AT&T Mobility lawsuit tackles autodialing telemarketers, claims ‘annoyance and intrusion’

AT&T Mobility filed a lawsuit in Georgia federal court to crack down on autodial telemarketers offering wireless consumers extended automobile warranties, making it the second national wireless operator to pursue litigation to halt the practice. The carrier’s lawsuit alleges the telemarketers used spoofing techniques to disguise the callers’ origin.
“ATTM brings this action to preserve the privacy of its subscribers and ATTM company official-use accounts through entry of an injunction prohibiting defendants’ illegal conduct and an award of statutory and common law damages,” stated AT&T Mobility in the 20-page suit filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
The No. 2 wireless provider, headquartered in Atlanta, said the telemarketing at issue is prohibited by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and a Federal Communications Commission rule requiring telemarketers to transmit caller identification numbers.
Elizabeth Lordan, a spokesperson at the Federal Trade Commission, said such telemarketing also appears to violate the agency’s Telemarketing Sales Rules governing the National Do Not Call Registry. Lordan said she is not aware of any completed FTC investigations involving autodial-based extended auto warranty telemarketing. Lordan also said she was unable to say whether the FTC has any probes in progress.
Rosemary Kimball, an FCC spokesperson, said the agency could not immediately provide data on consumer complaints about such telemarketing. Kimball said she was not aware of any FCC enforcement actions on extended warranty telemarketing.
AT&T Mobility said such telemarketing, besides being illegal and hurting consumers, also affects its bottom line.
“These telemarketing calls damage ATTM’s relationships with its customers and impose additional customer service costs on ATTM,” the suit stated. “Customers who have received telemarketing calls may blame ATTM for the annoyance and intrusion they have suffered as a result of receiving theses calls. These customers will often call ATTM customer service to complain about the calls and to request credits for the airtime used by these calls. ATTM estimates that there are significant costs of handling such customer service calls. The volume of telemarketing calls made to ATTM company official-use accounts also disrupts ATTM’s regular course of business.”
Because spoofing is inherently integral to this kind of telemarketing, figuring out who is behind the enterprise is itself a challenge. AT&T Mobility said one number alone – 800-219-7425 – made more than 13 million calls to wireless numbers through telecom carriers Paetec Communications, Global Crossing and MCI Inc./Verizon Communications Inc. AT&T said it will need to subpoena those companies and others to determine the owner and operator of various spoofed phone numbers.
Last year, Verizon Wireless filed a similar lawsuit in New Jersey Superior Court to stop the phantom telemarketers.
“Telemarketers are using increasingly sophisticated methods, such as illegal autodialing, to harass our customers,” said Steven Zipperstein, VP and general counsel of Verizon Wireless, at the time. “Whatever the method, these unlawful telemarketing calls are an annoyance to our customers and invade their privacy, and we will continue to use every weapon in our legal arsenal to stop this activity and protect our customers.”
The Verizon Wireless telemarketing case is still pending, according to spokesman Jeffrey Nelson.
It is unclear whether customers of the other two national carriers – Sprint Nextel Corp. and T-Mobile USA Inc. – were encountering the same problem. Representatives from Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile USA were not immediately able to discuss the situation.