CBA Record

Y O U N G L A W Y E R S J O U R N A L

information: (1) the caller’s true first and last name, and (2) the name, address, and telephone number of the organization. 815 ILCS 401/5(e)(4). The courts have yet to determine whether “the organiza- tion” means the not–for–profit itself or the organization of the solicitor calling on behalf of the not–for–profit. Enforcement and Penalties Failure to disclose the information required by section 815 ILCS 401/5(e)(4) means that the caller has made a solicitation under the Restricted Call Registry Act and is potentially liable for penalties. Like its fed- eral counterpart, there are two enforcement regimes under the Restricted Call Registry Act. As an initial matter, an aggrieved con- sumer may file a complaint with the Illinois Commerce Commission, which may then initiate administrative proceedings against the telephonic solicitor. 815 ILCS 402/35. However, despite the availability of admin- istrative remedies, it seems few consumers are taking advantage. In response to a Freedom of Information Act request, the Illinois Commerce Commission reported only 31, 31, and 28 informal complaints in calendar years 2012, 2013, and 2014, respectively. And the vast majority of these complaints were referred to the Federal Trade Commission. Contrast this to the hundreds of thousands of complaints that the Federal Trade Commission receives every month for TCPA violations. See Patriotic Veterans , 736 F.3d at 1004. The greater potential concern for tel- ephonic solicitors is that the Restricted Call Registry Act provides a private right of action, and statutory damages of $500 per violation. 815 ILCS 405/50. While the Restricted Call Registry Act’s maximum exposure is one–third of that under the TCPA, see 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(3), there is the potential for significant liability in the event of a class action. The requirements of the Restricted Call Registry Act should cause not–for–profit companies, and those soliciting on their behalf, to question whether the proverbial juice is worth squeezing the fruit. Certainly,

Veterans was whether an Indiana statute that regulated all calls made using a prere- corded or synthesized voice would prevent an Illinois not–for–profit’s ability to make political calls into the state of Indiana. Because political robocalls are not regulated under the TCPA, the plaintiff not–for– profit sought a declaratory judgment that the Indiana law was unenforceable against it. More specifically, because it planned on making all calls from outside of Indiana, the not–for–profit argued that the TCPA preempted the Indiana law. The Seventh Circuit disagreed: “[i]t is clear that the TCPA does not expressly or impliedly pre- empt the Indiana statute and we so hold.” So what should we learn from Patriotic Veterans ? The short version is that anyone planning a telemarketing campaign should understand the laws of the states in which they plan to solicit. In Illinois, this means understanding the Restricted Call Regis- try Act, 815 ILCS 401/1, et. seq. , which is the principal Illinois statute regulating telephonic solicitation. The Restricted Call Registry Act’s definition of “telephone solicitation” is broader than its federal counterpart’s. While the TCPA defines “telephone solicitation” merely as the ini- tiation of a call or message “for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services,” the Restricted Call Registry Act’s expanded definition includes calls to encourage “the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services, or for the pur- poses of soliciting charitable contributions .” Compare 47 U.S.C. §227(a)(4) with 815 ILCS 401/5(e) (emphasis added). Anyone conducting telephonic solicitations in Illi- nois must purchase a copy of the restricted call registry—the same do–not–call registry established for purposes of the TCPA—at least once a quarter. 815 ILCS 402/20. While the Restricted Call Registry Act does not prohibit solicitation calls by or on behalf of not–for–profits, it imposes significant regulations. Immediately upon “making contact with the consumer,” a solicitor acting on behalf of a not–for– profit must disclose all of the following

the required disclosures can be a mouthful for a solicitor trying to establish rapport with a potential donor; however, weighed against the potential for expensive litigation counsel may be wise to advise their clients to adopt a script that discloses all of the required information up front. If experi- ences with the TCPA are any indication of the disdain that the plaintiffs’ bar has for unwelcome phone calls, failing to make required disclosures under the Restricted Call Registry Act could start a new wave of telemarketing litigation in Illinois. Fitzgerald T. Bramwell is the principal at the Law Offices of Fitzgerald Bramwell, a litigation firm serving clients in consumer fraud litigation, employment litigation, and general commercial litigation in the Chicago metropolitan area. Opinions of Counsel for Delaware Special Purpose Entities and for Pennsylvania, New Jersey and D.C. Real Estate Transactions We provided the Delaware special purpose entity opinions for 55 real estate loans in 2014. Our firm ’s attorneys are also licensed in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, the District of Columbia, and Washington. Law Offices of Eric A. Heinz, P.C. 1835 Market St., Suite 1215 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2912 (215) 979-7601 eheinz@heinzlaw.com www.heinzlaw.com

CBA RECORD 43