Feeds

FCC spikes Sprint with $7.5m fine over Do Not Call violation

Company agrees to hand-rapping for bugging customers with marketing calls

Beginner's guide to SSL certificates

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has levied its largest do-not-call fine ever against a US telco, in this case Sprint.

The FCC said that it would be extracting a $7.5m payment from the company as part of a settlement deal and compliance plan. The deal will settle a complaint filed by the FTC accusing the firm of ignoring customer requests to not be contacted.

According to the FCC complaint, Sprint had been contacting customers who had requested to be taken off its marketing contact list. The firm is said to have sent both calls and texts with marketing pitches to users who were supposed to be on its do not call list.

The FCC noted that in 2011 Sprint had entered into another agreement with it which was supposed to have prohibited the firm from placing unwanted calls to customers who had asked to be placed on the list.

The FCC said that in 2012 the company reported that it was still placing some calls and texts to customers on its do not all list in what Sprint said was "issues involving human error and technical malfunctions."

While the $7.5m fine is hardly a crippling financial blow to a company which reported a $420m operating income last quarter, the FCC said that the penalty is the largest it has ever issued against a company for violating the Do Not Call registry since the anti-telemarketing list was implemented in 2003.

"We expect companies to respect the privacy of consumers who have opted out of marketing calls," said FCC Enforcement Bureau acting chief Travis LeBlanc.

"When a consumer tells a company to stop calling or texting with promotional pitches, that request must be honored. Today’s settlement leaves no question that protecting consumer privacy is a top enforcement priority."

Sprint, for its part, maintains that the actions described in the complaint were inadvertant and not conducted with the intent of violating Do Not Call.

"This consent decree relates to issues resulting from technical and inadvertent human errors, which Sprint reported to the FCC. The issues related only to Do Not Call Rules," the company said in a statement to The Reg.

"We have conducted a thorough, top-to-bottom evaluation of our Do Not Call data management systems, and significant capital investments have been made to improve our Do Not Call/SMS message architecture, oversight and compliance." ®

Providing a secure and efficient Helpdesk

More from The Register

next story
Of COURSE Stephen Elop's to blame for Nokia woes, says author
'Google did have some unique propositions for Nokia'
FCC, Google cast eye over millimetre wireless
The smaller the wave, the bigger 5G's chances of success
It's even GRIMMER up North after MEGA SKY BROADBAND OUTAGE
By 'eck! Eccles cake production thrown into jeopardy
Mobile coverage on trains really is pants
You thought it was just *insert your provider here*, but now we have numbers
Don't mess with Texas ('cos it's getting Google Fiber and you're not)
A bit late, but company says 1Gbps Austin network almost ready to compete with AT&T
prev story

Whitepapers

Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
Cloud and hybrid-cloud data protection for VMware
Learn how quick and easy it is to configure backups and perform restores for VMware environments.
Three 1TB solid state scorchers up for grabs
Big SSDs can be expensive but think big and think free because you could be the lucky winner of one of three 1TB Samsung SSD 840 EVO drives that we’re giving away worth over £300 apiece.
Reg Reader Research: SaaS based Email and Office Productivity Tools
Read this Reg reader report which provides advice and guidance for SMBs towards the use of SaaS based email and Office productivity tools.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.