https://www.junkfax.org/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=96.90.112.209&feedformat=atomJunkFax.org - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T13:42:48ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.1https://www.junkfax.org/w/index.php?title=Laws_and_cases_about_junk_faxes&diff=749Laws and cases about junk faxes2018-06-08T14:51:47Z<p>96.90.112.209: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''TCPA Related Laws and Cases'''<br />
<br />
For starters, you should obtain a copy of Public Law 102-243 (Which includes the TCPA, 47 USC 227), the FCC Regulations at 47 CFR 64.1200, Report and Order 92-443, Memorandum, Opinion and Order 95-310, and Order on Further Reconsideration 97-117. All of these are available directly from the FCC site at [[http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/consumer_news/tcpa.html]] .<br />
<br />
For more information, see:<br><br />
<br />
[[Possible Defense Arguments]]<br> <br />
A list of the arguments that the defense will try to use and why the law doesn't support any of them.<br />
<br />
[[TCPA Litigation Support]]<br> <br />
The definitive resource for white hat lawyers working on TCPA cases<br />
<br />
[[About the Principal Offenders]]<br> <br />
Has information on citations issued to your favorite spammers<br />
<br />
[https://www.findlaw.com/ FindLaw - Law, Lawyers and Legal Resources]<br> <br />
A great resource on legal subjects<br />
<br />
'''Federal Laws'''<br />
<br />
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227 US Code Title 47, Section 227]<br> <br />
The Cornell copy of the law (fast display)<br />
<br />
[https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectiontab.action US Code Title 47, Section 227]<br />
The official copy of 227 (this is really slow)<br />
<br />
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(4)]<br> <br />
The term ''unsolicited advertisement'' means any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.<br />
<br />
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C)]<br> <br />
It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.<br />
<br />
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)]<br><br />
A person or entity may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State, bring in an appropriate court of that State - <br><br />
(A) an action based on a violation of this subsection or the regulations prescribed under this subsection to enjoin such violation,<br><br />
(B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater, or<br><br />
(C) both such actions.<br><br />
<br />
If the court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated this subsection or the regulations prescribed under this subsection, the court may, in its discretion, increase the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than 3 times the amount available under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.<br><br />
<br />
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227 47 U.S.C. § 227(d)(1)(B)]<br> <br />
It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States to use a computer or other electronic device to send any message via a telephone facsimile machine unless such person clearly marks, in a margin at the top or bottom of each transmitted page of the message or on the first page of the transmission, the date and time it is sent and an identification of the business, other entity, or individual sending the message and the telephone number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.<br />
<br />
Note: fax.com has been notified many times by the FCC so treble damages of $1,500 apply. They have violated both [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C)] and [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227 47 U.S.C. § 227(d)(1)(B)] because they do not identify the business and telephone number of the business that they are sending the fax on behalf of.<br />
<br />
[http://www.markwelch.com/faxlaw.htm Broadcast Fax and Junk Email Illegal Under 47 U.S. Code 227] <br />
Has excerpts on both california and federal law showing the most often used sections related to junk faxes<br />
<br />
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text United States Code]<br> <br />
The whole US Code (Cornell version)<br />
<br />
[http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/uscmain.html US CODE--Electronic Edition]<br> <br />
The official US Code (from US government site)<br />
<br />
'''Interpretation of Federal Law'''<br />
<br />
[https://www.fcc.gov/ccb/consumer_news/tcpa.html FCC page on the TCPA]<br><br />
This has a summary of the FCC rulings clarifying the TCPA. This is an excellent resource. It clarifies that "the mere distribution or publication of a telephone facsimile number does not confer invitation or permission to transmit advertisements to a particular telephone facsimile machine" and that the sender of the fax refers to the client of a fax service. If the fax broadcaster wants to add their identification as well, that's fine, but the header must have the business name and telephone number that the broadcaster is sending the fax on behalf of.<br />
<br />
[https://www.fcc.gov/enforcement/orders/1861 FCC unsolicited fax orders] (TCPA actions)<br><br />
This page has a summary of citations sent out by the FCC in the past years. These citations summarize the law as well. Click on any of the citations available in both text format (the default) as well as in Word format (by clicking the link at the top of the page).<br />
<br />
'''FCC citation of 21st Century Faxes'''<br><br />
Here's one of the citations contained on the FCC unsolicited fax orders. Explains the law in more detail to violators. Mentions in particular, you can't just swipe a fax number you see somewhere and fax to it. Here's what they write in their typical citation:<br />
<br />
:Section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act prohibits any person from using “a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone :facsimile machine.” 18 An unsolicited advertisement is defined as “any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is :transmitted to any person without that person’s prior express invitation or permission.” 19 The Commission has determined, however, that an established business relationship :demonstrates consent to receive telephone facsimile advertisement transmissions. 20 The mere distribution or publication of a telephone facsimile number does not confer invitation or permission to transmit advertisements to a particular telephone facsimile machine.<br />
<br />
[https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/fcc02002.html FCC forfeiture letter against 21st Century]<br><br />
The FCC came out with a final determination against 21st Century Faxes and determined that TCPA applies even if you are faxing from outside the US. The FCC said:<br />
<br />
:Accordingly, we conclude that the TCPA prohibits the faxing of unsolicited advertisements either to or from the United States by any entity that is located "within the United :States.<br>" Moreover, the term "person" in Section 227(b)(1) includes the individual who actually performs the faxing as well as the corporate entity on whose behalf he or she is :acting.16<br />
<br />
and ruled that 21st Century has sufficient US presence to qualify as "being within the US." They noted that:<br />
<br />
47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), Congress focused<br />
on the violator having '''a presence in the United States''' such<br />
that the state courts would have personal jurisdiction.<br />
<br />
AND<br />
<br />
Moreover, the term "person"<br><br />
in Section 227(b)(1) includes the individual who actually<br><br />
performs the faxing as well as the corporate entity on whose<br><br />
behalf he or she is acting.16<br><br />
<br />
[[Media:Telephone.pdf|Plaintiffs are Limited to Exclusive State Court Jurisdiction]]<br> <br />
Discusses "opt-in" and "opt-out" aspects of the TCPA. Basically, no state has opted out and virtually all courts have allowed the cases. In Texas, a case was thrown out until the Texas<br><br />
<br />
[http://www.junkfaxes.com/ junkfaxes.org - Helping to Stop Illicit Junk Faxes]<br><br />
This site has lots of great resources, but it's got a flakey webserver and often unreachable.<br><br />
<br />
[https://www.fcc.gov/ccb/consumer_news/unsolici.html Consumer News What You Can Do About Unsolicited Telephone Marketing Calls and Faxes]<br> <br />
FCC page for consumers on junk faxes<br><br />
<br />
[https://www.imc.org/imc-spam/smallclaims.html Small Claims Court Enforcement of Federal Unsolicited Fax Law]<br> <br />
Suggestions from a lawyer on how to modify federal law regarding unsolicited faxes<br><br />
<br />
[https://www.imc.org/imc-spam/classaction.html Using Class Actions to Enforce Unsolicited Fax Law]<br> <br />
A 1998 article on why this wouldn't work in federal court. Gives reasons that class certification might be denied. Doesn't apply here in California as pointed out at the end.<br><br />
<br />
[https://www.imc.org/imc-spam/state-federal.html Actions to Enforce Federal Unsolicited Fax Law]<br> <br />
A very old article about the TCPA and whether it is enforceable. My how times change. This was written in 1998.<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbbsouthland.org/topic195.html Pre-recorded Telephone Calls; Unsolicited Fax & E-Mail Ads]<br> <br />
BBB interprets the federal and California law<br />
<br />
'''My Notes'''<br><br />
It is OK to send out those "missing kid" faxes since there is commercial benefit. Same with political faxes. But otherwise, you'd better get explicit permission; an established business relationship doesn't do it.<br><br />
<br />
'''Junk Fax Cases (most recent first)'''<br><br />
<br />
'''July 22, 2003:''' [http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B155804.DOC In Kaufman v. ACS Systems (July 22, 2003, B155804) _Cal.App.4th], the California Court of Appeals reversed Superior Court Judge Ann L. Kough's ruling that California is an opt-in state. They ruled that: 1) the TCPA applies in California and that enabling legislation is not required, 2) the TCPA is constitutional (already affirmed by the California Supreme Court), and 3) that class actions can be brought in California under the TCPA.<br />
<br />
'''March 21, 2003:''' The [http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/03/022705P.pdf 8th Circuit Court of Appeals to overruled Limbaugh] so the FCC can now enforce the judgment.<br> <br />
<br />
[[Media:DOJAmicusSupport.pdf|US Dept of Justice amicus brief in support of over turning Limbaugh's ruling]]. <br />
<br />
[[Media:st-lou-1a-ua.pdf|Missouri decision upholds TCPA constitutionality]] on Aug 13, 2002 noting that junk faxes are no more protected than graffiti on someone else's property.<br />
<br />
[[Media:Limbaugh-FFC.pdf|Limbaugh's order telling the FCC to pound sand]]. Of course, a much higher court (the 9th Circuit that governs California where fax.com is located) has ruled the TCPA constitutional. <br />
<br />
[[Missouri Circuit Court judge correctly rips apart Limbaugh's ruling that the TCPA is unconstitutional]]. Missouri Circuit Court Judge Patrick Clifford got it right. Opinion dated 5/14/02. Decisions like these renew</div>96.90.112.209https://www.junkfax.org/w/index.php?title=Laws_and_cases_about_junk_faxes&diff=747Laws and cases about junk faxes2018-06-08T14:50:01Z<p>96.90.112.209: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''TCPA Related Laws and Cases'''<br />
<br />
For starters, you should obtain a copy of Public Law 102-243 (Which includes the TCPA, 47 USC 227), the FCC Regulations at 47 CFR 64.1200, Report and Order 92-443, Memorandum, Opinion and Order 95-310, and Order on Further Reconsideration 97-117. All of these are available directly from the FCC site at [[http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/consumer_news/tcpa.html]] .<br />
<br />
For more information, see:<br><br />
<br />
[[Possible Defense Arguments]]<br> <br />
A list of the arguments that the defense will try to use and why the law doesn't support any of them.<br />
<br />
[[TCPA Litigation Support]]<br> <br />
The definitive resource for white hat lawyers working on TCPA cases<br />
<br />
[[About the Principal Offenders]]<br> <br />
Has information on citations issued to your favorite spammers<br />
<br />
[https://www.findlaw.com/ FindLaw - Law, Lawyers and Legal Resources]<br> <br />
A great resource on legal subjects<br />
<br />
'''Federal Laws'''<br />
<br />
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227 US Code Title 47, Section 227]<br> <br />
The Cornell copy of the law (fast display)<br />
<br />
[https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectiontab.action US Code Title 47, Section 227]<br />
The official copy of 227 (this is really slow)<br />
<br />
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(4)]<br> <br />
The term ''unsolicited advertisement'' means any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.<br />
<br />
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C)]<br> <br />
It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.<br />
<br />
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)]<br><br />
A person or entity may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State, bring in an appropriate court of that State - <br><br />
(A) an action based on a violation of this subsection or the regulations prescribed under this subsection to enjoin such violation,<br><br />
(B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater, or<br><br />
(C) both such actions.<br><br />
<br />
If the court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated this subsection or the regulations prescribed under this subsection, the court may, in its discretion, increase the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than 3 times the amount available under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.<br><br />
<br />
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227 47 U.S.C. § 227(d)(1)(B)]<br> <br />
It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States to use a computer or other electronic device to send any message via a telephone facsimile machine unless such person clearly marks, in a margin at the top or bottom of each transmitted page of the message or on the first page of the transmission, the date and time it is sent and an identification of the business, other entity, or individual sending the message and the telephone number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.<br />
<br />
Note: fax.com has been notified many times by the FCC so treble damages of $1,500 apply. They have violated both [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C)] and [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227 47 U.S.C. § 227(d)(1)(B)] because they do not identify the business and telephone number of the business that they are sending the fax on behalf of.<br />
<br />
[http://www.markwelch.com/faxlaw.htm Broadcast Fax and Junk Email Illegal Under 47 U.S. Code 227] <br />
Has excerpts on both california and federal law showing the most often used sections related to junk faxes<br />
<br />
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text United States Code]<br> <br />
The whole US Code (Cornell version)<br />
<br />
[http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/uscmain.html US CODE--Electronic Edition]<br> <br />
The official US Code (from US government site)<br />
<br />
'''Interpretation of Federal Law'''<br />
<br />
[https://www.fcc.gov/ccb/consumer_news/tcpa.html FCC page on the TCPA]<br><br />
This has a summary of the FCC rulings clarifying the TCPA. This is an excellent resource. It clarifies that "the mere distribution or publication of a telephone facsimile number does not confer invitation or permission to transmit advertisements to a particular telephone facsimile machine" and that the sender of the fax refers to the client of a fax service. If the fax broadcaster wants to add their identification as well, that's fine, but the header must have the business name and telephone number that the broadcaster is sending the fax on behalf of.<br />
<br />
[https://www.fcc.gov/enforcement/orders/1861 FCC unsolicited fax orders] (TCPA actions)<br><br />
This page has a summary of citations sent out by the FCC in the past years. These citations summarize the law as well. Click on any of the citations available in both text format (the default) as well as in Word format (by clicking the link at the top of the page).<br />
<br />
'''FCC citation of 21st Century Faxes'''<br><br />
Here's one of the citations contained on the FCC unsolicited fax orders. Explains the law in more detail to violators. Mentions in particular, you can't just swipe a fax number you see somewhere and fax to it. Here's what they write in their typical citation:<br />
<br />
:Section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act prohibits any person from using “a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone :facsimile machine.” 18 An unsolicited advertisement is defined as “any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is :transmitted to any person without that person’s prior express invitation or permission.” 19 The Commission has determined, however, that an established business relationship :demonstrates consent to receive telephone facsimile advertisement transmissions. 20 The mere distribution or publication of a telephone facsimile number does not confer invitation or permission to transmit advertisements to a particular telephone facsimile machine.<br />
<br />
[https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/fcc02002.html FCC forfeiture letter against 21st Century]<br><br />
The FCC came out with a final determination against 21st Century Faxes and determined that TCPA applies even if you are faxing from outside the US. The FCC said:<br />
<br />
:Accordingly, we conclude that the TCPA prohibits the faxing of unsolicited advertisements either to or from the United States by any entity that is located "within the United :States.<br>" Moreover, the term "person" in Section 227(b)(1) includes the individual who actually performs the faxing as well as the corporate entity on whose behalf he or she is :acting.16<br />
<br />
and ruled that 21st Century has sufficient US presence to qualify as "being within the US." They noted that:<br />
<br />
47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), Congress focused<br />
on the violator having '''a presence in the United States''' such<br />
that the state courts would have personal jurisdiction.<br />
<br />
AND<br />
<br />
Moreover, the term "person"<br><br />
in Section 227(b)(1) includes the individual who actually<br><br />
performs the faxing as well as the corporate entity on whose<br><br />
behalf he or she is acting.16<br><br />
<br />
[[Media:Telephone.pdf|Plaintiffs are Limited to Exclusive State Court Jurisdiction]]<br> <br />
Discusses "opt-in" and "opt-out" aspects of the TCPA. Basically, no state has opted out and virtually all courts have allowed the cases. In Texas, a case was thrown out until the Texas<br><br />
<br />
[http://www.junkfaxes.com/ junkfaxes.org - Helping to Stop Illicit Junk Faxes]<br><br />
This site has lots of great resources, but it's got a flakey webserver and often unreachable.<br><br />
<br />
[https://www.fcc.gov/ccb/consumer_news/unsolici.html Consumer News What You Can Do About Unsolicited Telephone Marketing Calls and Faxes]<br> <br />
FCC page for consumers on junk faxes<br><br />
<br />
[https://www.imc.org/imc-spam/smallclaims.html Small Claims Court Enforcement of Federal Unsolicited Fax Law]<br> <br />
Suggestions from a lawyer on how to modify federal law regarding unsolicited faxes<br><br />
<br />
[https://www.imc.org/imc-spam/classaction.html Using Class Actions to Enforce Unsolicited Fax Law]<br> <br />
A 1998 article on why this wouldn't work in federal court. Gives reasons that class certification might be denied. Doesn't apply here in California as pointed out at the end.<br><br />
<br />
[https://www.imc.org/imc-spam/state-federal.html Actions to Enforce Federal Unsolicited Fax Law]<br> <br />
A very old article about the TCPA and whether it is enforceable. My how times change. This was written in 1998.<br />
<br />
[http://www.bbbsouthland.org/topic195.html Pre-recorded Telephone Calls; Unsolicited Fax & E-Mail Ads]<br> <br />
BBB interprets the federal and California law<br />
<br />
'''My Notes'''<br><br />
It is OK to send out those "missing kid" faxes since there is commercial benefit. Same with political faxes. But otherwise, you'd better get explicit permission; an established business relationship doesn't do it.<br><br />
<br />
'''Junk Fax Cases (most recent first)'''<br><br />
<br />
'''July 22, 2003:''' [http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B155804.DOC In Kaufman v. ACS Systems (July 22, 2003, B155804) _Cal.App.4th], the California Court of Appeals reversed Superior Court Judge Ann L. Kough's ruling that California is an opt-in state. They ruled that: 1) the TCPA applies in California and that enabling legislation is not required, 2) the TCPA is constitutional (already affirmed by the California Supreme Court), and 3) that class actions can be brought in California under the TCPA.<br />
<br />
'''March 21, 2003:''' The [http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/03/022705P.pdf 8th Circuit Court of Appeals to overruled Limbaugh] so the FCC can now enforce the judgment.<br> <br />
<br />
[[Media:DOJAmicusSupport.pdf|US Dept of Justice amicus brief in support of over turning Limbaugh's ruling]]. <br />
<br />
[[Media:st-lou-1a-ua.pdf|Missouri decision upholds TCPA constitutionality]] on Aug 13, 2002 noting that junk faxes are no more protected than graffiti on someone else's property.<br />
<br />
Limbaugh's order telling the FCC to pound sand. Of course, a much higher court (the 9th Circuit that governs California where fax.com is located) has ruled the TCPA constitutional. <br />
<br />
Missouri Circuit Court judge correctly rips apart Limbaugh's ruling that the TCPA is unconstitutional. Missouri Circuit Court Judge Patrick Clifford got it right. Opinion dated 5/14/02. Decisions like these renew</div>96.90.112.209https://www.junkfax.org/w/index.php?title=Contact&diff=99Contact2018-05-16T16:17:27Z<p>96.90.112.209: </p>
<hr />
<div><big>'''Contact Information'''</big><br />
<br />
This site is run by volunteers. <br />
<br />
Due to the large number of people who have questions, and the fact that this site is maintained in our spare time, we are unable to personally answer most queries.<br />
<br />
The most common question we get is "how do I get them to stop?" The simplest way is to purchase a device to filter these calls out. See [[Devices to stop junk faxes]].<br />
<br />
If you'd like to find out who is sending you the junk faxes and are willing to pay a modest fee to find out, see the "hire an expert" section at [[How to identify the fax broadcaster]].<br />
<br />
The goal of junkfax.org is to be a self-sustaining organization that pursues lawsuits against junk faxes and causes them to stop violating the laws. Profits from each case and re-invested in pursuing other cases. By having people assign faxes to us for very low cost, we can increase the amount of money we can use to pursue these cases. To minimize costs, cases are researched, then farmed out to lawyers on a contingency basis who follow the procedure in step #10 of [[Junkfax- How to get even]].<br />
<br />
We also are getting into e-mail spam. If you'd like to help out, take our 30 second survey: [[Anti-spam filter user survey]]<br />
<br />
E-mail: [[help@junkfax.org]]<br />
<br />
To get off all mailing lists: [[Remove my e-mail address from all junkfax.org e-mail lists]]<br />
<br />
To get on our mailing list: [[Get on the junk fax mailing list]]<br />
<br />
[[JunkFax.org:General_disclaimer|Read our Disclaimer]]<br />
<br />
[[JunkFax.org:Privacy_policy|Read our Privacy Policy]]</div>96.90.112.209https://www.junkfax.org/w/index.php?title=News_Items&diff=35News Items2018-05-16T13:40:10Z<p>96.90.112.209: </p>
<hr />
<div>=='''Junk Fax News'''==<br />
'''June 6, 2005:''' [[Executive Fights Faxes, One at a Time]] (Los Angeles Daily Journal)<br><br />
Article talks about Kirsch's fights with the junk faxers<br><br />
<br />
'''October 9, 2004:''' [https://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,65291,00.html Wired News Curtain Call for Junk-Fax Blaster]<br><br />
This article talks about the injunction against fax.com. As of Oct. 5, 2004: Fax.com is essentially kaput.<br><br />
<br />
* Oct 5, 2004: [[Federal injunction against fax.com to stop faxing granted 10-5-04]]<br />
* Oct 5, 2004: fax.com's stipulation to the injunction: [[CaAG_stipulatedInjunction]]<br />
=='''DIRECTV Participating in Class Action Settlement Related to Fax Promotions '''==<br />
DIRECTV and PRIMETV are in the process of settling a class action lawsuit brought against them for illegal fax activities. <br><br />
<br />
The attorney fees can range as high as $8.5 million. This is probably a good thing since it provides a "cash penalty" against the perpetrators.<br><br />
<br />
Class actions filed independently in four states have been combined into a consolidated national class action in Indiana, where a proposed settlement is pending, subject to court approval. A monetary award under the TCPA at $500 per violation, or any significant cash to the 14 million potential class members, would result in an unworkable result. The proposed settlement calls for the issuance of transferable certificates valued at over $300 each. The certificates may be surrendered to DirecTV for free equipment, installation and service with no obligation to subscribe for any continuing service, unlike DirecTV's "free" promotional offerings."<br><br />
<br />
For more information including details on how to participate as a claimant see: [http://www.directvfaxsettlement.com/ http://www.directvfaxsettlement.com]<br><br />
<br />
=='''Former Georgia Governor Barnes Leads Charge Against Junk Faxes in Georgia'''==<br />
[http://www.law.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/View&c=LawArticle&cid=1079640447862&t=LawArticle Junk Fax Profits Outweigh Costs]<br><br />
<br />
[http://www.law.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/View&c=LawArticle&cid=1079640447836&t=LawArticle Georgia Car Wash May Face $110M in Junk Fax Penalties]<br><br />
<br />
[https://www.law.com/servlet/ContentServer/?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/View&c=LawArticle&cid=1068651187767&t=LawArticle&slreturn=20180415171233 Former Georgia Governor Appeals Junk Fax Ruling] <br><br />
Two of the "greatest irritants in modern life," said former Georgia Gov. Roy E. Barnes, "are the unwanted telephone call at dinner and the junk fax." He won the appeal. See story above.<br><br />
<br />
=='''Wired Magazine Reports on the Difficulties of Collecting on Judgments Against FAX.COM'''==<br />
Wired Magazine reporter Ryan Singel wrote about the difficulties encountered by various judges, state attorneys general, and the $2.2 trillion Kirsch lawsuit in terms of collecting judgments. To summarize the article, fax.com CEO Kevin Katz simply ignores court orders.<br><br />
<br />
See the Jan. 12, 2004 article in Wired Magazine: [http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,61861,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2 "FAX.COM Still Dodging Legal Steps"]<br><br />
<br />
=='''Company's Liability for Sending Unsolicited Faxes Not Helped by Bankruptcy'''==<br />
DALLAS - MSI Marketing, Inc., a Dallas, Texas-based provider of marketing services, admitted in its bankruptcy case to employing Fax.com, Inc. during the period January 2001 to May 2002 for the purpose of sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements for its business. The bankruptcy court has set a bar date of March 31, 2004, for claims arising from the fax advertising.<br><br />
<br />
In addition, MSI's principals consented to a decree restraining them, and various entities under their management or control, from sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements in the future.<br><br />
<br />
See the [[complete press release]] (Acrobat PDF format). It was issued by Walter Oney, a Boston attorney involved in obtaining concessions from MSI Marketing. [12/30/2003].<br><br />
<br />
Additional information on MSI Marketing and its DBAs, such as [[Y2K Marketing]], can be found in our infamous junk faxers section.<br><br />
<br />
=='''California Governor Davis Signs Tough Anti-Spam Law'''==<br />
Legislation modeled after anti-junkfax laws is starting to be signed into law.<br><br />
<br />
See: [http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_other_issues/000409.html http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_other_issues/000409.html]<br><br />
<br />
=='''"[http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,60406-2,00.html Junk-Fax Firm Disguising Rebirth]" reads the headline in the 9/15/03 issue of Wired News.'''==<br />
The article, written by Ryan Singel, describes the various efforts of fax.com to remain in business in the face of lawsuits from the state of California for $15 million and our own [[$2.2 trillion lawsuit]].<br><br />
<br />
=='''FCC Extends Effective Date of Amended Fax Advertising Rules Until Jan. 1, 2005<br><br />
Other Recently Adopted TCPA Rules Remain Unaffected'''==<br />
<br />
''FCC Press Release:''<br><br />
<br />
Date: 8/19/03 -- for Immediate Release &nsp; <br> <br />
<br />
Washington, DC – The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has extended to January 1, 2005, the effective date of its new rules requiring written consent before sending advertising faxes.<br><br />
<br />
This action does not change the effective date for the comprehensive telemarketing rules, including other rules regarding faxes, adopted on June 26, 2003.<br><br />
<br />
This action also does not change the October 1, 2003 effective date for the national do-not-call registry.<br><br />
<br />
The extension of time permits entities sending fax advertisements more time to comply with the new rules and obtain written consent and signatures from parties to whom they wish to fax. It will also allow the Commission time to consider any petitions for reconsideration and other filings that may be made on this issue.<br><br />
<br />
The extension keeps in effect, until January 1, 2005, the exemption that allows entities to send unsolicited fax advertisements to individuals and businesses with which they have established business relationships. Until January 1, 2005, those transmitting faxes do not have to obtain the express written consent, including signatures, from recipients with whom they have established business relationships. Regardless of the extension, however, fax transmitters still must obtain prior express permission from fax recipients with whom they do not have established business relationships.<br><br />
<br />
Action by the Commission August 18, 2003, by Order on Reconsideration (FCC 03-208). Chairman Powell, Commissioners Abernathy, Copps, Martin and Adelstein.<br><br />
<br />
For further information contact Erica H. McMahon or Richard D. Smith at 202-418-2512, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau.<br><br />
<br />
---<br><br />
<br />
Contact information for the FCC and its board of directors can be found at: [http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html]<br><br />
<br />
=='''Attorney General Lockyer Files Lawsuit Against One of Nation's Largest Junk Fax Businesses'''==<br />
'''''Complaint Against Fax.com Seeks More than $15 Million in Penalties and Other Relief'''''<br><br />
July 22, 2003 <br><br />
03-089<br><br />
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE<br><br />
(916) 324-5500<br><br />
<br />
(SAN DIEGO) – Attorney General Bill Lockyer today filed a consumer protection lawsuit against Aliso Viejo-based Fax.com, seeking more than $15 million in penalties and other relief and alleging the firm committed rampant violations of state and federal law in sending unsolicited advertisements via fax and prerecorded phone messages.<br><br />
<br />
"Fax.com, with high-level technology and low-level respect for the law, runs a 24-hour privacy invasion operation that continually spews unsolicited faxes and prerecorded phone calls," said Lockyer. "Junk faxes cost consumers, businesses and taxpayers tens of millions of dollars every year. Consumers' privacy, choice and pocketbooks have to be protected. With this action, and through our other efforts to fight spam and quiet telemarketers, that's exactly what my office intends to do."<br><br />
<br />
Filed in federal court in San Diego, Lockyer's [[complaint]] alleges Fax.com operates its junk fax business around the clock, and has committed millions of "willful and knowing" violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The TCPA prohibits sending unsolicited advertisements via fax, and disseminating prerecorded messages by phone, without consumers' prior consent. Under a state law enacted in 2002 – AB 2944 by Assembly Speaker pro Tempore Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego – California specifically was placed under the federal statute prohibiting junk faxes.<br><br />
<br />
"I personally receive several junk faxes each and every week – everything from vacation opportunities to executive search scams," said Kehoe. "These companies show a blatant disregard for the law. Junk faxes are illegal and will not go unpunished. I encourage Attorney General Lockyer to take aggressive action against all junk fax companies."<br><br />
<br />
Added Senator Debra Bowen, D-Redondo Beach, a co-author of AB2944: "Junk faxes are an annoying, postage-due invasion of your privacy that cost you time and money. Nobody buys a fax machine for their home or business so Fax.com can fire in non-stop ads for satellite TV systems, vacation packages, cell phone deals and toner cartridges."<br><br />
<br />
Lockyer's complaint also alleges Fax.com violated state laws that prohibit unfair competition and regulate transmittal of unsolicited, prerecorded phone messages. Additionally, the lawsuit charges Fax.com with false or misleading advertising, in violation of state law.<br><br />
<br />
The false advertising allegations are based largely on Fax.com's statements to consumers that Fax.com has permission to send the faxes, that consumers can remove their numbers from the distribution list, and that consumers can take certain steps to ensure they receive only one unsolicited fax per week. The defendants often fail to honor consumers' requests to be removed as a recipient, the complaint alleges.<br><br />
The complaint, filed on behalf of the People of California, seeks $500 for each violation of the TCPA, and asks the court to award $1,500 for each of the millions of willful, knowing violations.<br><br />
<br />
In addition to relief under the TCPA, the complaint seeks civil penalties for each alleged violation of state laws prohibiting unfair competition, and false or misleading advertising. The lawsuit asks the court to award not less than $15 million in penalties.<br><br />
<br />
Lockyer's complaint also asks the court to permanently prohibit the defendants from engaging in the alleged unlawful conduct. The enjoined conduct would include sending unsolicited faxes and making telephone calls introduced by prerecorded messages.<br><br />
<br />
Besides Fax.com, the complaint names as defendants: Kevin Katz of Laguna Beach, president of Fax.com; and Eric Wilson of Sierra Madre, chief technical officer of Fax.com.<br><br />
<br />
The dissemination of unsolicited faxes shifts the printing costs of such advertisements to the recipients, who are forced use their own toner and paper to receive the ads. Additionally, receiving and handling junk faxes requires additional labor and prevents receipt of other, requested messages. More generally, the complaint alleges, the defendants' junk faxes "are bothersome and a harassment to recipients."<br><br />
<br />
Fax.com charges its business clients a fee to send faxes on their behalf. Fax.com's web site boasts the firm owns "the world's largest fax database." The web site also states that in 2001, Fax.com planned to have the capacity to deliver 3 million faxes each day. Additionally, company officials have told lawmakers that each fax costs recipients up to 2 cents.<br><br />
<br />
So, if Fax.com has reached the 3 million-fax capacity, and if it fully utilizes that capacity, its faxes could cost recipients up to $60,000 a day, according to the firm's own estimates. Multiplied by 365 days, that adds up to roughly $21.9 million in potential expense incurred by recipients.<br><br />
<br />
Frequently, taxpayers bear the cost associated with junk faxes. "Facsimile machines owned by the State of California are among those receiving unsolicited faxes from Defendants," the complaint alleges. "In the case of Defendants sending faxes to State-owned machines, the cost of materials and time is charged to the taxpayers of California."<br><br />
<br />
Consumers who believe they have been victimized by Fax.com, or who have questions or complaints about similar misconduct by other businesses, should contact the Public Inquiry Unit of the Attorney General's Office, P.O. Box 944255, Sacramento, CA 94244-2550, or file a complaint online at [http://www.ag.ca.gov/consumers/mailform.htm http://www.ag.ca.gov/consumers/mailform.htm]. <br><br />
[http://caag.state.ca.us/newsalerts/2002/02-077.htm Attorney General Bill Lockyer Demands That FAX.COM Turn Over Documents for State Investigation]<br><br />
7/16/2002: fax.com refused to comply with AG's subpoena<br><br />
<br />
=='''Appeals Court Rules that TCPA Applies in California and Class Actions Can Be Brought'''==<br />
On July 22, 2003, in [http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B155804.DOC Kaufman v. ACS Systems (July 22, 2003, B155804) _Cal.App.4th], the California Court of Appeals reversed Superior Court Judge Ann L. Kough's ruling that California is an opt-in state. They ruled that 1) the TCPA applies in California and that enabling legislation is not required, 2) the TCPA is constitutional (already affirmed by the California Supreme Court), and 3) that class actions can be brought in California under the TCPA.<br><br />
<br />
=='''New Jersey Court Grants Class Certification Against Junk Faxers.'''== New Jersey Superior Court Judge Theodore Davis recently (May, 2003) certified a class action against junk faxers Fax.com and Kevin Katz in the matter of <u>Spectracom Inc. v. Fax.com and Keven Katz, et al.</u><br><br />
The suit alleges causes of action under both the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The class motion was argued by plaintiff's co-counsel, Philip Stephen Fuoco of The Law Firm of Philip Stephen Fuoco, 24 Wilkins Place, Haddonfield, NJ 08033. (856) 354-1100.<br><br />
<br />
Counsel believe this is the first proposed class action where a class was actually certified by a court against Fax.com and that it may be only the second class certified under the TCPA. (For a copy of the class certification order or any questions, please contact the Law Firm of Philip Stephen Fuoco.)<br><br />
<br />
[http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/print.php/1467411 Calif passes 3 anti-spam laws]<br><br />
AB 2944 gives federal protection on unsolicited faxes, AB 1769 gives consumers the same protection on text messages on cell phones, and SB 1560 cleans up the Do Not Call list legislation.<br><br />
<br />
[http://www.sltrib.com/2003/jan/01302003/utah/24585.asp SLC Lawyer Makes Junk Faxers Pay]<br><br />
<br />
=='''Lieff Cabraser files $2.2 trillion dollar class action lawsuits against Fax.com, Cox Business Services'''==<br />
State and federal cases were filed on August 22, 2002 against Fax.com, Cox Business Services, and all of Fax.com's advertisers over the past 4 years. Here is the [[press release]]. The state suit was filed by Kirsch in Santa Clara County against fax.com and their advertisers for the past 4 years. The federal suit was filed by Redefining Progress against Cox in the Northern District in California.<br><br />
<br />
The lawyers do not want to make the complaint readily available because they don't want to deal with the hassles of copycat lawsuits. If you need electronic copies of these cases, please contact us and tell us exactly why you need a copy of the complaint (see the "Contact us" link in the sidebar).<br><br />
<br />
'''Note''': if you are prompted for a Username and Password when trying to load these documents, just click cancel. This is a well known Microsoft bug that nobody seems to know how to fix.<br><br />
<br />
This story was covered by every major TV station in the San Francisco Bay area. Here are stories that were written:<br><br />
<br />
[http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=528&e=1&cid=528&u=/ap/20020823/ap_on_hi_te/junk_faxes_4 Yahoo! News - Exec Seeks Trillions in Fax Lawsuit] (Associated Press, Aug 23, 2002)<br><br />
<br />
[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/08/22/MN244534.DTL $2 trillion junk fax suit - Silicon Valley man demands Fax.com end unsolicited messages] (San Francisco Chronicle, Aug 22, 2002)<br><br />
<br />
[http://www.reuters.com/co_news_presentation.jhtml?type=companynews&provider=companynews&StoryID=1363062&symbol1=COX&symbol2=COX.N U.S. lawsuits seek $2.2 trillion over "junk" faxes] (Reuters, Aug 22, 2002)<br><br />
<br />
[http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/business/3914688.htm Mercury News 08-22-2002 Entrepreneur files suit over junk faxes] (San Jose Mercury News, Aug 22, 2002)<br><br />
<br />
[http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1030078343814272235-search,00.html?collection=wsjie/30day&vql-string=%28kirsch%29%3Cin%3E%28article%2Dbody%29 Lawsuit Seeks $2.2 Trillion for Junk Faxes] (Wall St. Journal, Aug 22, 2002)<br><br />
<br />
[http://news.com.com/2100-1033-955002.html?tag=fd_top "Junk fax" lawsuits seek $2.2 trillion - Tech News] (CNet, Aug 22, 2002)<br><br />
<br />
[http://cnn.looksmart.com/og/pr=FastSitesCustom;tc=;pc=15;ro=1;rc=17;pi=zch%7Chttp://cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/23/junk.faxes.ap/index.html Lawsuits seek $2.2 trillion over faxes] (CNN, 23-Aug-02)<br><br />
Fed up with unwanted ads for phone accessories, credit services and stock tips on his fax machine, a Silicon Valley executive sued a company that sends bulk faxes on Thursday, demanding $2.2 trillion in damages.<br><br />
<br />
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,779899,00.html $2.2 trillion lawsuit says the fax should be sacred] (Guardian Unlimited, UK, Aug 24, 2002)<br><br />
[http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_655769.html?menu=news.latestheadlines Executive sues bulk fax company for $2.2 trillion] (Ananova, UK, Aug 23, 2002)<br><br />
<br />
[http://www.dmnews.com/cgi-bin/artprevbot.cgi?article_id=21402 DMNews.com: Fax.com President Calls $2.2 Trillion Lawsuit 'Absurd'] (Aug 27, 2002)<br><br />
<br />
=='''Fax.com hit with $2.2 trillion lawsuits'''==<br />
Aliso Viejo firm is accused of flouting federal ban on unsolicited ads.<br><br />
<br />
August 23, 2002<br><br />
<br />
By BERNARD J. WOLFSON<br><br />
The Orange County Register<br><br />
<br />
A Silicon Valley entrepreneur and a nonprofit advocacy group Thursday filed twin lawsuits against Aliso Viejo-based Fax.com, each seeking class-action status and $2.2 trillion, alleging violations of a federal ban against unsolicited fax ads.<br><br />
....<br><br />
<br />
The federal law allows damages of $500 for each unwanted fax, plus triple damages. Assuming 3 million faxes a day -- the capacity cited on Fax.com's Web site -- that works out to $2.2 trillion a year. "I'd be very happy if we just got $100 billion," Kirsch said. <br><br />
<br />
* See [http://www.ocregister.com/archives/ Orange County Register] for full story<br><br />
=='''Fine buoys bill to ban junk faxes'''==<br />
Fax.com hopes powerful lobbyist can head it off.<br><br />
<br />
August 21, 2002<br><br />
<br />
'''By BERNARD J. WOLFSON and HANH KIM QUACH'''<br><br />
The Orange County Register<br><br />
A legislative battle is heating up in Sacramento as state lawmakers rekindle efforts to ban unsolicited fax advertising while one of the nation's biggest "fax broadcasting" companies lobbies fiercely for survival.<br><br />
<br />
Emboldened by last week's $5.4 million federal fine against the company, Aliso- Viejo based '''Fax.com''', two legislators have resurrected a twice-defeated bill that would strengthen the federal prohibition against "junk faxes" by scrubbing a conflicting California law that allows them.<br><br />
<br />
"The Federal Communication Commission's action may help, and that's why we've attempted a resurrection," says Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Redondo Beach, co-author of the bill.<br><br />
<br />
In Fax.com's corner is Brian Hatch, one of Sacramento's most influential lobbyists. With his help, Fax.com hopes to dodge the bullet again. Some say Hatch's ties to another client, the powerful California Professional Firefighters, may have weighed on the minds of some lawmakers when Bowen's previous bill was killed by an Assembly committee earlier this year.<br><br />
<br />
* See [http://www.ocregister.com/archives/ Orange County Register] for full story<br><br />
<br />
=='''Ban on junk faxes sought // Technology - Two state senators see opportunity to repeal law that allows unsolicited ads.'''==<br />
August 8, 2002<br><br />
<br />
'''Byline''': BERNARD J. WOLFSON <br> <br />
The Orange County Register<br><br />
<br />
A pair of state legislators Wednesday jumped on news of a federal fine against Aliso Viejo-based Fax.com to resurrect a bill cracking down on junk faxes in California.<br><br />
<br />
Assemblywoman Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, and state Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Redondo Beach, introduced legislation to ensure that a federal ban on unsolicited fax advertising is upheld in California. Their bill would repeal a conflicting state law that allows such faxes.<br><br />
<br />
Kehoe said receiving unwanted commercial ...<br><br />
* See [http://www.ocregister.com/archives/ Orange County Register] for full story<br><br />
<br />
<br />
=='''FCC fines `fax blaster' // Technology Fax.com of Aliso Viejo receives a $5.4 million fine for violating a federal ban on `junk faxing' despite a contrary court ruling.'''==<br />
August 8, 2002<br><br />
'''Byline''': BERNARD J. WOLFSON <br><br />
The Orange County Register<br><br />
<br />
Federal regulators Wednesday slapped a record $5.4 million fine on Fax.com, an Aliso Viejo company, for violating a federal law that bans ``junk faxes.''<br><br />
<br />
The fine is the first levied on a company in the so-called ``fax blasting'' industry, and the largest ever imposed under a 1991 law meant to protect people from commercial abuse of telephone lines.<br><br />
<br />
``As a result (of Fax.com's actions), many consumers have been harassed in their homes and had their ...<br><br />
<br />
* See [http://www.ocregister.com/archives/ Orange County Register] for full story<br><br />
<br />
[http://www.classactionamerica.com/cases/case.asp?cid=1830 Texas Residents Recover $202K for Junk Faxes]<br><br />
<br />
[http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=569&ncid=738&e=4&u=/nm/20020807/tc_nm/telecoms_faxdotcom_dc_3 FCC fines fax.com $5M] (Reuters)<br><br />
<br />
[http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-225128A1.pdf FCC Press release on fax.com fine] <br><br />
<br />
[http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-226A1.pdf FCC Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL) against fax.com]<br><br />
<br />
[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/07/29/BU112551.DTL&type=tech Trying to discard junk faxes] (San Francisco Chronicle, Jul 29, 2002)<br><br />
This article is mostly correct, except Judge Limbaugh's decision in Missouri is a lower court ruling that establishes no legal precedence anywhere and has already been blasted by other judges. And the US Supreme court has denied cert for TCPA constitutionality so in every circuit, it remains constitutional.<br><br />
<br />
[[Junk Fax in the News]] <br><br />
A current list of headlines from junkfaxes.org. Not very complete. Nothing on the Dallas Cowboys case, for example.<br><br />
<br />
[http://www.wfaa.com/localnews/articles/STORY.ea7f5ab75e.93.88.fa.7c.149683a0.html Cowboys to pay for "junk fax" messages] (December 4, 2001) <br><br />
They sent 125,000 faxes and got off easy as part of a settlement agreement. Mr. Jensen said American Blast Fax -- the Dallas company hired by the Cowboys -- no longer sends fax messages to Texas phone numbers, but continues to operate outside the state. He said he has documentation that American Blast Fax has sent "at least 33 million confirmed fax ads," and added there are at least 400 other companies that profit by sending junk ads.<br><br />
<br />
[http://espn.go.com/nfl/news/2001/1203/1289300.html ESPN.com NFL - Cowboys to pay $1.73M for sending unsolicited faxes] (Dec 3, 2001)<br><br />
Plaintiff's lawyer Julius Glickman of Houston said American Blast Fax sent the fax at least once to 125,000 locations.<br><br />
<br />
[http://www.classactionamerica.com/cases/case.asp?cid=920&categoryID=13 ClassActionAmerica.com Nicholson v Hooters of Augusta, Georgia] <br><br />
Discusses Hooters and other cases. Mentions that a class action in Arizona was thrown out because the judge refused to grant class action status. Don't worry. That won't happen here because of Linder v. Thrifty Oil.<br><br />
<br />
[http://www.davidsonconsulting.com/UCAlert_Samples/070999.html Houston Cellular recently agreed to pay $400,000] (July 9, 1999) <br><br />
In what could be a first-of-its-kind settlement relative to unsolicited faxing laws, Houston Cellular recently agreed to pay $400,000 to settle a pending class-action lawsuit, according to the Houston Chronicle.<br><br />
<br />
[http://www.thedigest.com/more/133/133-042.html Slimeball Junk Faxers] (article in Orange County Register around July, 2001)<br><br />
Talks about both sides of fax.com and profiles Kevin Katz. The "missing kids" work they do is no excuse for the damage they do. Here's an excerpt showing Katz is still hoping for a legal miracle. ''Destination Ventures, Ltd. v. FCC, 46 F.3d 54,'' (9th Cir. 1995) upheld the constitutionality of the TCPA law and [http://www.chavezgertler.com/news/linder.htm Linder v. Thrifty Oil] negates his "harm" argument. Notice that he cites no cases that support his arguments:<br><br />
<br />
Katz argues that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act is unconstitutional, even though several appellate courts have upheld it. And he says lawyers are making an industry out of the law, even though there are no real damages.<br />
<br />
"What was the harm? Someone got a piece of paper?" Katz said.<br><br />
<br />
[http://www.washtech.com/news/regulation/10576-1.html Covington sues fax.com for $2.45M] (June 18, 2001)<br><br />
[http://www.cov.com/lawyers/bios/short237.html Gerard J. Waldron], a partner at [http://www.cov.com/default.asp Covington & Burling] and the original author of the TCPA is suing fax.com $2.45 million for 1,634 unsolicited advertisements received over a one week period at their law firm. This article briefly mentions the other suits. <br><br />
See also: [http://www.junkfaxes.com/news/faxcom_cb_suit.html Law firm files $2.45 million suit against FAX.COM]<br><br />
<br />
[http://www.mddailyrecord.com/archives/1_264_statewide/legalnews/37553-1.html Law In Review] (May 12, 2001)<br><br />
Silver Spring lawyer Bruce Levitt this week filed (acting as the plantiff) a class-action suit against Fax.com, a California-based “fax blaster,” for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, which prohibits the transmission of unsolicited faxes. Levitt took action after receiving three unsolicited ads for vacation deals. He filed the suit in Baltimore City Circuit Court.<br><br />
<br />
[http://consumerwatchdog.org/ftcr/nw/nw001555.php3 Just the Fax] (May 6, 2001)<br><br />
Local lawyer Ben Rosenfeld's fax machine has been violated and he's not going to stand for it. The civil rights advocate has sued America Express Travel Club, , based in Texas, for "unsolicited commercial faxing (a.k.a., 'blast faxing')." Over a period of six months, the suit says, Rosenfeld received at least eight faxed solicitations to buy airline tickets from AETC.<br><br />
<br />
[[Hooters hit with $12 million damage award]] (April 5, 2001)<br><br />
Richmond County Superior Court Judge Carl C. Brown Jr. assessed full trebled damages of $1,500 per violation against Hooters. It took 6 years before it finally went to the jury in March after a long battle in the courts with various appeals and maneuvering by Hooters. [[Here's the one page Hooters verdict]]. See also [http://www.augustachronicle.com/stories/050101/bus_085-6052.000.shtml this longer article about the Hooters award] from the Augusta Chronicle.<br><br />
<br />
[http://consumerwatchdog.org/ftcr/nw/nw001441.php3 GROUP SUES TO CEASE UNSOLICITED FAX ADS] (April 5, 2001)<br><br />
The Santa Monica-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights filed lawsuits in Los Angeles Superior Court against FAXertise of West Lake Village and Communications 2000 Inc. of Torrance, alleging that their transmission of unsolicited faxes violated federal law.<br><br />
<br />
See [[Junk Fax in the News]] for more headlines.<br><br />
<br />
=='''Other spam-related news items (not junk fax specific)'''==<br />
Unanimous [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2002/01/04/state1415EST0081.DTL California state Appeals Court] ruling that California can require Internet "spammers" to identify their e-mails as advertisements.<br></div>96.90.112.209https://www.junkfax.org/w/index.php?title=News_Items&diff=33News Items2018-05-16T13:36:44Z<p>96.90.112.209: </p>
<hr />
<div>=='''Junk Fax News'''==<br />
'''June 6, 2005:''' [[Executive Fights Faxes, One at a Time]] (Los Angeles Daily Journal)<br><br />
Article talks about Kirsch's fights with the junk faxers<br><br />
<br />
'''October 9, 2004:''' [https://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,65291,00.html Wired News Curtain Call for Junk-Fax Blaster]<br><br />
This article talks about the injunction against fax.com. As of Oct. 5, 2004: Fax.com is essentially kaput.<br><br />
<br />
* Oct 5, 2004: [[Federal injunction against fax.com to stop faxing granted 10-5-04]]<br />
* Oct 5, 2004: fax.com's stipulation to the injunction: [[CaAG_stipulatedInjunction]]<br />
=='''DIRECTV Participating in Class Action Settlement Related to Fax Promotions '''==<br />
DIRECTV and PRIMETV are in the process of settling a class action lawsuit brought against them for illegal fax activities. <br><br />
<br />
The attorney fees can range as high as $8.5 million. This is probably a good thing since it provides a "cash penalty" against the perpetrators.<br><br />
<br />
Class actions filed independently in four states have been combined into a consolidated national class action in Indiana, where a proposed settlement is pending, subject to court approval. A monetary award under the TCPA at $500 per violation, or any significant cash to the 14 million potential class members, would result in an unworkable result. The proposed settlement calls for the issuance of transferable certificates valued at over $300 each. The certificates may be surrendered to DirecTV for free equipment, installation and service with no obligation to subscribe for any continuing service, unlike DirecTV's "free" promotional offerings."<br><br />
<br />
For more information including details on how to participate as a claimant see: [http://www.directvfaxsettlement.com/ http://www.directvfaxsettlement.com]<br><br />
<br />
=='''Former Georgia Governor Barnes Leads Charge Against Junk Faxes in Georgia'''==<br />
[http://www.law.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/View&c=LawArticle&cid=1079640447862&t=LawArticle Junk Fax Profits Outweigh Costs]<br><br />
<br />
[http://www.law.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/View&c=LawArticle&cid=1079640447836&t=LawArticle Georgia Car Wash May Face $110M in Junk Fax Penalties]<br><br />
<br />
[https://www.law.com/servlet/ContentServer/?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/View&c=LawArticle&cid=1068651187767&t=LawArticle&slreturn=20180415171233 Former Georgia Governor Appeals Junk Fax Ruling] <br><br />
Two of the "greatest irritants in modern life," said former Georgia Gov. Roy E. Barnes, "are the unwanted telephone call at dinner and the junk fax." He won the appeal. See story above.<br><br />
<br />
'''Wired Magazine Reports on the Difficulties of Collecting on Judgments Against FAX.COM'''<br><br />
Wired Magazine reporter Ryan Singel wrote about the difficulties encountered by various judges, state attorneys general, and the $2.2 trillion Kirsch lawsuit in terms of collecting judgments. To summarize the article, fax.com CEO Kevin Katz simply ignores court orders.<br><br />
<br />
See the Jan. 12, 2004 article in Wired Magazine: [http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,61861,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2 "FAX.COM Still Dodging Legal Steps"]<br><br />
<br />
'''Company's Liability for Sending Unsolicited Faxes Not Helped by Bankruptcy'''<br><br />
DALLAS - MSI Marketing, Inc., a Dallas, Texas-based provider of marketing services, admitted in its bankruptcy case to employing Fax.com, Inc. during the period January 2001 to May 2002 for the purpose of sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements for its business. The bankruptcy court has set a bar date of March 31, 2004, for claims arising from the fax advertising.<br><br />
<br />
In addition, MSI's principals consented to a decree restraining them, and various entities under their management or control, from sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements in the future.<br><br />
<br />
See the [[complete press release]] (Acrobat PDF format). It was issued by Walter Oney, a Boston attorney involved in obtaining concessions from MSI Marketing. [12/30/2003].<br><br />
<br />
Additional information on MSI Marketing and its DBAs, such as [[Y2K Marketing]], can be found in our infamous junk faxers section.<br><br />
<br />
'''California Governor Davis Signs Tough Anti-Spam Law'''<br><br />
Legislation modeled after anti-junkfax laws is starting to be signed into law.<br><br />
<br />
See: [http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_other_issues/000409.html http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_other_issues/000409.html]<br><br />
<br />
'''"[http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,60406-2,00.html Junk-Fax Firm Disguising Rebirth]" reads the headline in the 9/15/03 issue of Wired News.'''<br><br />
The article, written by Ryan Singel, describes the various efforts of fax.com to remain in business in the face of lawsuits from the state of California for $15 million and our own [[$2.2 trillion lawsuit]].<br><br />
<br />
'''FCC Extends Effective Date of Amended Fax Advertising Rules Until Jan. 1, 2005<br><br />
Other Recently Adopted TCPA Rules Remain Unaffected'''<br><br />
<br />
''FCC Press Release:''<br><br />
<br />
Date: 8/19/03 -- for Immediate Release &nsp; <br> <br />
<br />
Washington, DC – The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has extended to January 1, 2005, the effective date of its new rules requiring written consent before sending advertising faxes.<br><br />
<br />
This action does not change the effective date for the comprehensive telemarketing rules, including other rules regarding faxes, adopted on June 26, 2003.<br><br />
<br />
This action also does not change the October 1, 2003 effective date for the national do-not-call registry.<br><br />
<br />
The extension of time permits entities sending fax advertisements more time to comply with the new rules and obtain written consent and signatures from parties to whom they wish to fax. It will also allow the Commission time to consider any petitions for reconsideration and other filings that may be made on this issue.<br><br />
<br />
The extension keeps in effect, until January 1, 2005, the exemption that allows entities to send unsolicited fax advertisements to individuals and businesses with which they have established business relationships. Until January 1, 2005, those transmitting faxes do not have to obtain the express written consent, including signatures, from recipients with whom they have established business relationships. Regardless of the extension, however, fax transmitters still must obtain prior express permission from fax recipients with whom they do not have established business relationships.<br><br />
<br />
Action by the Commission August 18, 2003, by Order on Reconsideration (FCC 03-208). Chairman Powell, Commissioners Abernathy, Copps, Martin and Adelstein.<br><br />
<br />
For further information contact Erica H. McMahon or Richard D. Smith at 202-418-2512, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau.<br><br />
<br />
---<br><br />
<br />
Contact information for the FCC and its board of directors can be found at: [http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html]<br><br />
<br />
'''Attorney General Lockyer Files Lawsuit Against One of Nation's Largest Junk Fax Businesses'''<br><br />
'''''Complaint Against Fax.com Seeks More than $15 Million in Penalties and Other Relief'''''<br><br />
July 22, 2003 <br><br />
03-089<br><br />
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE<br><br />
(916) 324-5500<br><br />
<br />
(SAN DIEGO) – Attorney General Bill Lockyer today filed a consumer protection lawsuit against Aliso Viejo-based Fax.com, seeking more than $15 million in penalties and other relief and alleging the firm committed rampant violations of state and federal law in sending unsolicited advertisements via fax and prerecorded phone messages.<br><br />
<br />
"Fax.com, with high-level technology and low-level respect for the law, runs a 24-hour privacy invasion operation that continually spews unsolicited faxes and prerecorded phone calls," said Lockyer. "Junk faxes cost consumers, businesses and taxpayers tens of millions of dollars every year. Consumers' privacy, choice and pocketbooks have to be protected. With this action, and through our other efforts to fight spam and quiet telemarketers, that's exactly what my office intends to do."<br><br />
<br />
Filed in federal court in San Diego, Lockyer's [[complaint]] alleges Fax.com operates its junk fax business around the clock, and has committed millions of "willful and knowing" violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The TCPA prohibits sending unsolicited advertisements via fax, and disseminating prerecorded messages by phone, without consumers' prior consent. Under a state law enacted in 2002 – AB 2944 by Assembly Speaker pro Tempore Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego – California specifically was placed under the federal statute prohibiting junk faxes.<br><br />
<br />
"I personally receive several junk faxes each and every week – everything from vacation opportunities to executive search scams," said Kehoe. "These companies show a blatant disregard for the law. Junk faxes are illegal and will not go unpunished. I encourage Attorney General Lockyer to take aggressive action against all junk fax companies."<br><br />
<br />
Added Senator Debra Bowen, D-Redondo Beach, a co-author of AB2944: "Junk faxes are an annoying, postage-due invasion of your privacy that cost you time and money. Nobody buys a fax machine for their home or business so Fax.com can fire in non-stop ads for satellite TV systems, vacation packages, cell phone deals and toner cartridges."<br><br />
<br />
Lockyer's complaint also alleges Fax.com violated state laws that prohibit unfair competition and regulate transmittal of unsolicited, prerecorded phone messages. Additionally, the lawsuit charges Fax.com with false or misleading advertising, in violation of state law.<br><br />
<br />
The false advertising allegations are based largely on Fax.com's statements to consumers that Fax.com has permission to send the faxes, that consumers can remove their numbers from the distribution list, and that consumers can take certain steps to ensure they receive only one unsolicited fax per week. The defendants often fail to honor consumers' requests to be removed as a recipient, the complaint alleges.<br><br />
The complaint, filed on behalf of the People of California, seeks $500 for each violation of the TCPA, and asks the court to award $1,500 for each of the millions of willful, knowing violations.<br><br />
<br />
In addition to relief under the TCPA, the complaint seeks civil penalties for each alleged violation of state laws prohibiting unfair competition, and false or misleading advertising. The lawsuit asks the court to award not less than $15 million in penalties.<br><br />
<br />
Lockyer's complaint also asks the court to permanently prohibit the defendants from engaging in the alleged unlawful conduct. The enjoined conduct would include sending unsolicited faxes and making telephone calls introduced by prerecorded messages.<br><br />
<br />
Besides Fax.com, the complaint names as defendants: Kevin Katz of Laguna Beach, president of Fax.com; and Eric Wilson of Sierra Madre, chief technical officer of Fax.com.<br><br />
<br />
The dissemination of unsolicited faxes shifts the printing costs of such advertisements to the recipients, who are forced use their own toner and paper to receive the ads. Additionally, receiving and handling junk faxes requires additional labor and prevents receipt of other, requested messages. More generally, the complaint alleges, the defendants' junk faxes "are bothersome and a harassment to recipients."<br><br />
<br />
Fax.com charges its business clients a fee to send faxes on their behalf. Fax.com's web site boasts the firm owns "the world's largest fax database." The web site also states that in 2001, Fax.com planned to have the capacity to deliver 3 million faxes each day. Additionally, company officials have told lawmakers that each fax costs recipients up to 2 cents.<br><br />
<br />
So, if Fax.com has reached the 3 million-fax capacity, and if it fully utilizes that capacity, its faxes could cost recipients up to $60,000 a day, according to the firm's own estimates. Multiplied by 365 days, that adds up to roughly $21.9 million in potential expense incurred by recipients.<br><br />
<br />
Frequently, taxpayers bear the cost associated with junk faxes. "Facsimile machines owned by the State of California are among those receiving unsolicited faxes from Defendants," the complaint alleges. "In the case of Defendants sending faxes to State-owned machines, the cost of materials and time is charged to the taxpayers of California."<br><br />
<br />
Consumers who believe they have been victimized by Fax.com, or who have questions or complaints about similar misconduct by other businesses, should contact the Public Inquiry Unit of the Attorney General's Office, P.O. Box 944255, Sacramento, CA 94244-2550, or file a complaint online at [http://www.ag.ca.gov/consumers/mailform.htm http://www.ag.ca.gov/consumers/mailform.htm]. <br><br />
[http://caag.state.ca.us/newsalerts/2002/02-077.htm Attorney General Bill Lockyer Demands That FAX.COM Turn Over Documents for State Investigation]<br><br />
7/16/2002: fax.com refused to comply with AG's subpoena<br><br />
<br />
<big>'''Appeals Court Rules that TCPA Applies in California and Class Actions Can Be Brought'''</big><br><br />
On July 22, 2003, in [http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B155804.DOC Kaufman v. ACS Systems (July 22, 2003, B155804) _Cal.App.4th], the California Court of Appeals reversed Superior Court Judge Ann L. Kough's ruling that California is an opt-in state. They ruled that 1) the TCPA applies in California and that enabling legislation is not required, 2) the TCPA is constitutional (already affirmed by the California Supreme Court), and 3) that class actions can be brought in California under the TCPA.<br><br />
<br />
'''New Jersey Court Grants Class Certification Against Junk Faxers.''' New Jersey Superior Court Judge Theodore Davis recently (May, 2003) certified a class action against junk faxers Fax.com and Kevin Katz in the matter of <u>Spectracom Inc. v. Fax.com and Keven Katz, et al.</u><br><br />
The suit alleges causes of action under both the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The class motion was argued by plaintiff's co-counsel, Philip Stephen Fuoco of The Law Firm of Philip Stephen Fuoco, 24 Wilkins Place, Haddonfield, NJ 08033. (856) 354-1100.<br><br />
<br />
Counsel believe this is the first proposed class action where a class was actually certified by a court against Fax.com and that it may be only the second class certified under the TCPA. (For a copy of the class certification order or any questions, please contact the Law Firm of Philip Stephen Fuoco.)<br><br />
<br />
[http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/print.php/1467411 Calif passes 3 anti-spam laws]<br><br />
AB 2944 gives federal protection on unsolicited faxes, AB 1769 gives consumers the same protection on text messages on cell phones, and SB 1560 cleans up the Do Not Call list legislation.<br><br />
<br />
[http://www.sltrib.com/2003/jan/01302003/utah/24585.asp SLC Lawyer Makes Junk Faxers Pay]<br><br />
<br />
'''Lieff Cabraser files $2.2 trillion dollar class action lawsuits against Fax.com, Cox Business Services'''<br><br />
State and federal cases were filed on August 22, 2002 against Fax.com, Cox Business Services, and all of Fax.com's advertisers over the past 4 years. Here is the [[press release]]. The state suit was filed by Kirsch in Santa Clara County against fax.com and their advertisers for the past 4 years. The federal suit was filed by Redefining Progress against Cox in the Northern District in California.<br><br />
<br />
The lawyers do not want to make the complaint readily available because they don't want to deal with the hassles of copycat lawsuits. If you need electronic copies of these cases, please contact us and tell us exactly why you need a copy of the complaint (see the "Contact us" link in the sidebar).<br><br />
<br />
'''Note''': if you are prompted for a Username and Password when trying to load these documents, just click cancel. This is a well known Microsoft bug that nobody seems to know how to fix.<br><br />
<br />
This story was covered by every major TV station in the San Francisco Bay area. Here are stories that were written:<br><br />
<br />
[http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=528&e=1&cid=528&u=/ap/20020823/ap_on_hi_te/junk_faxes_4 Yahoo! News - Exec Seeks Trillions in Fax Lawsuit] (Associated Press, Aug 23, 2002)<br><br />
<br />
[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/08/22/MN244534.DTL $2 trillion junk fax suit - Silicon Valley man demands Fax.com end unsolicited messages] (San Francisco Chronicle, Aug 22, 2002)<br><br />
<br />
[http://www.reuters.com/co_news_presentation.jhtml?type=companynews&provider=companynews&StoryID=1363062&symbol1=COX&symbol2=COX.N U.S. lawsuits seek $2.2 trillion over "junk" faxes] (Reuters, Aug 22, 2002)<br><br />
<br />
[http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/business/3914688.htm Mercury News 08-22-2002 Entrepreneur files suit over junk faxes] (San Jose Mercury News, Aug 22, 2002)<br><br />
<br />
[http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1030078343814272235-search,00.html?collection=wsjie/30day&vql-string=%28kirsch%29%3Cin%3E%28article%2Dbody%29 Lawsuit Seeks $2.2 Trillion for Junk Faxes] (Wall St. Journal, Aug 22, 2002)<br><br />
<br />
[http://news.com.com/2100-1033-955002.html?tag=fd_top "Junk fax" lawsuits seek $2.2 trillion - Tech News] (CNet, Aug 22, 2002)<br><br />
<br />
[http://cnn.looksmart.com/og/pr=FastSitesCustom;tc=;pc=15;ro=1;rc=17;pi=zch%7Chttp://cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/23/junk.faxes.ap/index.html Lawsuits seek $2.2 trillion over faxes] (CNN, 23-Aug-02)<br><br />
Fed up with unwanted ads for phone accessories, credit services and stock tips on his fax machine, a Silicon Valley executive sued a company that sends bulk faxes on Thursday, demanding $2.2 trillion in damages.<br><br />
<br />
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,779899,00.html $2.2 trillion lawsuit says the fax should be sacred] (Guardian Unlimited, UK, Aug 24, 2002)<br><br />
[http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_655769.html?menu=news.latestheadlines Executive sues bulk fax company for $2.2 trillion] (Ananova, UK, Aug 23, 2002)<br><br />
<br />
[http://www.dmnews.com/cgi-bin/artprevbot.cgi?article_id=21402 DMNews.com: Fax.com President Calls $2.2 Trillion Lawsuit 'Absurd'] (Aug 27, 2002)<br><br />
<br />
'''Fax.com hit with $2.2 trillion lawsuits'''<br />
Aliso Viejo firm is accused of flouting federal ban on unsolicited ads.<br><br />
<br />
August 23, 2002<br><br />
<br />
By BERNARD J. WOLFSON<br><br />
The Orange County Register<br><br />
<br />
A Silicon Valley entrepreneur and a nonprofit advocacy group Thursday filed twin lawsuits against Aliso Viejo-based Fax.com, each seeking class-action status and $2.2 trillion, alleging violations of a federal ban against unsolicited fax ads.<br><br />
....<br><br />
<br />
The federal law allows damages of $500 for each unwanted fax, plus triple damages. Assuming 3 million faxes a day -- the capacity cited on Fax.com's Web site -- that works out to $2.2 trillion a year. "I'd be very happy if we just got $100 billion," Kirsch said. <br><br />
<br />
* See [http://www.ocregister.com/archives/ Orange County Register] for full story<br><br />
'''Fine buoys bill to ban junk faxes'''<br><br />
Fax.com hopes powerful lobbyist can head it off.<br><br />
<br />
August 21, 2002<br><br />
<br />
'''By BERNARD J. WOLFSON and HANH KIM QUACH'''<br><br />
The Orange County Register<br><br />
A legislative battle is heating up in Sacramento as state lawmakers rekindle efforts to ban unsolicited fax advertising while one of the nation's biggest "fax broadcasting" companies lobbies fiercely for survival.<br><br />
<br />
Emboldened by last week's $5.4 million federal fine against the company, Aliso- Viejo based '''Fax.com''', two legislators have resurrected a twice-defeated bill that would strengthen the federal prohibition against "junk faxes" by scrubbing a conflicting California law that allows them.<br><br />
<br />
"The Federal Communication Commission's action may help, and that's why we've attempted a resurrection," says Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Redondo Beach, co-author of the bill.<br><br />
<br />
In Fax.com's corner is Brian Hatch, one of Sacramento's most influential lobbyists. With his help, Fax.com hopes to dodge the bullet again. Some say Hatch's ties to another client, the powerful California Professional Firefighters, may have weighed on the minds of some lawmakers when Bowen's previous bill was killed by an Assembly committee earlier this year.<br><br />
<br />
* See [http://www.ocregister.com/archives/ Orange County Register] for full story<br><br />
<br />
'''Ban on junk faxes sought // Technology - Two state senators see opportunity to repeal law that allows unsolicited ads.'''<br><br />
August 8, 2002<br><br />
<br />
'''Byline''': BERNARD J. WOLFSON <br> <br />
The Orange County Register<br><br />
<br />
A pair of state legislators Wednesday jumped on news of a federal fine against Aliso Viejo-based Fax.com to resurrect a bill cracking down on junk faxes in California.<br><br />
<br />
Assemblywoman Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, and state Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Redondo Beach, introduced legislation to ensure that a federal ban on unsolicited fax advertising is upheld in California. Their bill would repeal a conflicting state law that allows such faxes.<br><br />
<br />
Kehoe said receiving unwanted commercial ...<br><br />
* See [http://www.ocregister.com/archives/ Orange County Register] for full story<br><br />
<br />
<br />
'''FCC fines `fax blaster' // Technology Fax.com of Aliso Viejo receives a $5.4 million fine for violating a federal ban on `junk faxing' despite a contrary court ruling.'''<br><br />
August 8, 2002<br><br />
'''Byline''': BERNARD J. WOLFSON <br><br />
The Orange County Register<br><br />
<br />
Federal regulators Wednesday slapped a record $5.4 million fine on Fax.com, an Aliso Viejo company, for violating a federal law that bans ``junk faxes.''<br><br />
<br />
The fine is the first levied on a company in the so-called ``fax blasting'' industry, and the largest ever imposed under a 1991 law meant to protect people from commercial abuse of telephone lines.<br><br />
<br />
``As a result (of Fax.com's actions), many consumers have been harassed in their homes and had their ...<br><br />
<br />
* See [http://www.ocregister.com/archives/ Orange County Register] for full story<br><br />
<br />
[http://www.classactionamerica.com/cases/case.asp?cid=1830 Texas Residents Recover $202K for Junk Faxes]<br><br />
<br />
[http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=569&ncid=738&e=4&u=/nm/20020807/tc_nm/telecoms_faxdotcom_dc_3 FCC fines fax.com $5M] (Reuters)<br><br />
<br />
[http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-225128A1.pdf FCC Press release on fax.com fine] <br><br />
<br />
[http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-226A1.pdf FCC Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL) against fax.com]<br><br />
<br />
[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/07/29/BU112551.DTL&type=tech Trying to discard junk faxes] (San Francisco Chronicle, Jul 29, 2002)<br><br />
This article is mostly correct, except Judge Limbaugh's decision in Missouri is a lower court ruling that establishes no legal precedence anywhere and has already been blasted by other judges. And the US Supreme court has denied cert for TCPA constitutionality so in every circuit, it remains constitutional.<br><br />
<br />
[[Junk Fax in the News]] <br><br />
A current list of headlines from junkfaxes.org. Not very complete. Nothing on the Dallas Cowboys case, for example.<br><br />
<br />
[http://www.wfaa.com/localnews/articles/STORY.ea7f5ab75e.93.88.fa.7c.149683a0.html Cowboys to pay for "junk fax" messages] (December 4, 2001) <br><br />
They sent 125,000 faxes and got off easy as part of a settlement agreement. Mr. Jensen said American Blast Fax -- the Dallas company hired by the Cowboys -- no longer sends fax messages to Texas phone numbers, but continues to operate outside the state. He said he has documentation that American Blast Fax has sent "at least 33 million confirmed fax ads," and added there are at least 400 other companies that profit by sending junk ads.<br><br />
<br />
[http://espn.go.com/nfl/news/2001/1203/1289300.html ESPN.com NFL - Cowboys to pay $1.73M for sending unsolicited faxes] (Dec 3, 2001)<br><br />
Plaintiff's lawyer Julius Glickman of Houston said American Blast Fax sent the fax at least once to 125,000 locations.<br><br />
<br />
[http://www.classactionamerica.com/cases/case.asp?cid=920&categoryID=13 ClassActionAmerica.com Nicholson v Hooters of Augusta, Georgia] <br><br />
Discusses Hooters and other cases. Mentions that a class action in Arizona was thrown out because the judge refused to grant class action status. Don't worry. That won't happen here because of Linder v. Thrifty Oil.<br><br />
<br />
[http://www.davidsonconsulting.com/UCAlert_Samples/070999.html Houston Cellular recently agreed to pay $400,000] (July 9, 1999) <br><br />
In what could be a first-of-its-kind settlement relative to unsolicited faxing laws, Houston Cellular recently agreed to pay $400,000 to settle a pending class-action lawsuit, according to the Houston Chronicle.<br><br />
<br />
[http://www.thedigest.com/more/133/133-042.html Slimeball Junk Faxers] (article in Orange County Register around July, 2001)<br><br />
Talks about both sides of fax.com and profiles Kevin Katz. The "missing kids" work they do is no excuse for the damage they do. Here's an excerpt showing Katz is still hoping for a legal miracle. ''Destination Ventures, Ltd. v. FCC, 46 F.3d 54,'' (9th Cir. 1995) upheld the constitutionality of the TCPA law and [http://www.chavezgertler.com/news/linder.htm Linder v. Thrifty Oil] negates his "harm" argument. Notice that he cites no cases that support his arguments:<br><br />
<br />
Katz argues that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act is unconstitutional, even though several appellate courts have upheld it. And he says lawyers are making an industry out of the law, even though there are no real damages.<br />
<br />
"What was the harm? Someone got a piece of paper?" Katz said.<br><br />
<br />
[http://www.washtech.com/news/regulation/10576-1.html Covington sues fax.com for $2.45M] (June 18, 2001)<br><br />
[http://www.cov.com/lawyers/bios/short237.html Gerard J. Waldron], a partner at [http://www.cov.com/default.asp Covington & Burling] and the original author of the TCPA is suing fax.com $2.45 million for 1,634 unsolicited advertisements received over a one week period at their law firm. This article briefly mentions the other suits. <br><br />
See also: [http://www.junkfaxes.com/news/faxcom_cb_suit.html Law firm files $2.45 million suit against FAX.COM]<br><br />
<br />
[http://www.mddailyrecord.com/archives/1_264_statewide/legalnews/37553-1.html Law In Review] (May 12, 2001)<br><br />
Silver Spring lawyer Bruce Levitt this week filed (acting as the plantiff) a class-action suit against Fax.com, a California-based “fax blaster,” for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, which prohibits the transmission of unsolicited faxes. Levitt took action after receiving three unsolicited ads for vacation deals. He filed the suit in Baltimore City Circuit Court.<br><br />
<br />
[http://consumerwatchdog.org/ftcr/nw/nw001555.php3 Just the Fax] (May 6, 2001)<br><br />
Local lawyer Ben Rosenfeld's fax machine has been violated and he's not going to stand for it. The civil rights advocate has sued America Express Travel Club, , based in Texas, for "unsolicited commercial faxing (a.k.a., 'blast faxing')." Over a period of six months, the suit says, Rosenfeld received at least eight faxed solicitations to buy airline tickets from AETC.<br><br />
<br />
[[Hooters hit with $12 million damage award]] (April 5, 2001)<br><br />
Richmond County Superior Court Judge Carl C. Brown Jr. assessed full trebled damages of $1,500 per violation against Hooters. It took 6 years before it finally went to the jury in March after a long battle in the courts with various appeals and maneuvering by Hooters. [[Here's the one page Hooters verdict]]. See also [http://www.augustachronicle.com/stories/050101/bus_085-6052.000.shtml this longer article about the Hooters award] from the Augusta Chronicle.<br><br />
<br />
[http://consumerwatchdog.org/ftcr/nw/nw001441.php3 GROUP SUES TO CEASE UNSOLICITED FAX ADS] (April 5, 2001)<br><br />
The Santa Monica-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights filed lawsuits in Los Angeles Superior Court against FAXertise of West Lake Village and Communications 2000 Inc. of Torrance, alleging that their transmission of unsolicited faxes violated federal law.<br><br />
<br />
See [[Junk Fax in the News]] for more headlines.<br><br />
<br />
'''Other spam-related news items (not junk fax specific)'''<br><br />
Unanimous [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2002/01/04/state1415EST0081.DTL California state Appeals Court] ruling that California can require Internet "spammers" to identify their e-mails as advertisements.<br></div>96.90.112.209https://www.junkfax.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=19Main Page2018-05-15T20:57:05Z<p>96.90.112.209: </p>
<hr />
<div>Consult the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Help:Contents User's Guide] for information on using the wiki software.<br />
<br />
== Background Information ==<br />
<br />
* [[Basic Information]] - A short introduction to junk faxes<br />
* [[Junk Fax Q&A]] - Start here. Everything you've wanted to know about junk faxes including how to stop them!<br />
* [[Attorney Information]] - A list of attorneys you can hire. Also, reference material for attorneys.<br />
* [[Legal Tips]] and [[Collection Tips]] - These two pages have helpful tips to help you bring actions and collect in difficult situations<br />
* [[Other Junk Fax Websites]] - A list of other junk fax websites<br />
* [[Spam Filter Comparison]] - We asked our 25,000 readers which e-mail anti-spam filters work the best.<br />
* [[Investigation tools]] - Tools for looking up phone numbers, web sites, and more.<br />
<br />
== Real Stories ==<br />
<br />
* [[Junk Faxer Profiles]] - Profiles some of the famous junk faxers including [[My Hot Leads]], [[Travelcomm]], and [[Protus IP Solutions]]. How to find out who is sending you junk faxes.<br />
* [[cacd-uscourts.com]] - The best phish email we've seen in a long time. Here's how to avoid been scammed<br />
* [[News items]] - News stories and press releases about junk faxes including the recent injunction against fax.com<br />
* [[Junkfax stories]] - Real stories of real people<br />
* [[Cases]] - Here are some cases and judgments you might find useful if you decide to sue<br />
* [[Stock fraud faxes]] - People involved in the promotion of penny stocks such as TWTN, CNDD, SGNJ, AHFI, BDYS, BHLL<br />
* [[US Record Search]] - Beware! You can get scammed even by people who claim to help you collect your judgment<br />
* [[OAN Services]] - Take a close look at your phone bill. You may be being charged every month for a service you never ordered.<br />
<br />
== Take Action ==<br />
<br />
* [[Help stop Robocalls]] - Victim of an audio Robocall? Here's how to get even.<br />
* [[How to get it to stop]] - There are only two phone numbers you need call to be permanently removed from most lists.<br />
* [[Who sent this fax?]] - How to identify who sent you the fax<br />
* [[Report a "pump and dump" stock tout junk fax or e-mail]]<br />
* [[Help with collecting]] - Got a judgment? Need help collecting? Register it here.<br />
* [[Investigating violations]] - If you are a legitimate common carrier or fax broadcaster and have notice of a violation, here's what to do.<br />
* [[Contact]] - Contact us for questions or to volunteer to help</div>96.90.112.209https://www.junkfax.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=18Main Page2018-05-15T20:56:53Z<p>96.90.112.209: </p>
<hr />
<div>Consult the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Help:Contents User's Guide] for information on using the wiki software.<br />
<br />
== Background Information ==<br />
<br />
* [[Basic Information]] - A short introduction to junk faxes<br />
* [[Junk Fax Q&A]] - Start here. Everything you've wanted to know about junk faxes including how to stop them!<br />
* [[Attorney Information]] - A list of attorneys you can hire. Also, reference material for attorneys.<br />
* [[Legal Tips]] and [[Collection Tips]] - These two pages have helpful tips to help you bring actions and collect in difficult situations<br />
* [[Other Junk Fax Websites]] - A list of other junk fax websites<br />
* [[Spam Filter Comparison]] - We asked our 25,000 readers which e-mail anti-spam filters work the best.<br />
* [[Investigation tools]] - Tools for looking up phone numbers, web sites, and more.<br />
<br />
== Real Stories ==<br />
<br />
* [[Junk Faxer Profiles]] - Profiles some of the famous junk faxers including [[My Hot Leads]], [[Travelcomm]], and [[Protus IP Solutions]]. How to find out who is sending you junk faxes.<br />
* [[cacd-uscourts.com]] - The best phish email we've seen in a long time. Here's how to avoid been scammed<br />
* [[News items]] - News stories and press releases about junk faxes including the recent injunction against fax.com<br />
* [[Junkfax stories]] - Real stories of real people<br />
* [[Cases]] - Here are some cases and judgments you might find useful if you decide to sue<br />
* [[Stock fraud faxes]] - People involved in the promotion of penny stocks such as TWTN, CNDD, SGNJ, AHFI, BDYS, BHLL<br />
* [[US Record Search]] - Beware! You can get scammed even by people who claim to help you collect your judgment<br />
* [[OAN Services]] - Take a close look at your phone bill. You may be being charged every month for a service you never ordered.<br />
<br />
== Take Action ==<br />
<br />
* [[Help stop Robocalls]] - Victim of an audio Robocall? Here's how to get even.<br />
* [[How to get it to stop]] - There are only two phone numbers you need call to be permanently removed from most lists.<br />
* [[Who sent this fax?]] - How to identify who sent you the fax<br />
* [[Report a "pump and dump" stock tout junk fax or e-mail]]<br />
* [[Help with collecting]] - Got a judgment? Need help collecting? Register it here.<br />
* [[Investigating violations]] - If you are a legitimate common carrier or fax broadcaster and have notice of a violation, here's what to do.<br />
* [[Contact]] - Contact us for questions or to volunteer to help<br />
<br />
http://www.example.com/</div>96.90.112.209