interconnected contributors that weaves the fabric of the program.

From scoping and documenting the program charter through defining and populating a comprehensive compliance risk universe, it takes a village of invested professionals to build the program. Since a compliance program likely encompasses several lines of business and diverse operating functions spread across multiple locations, personal interaction with a variety of leaders and staff is necessary to identify, quantify, and rank risks across an organization. I don’t know about you, but I certainly have experiential limitations regarding various functions outside my areas of expertise. Without those subject matter experts, my program would be neither comprehensive nor effective.

Thus, while it would have been terribly tempting to my ego to lead my fellow professional colorfully through an anecdotal reprisal of my rugged journey to locate the holy grail of corporate compliance on a lonely mountaintop, my better angels prevailed. “Katherine, I’d be pleased to share with you how we built our program, and the lessons we’ve learned…” And with that discussion, another member was added to the compliance program “village.”

EXPOSING MY DIRTY LAUNDRY: Responding to Ethical Incidents in Advance

“Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.”

~Potter Stewart, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice

“The time is always right to do what is right.”

~Martin Luther King, Jr., U.S. civil rights leader

Today’s revelation that former Olympus Corporation Chairman Tsuyoshi Kikukawa had received a suspended sentence for his role in a $1.7 billion accounting fraud is a reminder that neither business ethics courses nor prior real-world examples have stemmed the tide of high-profile executive wrongdoing.  In addition to former Olympus Executive Vice President Hisashi Mori, Hideo Yamada, the former auditing officer, also received a suspended sentence, debunking any myths that corporate audit and compliance professionals are above temptation.

Sufficient ink has been dedicated to detailing the corporate, government, and NGO ethical downfalls throughout the modern age. Fraud observes no geographical, political or industry boundaries. Ethical lapses remain pervasive and persistent, but I believe they are preventable.

What are you doing within your organization currently to acknowledge and mitigate the risks posed by executive ethical lapses?

Tone at the top is more than an email, a poster, or even a video distributed by your chief executive officer expounding the importance and benefits of maintaining an ethical cultural. Real ethical leadership takes root within an organization when the board of directors and senior leadership infuse the culture with relevant actions.

·         Strategic planning conferences and periodic governance meetings should include ethics discussions on the agenda.

·         Tabletop exercises should be built around current ethical lapse events in your industry.

·         Internal metrics should be tracked and benchmarked against other like organizations.

·         Employees at all levels must be encouraged to ask questions and report observed ethical lapses in good faith without fear of retaliation.

What are you doing when a significant ethical lapse strikes from within your own organization?

At one time or another nearly every organization, be it for-profit, government agency, faith-based, etc., will need to address an ethical incident that emanates from within its own walls. More than just the fear of negative publicity or criminal prosecution should drive the organization’s response. Many a relatively minor ethical incident has morphed into fodder for bloggers and 24/7 cable news outlets simply due to senior level fumbling and obfuscation amidst embarrassing revelations.

In fact, the best time to publicly address ethical lapses within your organization is before one has emerged.

·         Plan, document and test your organization’s Ethical Incident Response Plan (E-IRP).

·         Educate senior leadership regarding effective and transparent communication strategy, obtaining communication training in advance where needs dictate.

·         Communicate in a coordinated, transparent and timely manner both internally and externally to your organization, erring on the side of humility and candor.

Organizations are governed and led by human beings. Men and women, regardless of demographic variables across cultures, shun the humiliation and ridicule that scandal generates. Applying an objective E-IRP model in advance of ethical lapses will mitigate the risk that my dirty laundry—or yours—will hang too long on the proverbial corporate clothesline.

Why I Love Regulatory Examinations

“The superior man understands what is right; the inferior man understands what will sell.”

~Confucius

“Happiness does not come from doing easy work but from the afterglow of satisfaction that comes after the achievement of a difficult task that demanded our best.”

~Theodore Isaac Rubin

To this day, I enjoy going to the dentist. Almost nothing feels as good as that squeaky-clean sensation after the hygienist completes a thorough cleaning. When I was a child and others feared that periodic visit to the reclining chair, I looked forward to the cleaning, fluoride, and constructive criticism about my brush I received as I sat there. While not cavity-free, I have experienced far fewer than I otherwise would have.

Similarly, I’ve never experienced an unfavorable regulatory examination, though my experiences haven’t been “cavity-free.” Jokes comparing audits to root canal aside, I believe the same lessons learned in the dentist’s chair apply equally well amidst the increasingly complex regulatory landscape we face in our organizations. We each lead our organizations with our mission top of mind, but those of us who achieve the greatest success know that we must continuously improve our products/services, our processes, and our people. That is where our regulatory examinations and internal audits come into play.

But some of us have also led in organizations where government regulators were regarded by some of our colleagues as the barbarians at the gate. Those doomsayers would have us believe that examiners and auditors are the malicious brainchild of fiendish state and federal bureaucrats committed to descending our state or nation into communism. 

I’m not a fan of senseless or redundant government regulation by any means, but even Ronald Reagan retained most aspects of the federal regulatory infrastructure throughout his tenure. Judicious regulation has its rightful place in the untamed marketplace, and thus serves to balance the interests of fair-minded consumers and businesses against the carelessness of the few.

A fair-minded organization operates with a high-degree of transparency and employs efficient controls and feedback mechanisms to drive improvement. While operational metrics, financial reporting, and focus groups can provide much important data, the superior organization incorporates the findings and observations of its internal auditors, external information security auditors, and state & federal government regulators into its continuous improvement mechanisms.

I have had the pleasure to speak with countless committed regulatory professionals throughout my career. Well-educated, knowledgeable about their industries, insatiably curious—these men and women have provided me and my colleagues with great insight not only into our own organizations, but have also previewed industry trends before they became regulatory mandates.

Because we were willing to listen, anticipate and prepare, we were able to adapt practices, install or modify systems, and educate our employees and customers in a manner that displayed our genuine integrity as an organization. While I’ve led at organizations that have garnered awards and praise, I am pleased not to have worked at organizations that have headlined the scandal pages.

The truth is…regulatory professionals care deeply about their respective agencies’ missions. As within our own organizations, they are also subject to the ambiguity and uncertainty that new laws, regulations, and political battles entail. Without speaking ill of a rule, regulation or politician, a forthright regulatory professional will admit when the landscape is rocky, shifting or unstable. A wise leader walks that rocky road with the regulator, listening closely, communicating openly, and seeking clarity where clarity may be had. And even when we must agree to disagree on a matter, the relationship remains strong well into the future.

A forward-leaning organization positioned to succeed well into the future expands itself atop a firm foundation build solidly into the regulatory landscape. When regulatory examinations and internal audits inevitably occur, the transparent integrity and compliant processes we employ will carry the day. Importantly, our ability to humbly accept and evaluate the findings, recommendations and observations that are shared with us (formally or informally) may well drive adaptions or improvements that our stubborn competitors will be unwilling to receive. Hubris begets truth decay.

COMPLIANCE & ETHICS: STAND YOUR GROUND OR STAND DOWN?

“When restraint and courtesy are added to strength, the latter becomes irresistible.”  --Mahatma Gandhi

Building upon the topic of my last article, I want to explore how you respond when called upon for your compliance or ethics perspective.

On the one hand, as the cliché goes, to him whose only tool is a hammer, every issue is a nail. At some phase of our own careers we may have found ourselves expounding first and asking critical questions later. At the very least we have encountered compliance professionals who may have operated from this viewpoint. As I recall one individual saying to me years ago, “If he didn’t want my honest opinion, then he shouldn’t have come to me for compliance advice!” At this end of the spectrum, every situation that arises, every request that is received, is met with an oft-detailed compliance laundry list that can bog down many a promising business initiative.

At the other end of the spectrum is the laissez-faire attitude toward compliance and ethics. In such an environment the duty of care is subjugated to the operational imperatives of running the business. Time is money. Rules were made to be broken. What they don’t know won’t hurt them. And so forth. Where compliance has become a reactionary repair mechanism and ethics don’t weigh into substantive decision-making, an organization will eventually find itself on a collision course with the U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines and other civil and criminal laws. The wise compliance and ethics professional attempts to improve this culture, but if unsuccessful may best be advised to exit amidst a noisy withdrawal.

Between the Compliance Overlord and the Compliance Pushover models described above do we find the middle ground upon which the majority of us practice our profession. As we often must confess, the black-and-white scenarios aren’t the ones we’re generally called in to decide. Management can make those clear-cut calls on their own with ease.

When management encounters the Overlord too frequently, then management will avoid consulting compliance and ethics professionals. A resulting pattern of inconsistent and self-serving decision-making increases in this environment, exposing the organization to decreased morale, employee confusion, and potential litigation.

When management encounters the Pushover too frequently, then management will only seek out compliance and ethics professionals to rubber-stamp otherwise questionable or insubstantial decisions. A resulting pattern of patchwork compliance counsel that largely misses the breadth of business line decision-making spreads in this environment, exposing the organization to rogue players, overly-confident self-assessments, and potential litigation or criminal prosecution.

In short, know when to stand your ground and know when to stand down and let management carry on.

When our organization’s compliance & ethics culture is strong, visible, and active, then management and employees know that they can rely upon us to exercise good judgment in the face of ambiguity. Your good judgment is best understood within and across your organization when exercised judiciously. When you get to know your management colleagues, truly understand their business strategies and objectives, and defer to their expertise when compliance and ethical standards are being substantially met, you will earn that reputation for wise and judicious counsel.

When you weigh in on matters sparingly and appropriately, your organization will prosper ethically in your stead.