Mainstream Marketing Services, Inc. v. F.T.C.
| Decision Date | 17 February 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-6258.,No. 03-1429.,No. 03-9571.,No. 03-9594.,03-1429.,03-6258.,03-9571.,03-9594. |
| Citation | 358 F.3d 1228 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
| Parties | MAINSTREAM MARKETING SERVICES, INC., a Colorado corporation; TMG Marketing, Inc., a Colorado corporation; American Teleservices Association, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellant, and Timothy J. Muris, Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission; Sheila F. Anthony, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission; Mozelle W. Thompson, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission; Orson Swindle, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission; Thomas B. Leary, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission; J. Howard Beales, III, Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection, in their official capacities, Defendants. United States of America, Intervenor, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming; AARP; W.J. "Billy" Tauzi, John D. Dingell, and certain other members of the House of Representatives of the United States; ACA International; Undersigned Members of the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; The Council of American Survey Research Organizations, The American Association for Public Opinion Research, The Council for Marketing and Opinion Research, Amici Curiae. U.S. Security, an Oklahoma corporation; Chartered Benefit Services, Inc., an Illinois corporation, Global Contact Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Infocision Management Corporation, a Delaware corporation; Direct Marketing Association, Inc., a New York non-profit association, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Federal Trade Commission, Defendant-Appellant. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming; ACA International; The Council of American Survey Research Organizations, The American Association for Public Opinion Research, The Council for Marketing and Opinion Research, Amici Curiae. Mainsteam Marketing Services, Inc., A Colorado Corporation; TMG Marketing, Inc., A Colorado Corporation; American Teleservices Association, Petitioners, v. Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District Of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming; ACA International; The Council of American Survey Research Organizations, The American Association for Public Opinion Research, The Council for Marketing and Opinion Research, Amici Curiae. Competitive Telecommunications Association, Petitioner, v. Federal Communications Commission; United States of America, Respondents. The Council of American Survey Research Organizations, The American Association for Public Opinion Research, The Council for Marketing and Opinion Research, Amici Curiae. |
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Washington, D.C.; Lawrence DeMille-Wagman, Attorney, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Appellant Federal Trade Commission; Jacob M. Lewis, Associate General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C., for Respondent Federal Communications Commission; (John A. Rogovin, General Counsel, Susan L. Launer, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Laurence N. Bourne, Rodger D. Citron, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C.; William E. Kovacic, General Counsel, John D. Graubert, Principal Deputy General Counsel; John F. Daly, Deputy General Counsel for Litigation, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D.C.; John W. Suthers, United States Attorney, Robert G. McCampbell, United States Attorney; Mark B. Stern, Appellate Litigation Counsel; Alisa B. Klein, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., Civil Division, with them on the briefs).
Robert Corn-Revere, Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Plaintiffs-Appellees and Petitioners Mainstream Marketing Services, Inc., TMG Marketing, Inc., and American Teleservices Association; Thomas F. O'Neill, III, Piper Rudnick, Washington, D.C., for Plaintiffs-Appellees U.S. Security, Chartered Benefit Services, Inc., Global Contract Services, Inc., Infocision Management Corporation, and Direct Marketing Association, Inc. (Ronald G. London, Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Sean R. Gallagher, Marianne N. Hallinan, Hogan & Hartson, LLP, Denver, CO; Douglas H. Green, John L. Moore, Jr., Emilio W. Cividanes, Piper Rudnick, Washington, D.C.; James Nesland, Jeffrey Smith, Cooley Godward LLP, Broomfield, CO, with them on the briefs).
Ian Heath Gershengorn, Jenner & Block, LLC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner Competitive Telecommunications Association (Jonathan Lee, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Competitive Telecommunications Association, with him on the briefs.).
Before SEYMOUR, EBEL and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
The four cases consolidated in this appeal involve challenges to the national do-not-call registry, which allows individuals to register their phone numbers on a national "do-not-call list" and prohibits most commercial telemarketers from calling the numbers on that list. The primary issue in this case is whether the First Amendment prevents the government from establishing an opt-in telemarketing regulation that provides a mechanism for consumers to restrict commercial sales calls but does not provide a similar mechanism to limit charitable or political calls.1 We hold that the do-not-call registry is a valid commercial speech regulation because it directly advances the government's important interests in safeguarding personal privacy and reducing the danger of telemarketing abuse without burdening an excessive amount of speech. In other words, there is a reasonable fit between the do-not-call regulations and the government's reasons for enacting them.
As we discuss below in greater detail, four key aspects of the do-not-call registry convince us that it is consistent with First Amendment requirements. First, the list restricts only core commercial speech — i.e., commercial sales calls.2 Second, the do-not-call registry targets speech that invades the privacy of the home, a personal sanctuary that enjoys a unique status in our constitutional jurisprudence. See Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 484, 108 S.Ct. 2495, 101 L.Ed.2d 420 (1988). Third, the do-not-call registry is an opt-in program that puts the choice of whether or not to restrict commercial calls entirely in the hands of consumers. Fourth, the do-not-call registry materially furthers the government's interests in combating the danger of abusive telemarketing and preventing the invasion of consumer privacy, blocking a significant number of the calls that cause these problems. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the requirements of the First Amendment are satisfied.
A number of additional features of the national do-not-call registry, although not dispositive, further demonstrate that the list is consistent with the First Amendment rights of commercial speakers. The challenged regulations do not hinder any business' ability to contact consumers by other means, such as through direct mailings or other forms of advertising. Moreover, they give consumers a number of different options to avoid calls they do not want to receive. Namely, consumers who wish to restrict some but not all commercial sales calls can do so by using company-specific do-not-call lists or by granting some businesses express permission to call.3 In addition, the government chose to offer consumers broader options to restrict commercial sales calls than charitable and political calls after finding that commercial calls were more intrusive and posed a greater danger of consumer abuse. The government also had evidence that the less restrictive company-specific do-not-call list did not solve the problems caused by commercial telemarketing, but it had no comparable evidence with respect to charitable and political fundraising.
The national do-not-call registry offers consumers a tool with which they can protect their homes against intrusions that Congress has determined to be particularly invasive. Just as a consumer can avoid door-to-door peddlers by placing a "No Solicitation" sign in his or her front yard, the do-not-call registry lets consumers avoid unwanted sales pitches that invade the home via telephone, if they choose to do so. We are convinced that the First Amendment does not prevent the government from giving consumers this option.
In 2003, two federal agencies — the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) — promulgated rules that together created the national do-not-call registry. See 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B) (FTC rule); 47...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fontenot v. Hunter
...challenges to regulations restricting non-misleading commercial speech that relates to lawful activity." Mainstream Mktg. Servs., Inc. v. FTC , 358 F.3d 1228, 1237 (10th Cir. 2004).First, the government must assert a substantial interest to be achieved by the regulation. Second, the regulat......
-
Minority Television Project, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n
...the options provided by the State are too narrow to advance legitimate government interests”); see also Mainstream Mktg. Servs., Inc. v. FTC, 358 F.3d 1228, 1238–39 (10th Cir.2004) (“The underinclusiveness of a commercial speech regulation is relevant only if it renders the regulatory frame......
-
Stover v. Fingerhut Direct Mktg. Inc
...v. FTC, 420 F.3d 331 (4th Cir.2005) (upholding restrictions on telemarketing calls by charitable organizations); Mainstream Mktg. Servs. v. FTC, 358 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir.2004) (rejecting challenge to national do-not-call registry). With the diminished First Amendment status of Defendants' de......
-
National Federation of the Blind v. F.T.C.
...That provision (which commercial telemarketers must obey) was recently upheld by the Tenth Circuit in Mainstream Marketing Services, Inc. v. FTC, 358 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ____, 125 S.Ct. 47, 160 L.Ed.2d 16 (2004). In addressing the "narrowly tailored" question, the ......
-
All Native Advertising Is Not Equal: Why That Matters Under The First Amendment And Why It Should Matter To The FTC Part V
...Ass'n v. Perry Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983). [24] See, e.g., Mainstream Marketing Services, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 358 F.3d 1228, 1236 (10th Cir. 2004) ("In reviewing commercial speech regulations, we apply the Central Hudson [25] This is not to suggest that FTC native co......
-
Do Not Knock? Lovell to Watchtower and Back Again
...& Stuart Banner, Who’s Afraid of Commercial Speech? , 76 VA. L. REV. 627, 631 (1990). 45 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B) (2009). 46 358 F.3d 1228, 1246 (10th Cir. 2004). 47 See Edward J. Schoen & Joseph S. Falchek, The Do-Not-Call Registry Trumps Commercial Speech , 2005 MICH. ST. L. REV. 4......
-
Consumer Protection
...Protection Act of 1991, 18 FCC Rcd. 14014 (2003) [hereinafter Do Not Call Registry Order ]; see also Mainstream Mktg. Servs. v. FTC, 358 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2004) (upholding the do-not-call registry as a valid commercial speech regulation because it directly advances the government’s impor......
-
Table of Cases
...Antitrust Litig., 998 F.2d 1144 (3d Cir. 1993), 395 M Mailand v. Burckle, 20 Cal. 3d 367 (Cal. 1978), 176 Mainstream Mktg. Servs. v. FTC, 358 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2004), 434 Maislin Indus., U.S. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 497 U.S. 116 (1990), superseded on other grounds , Negotiated Rates Act,......
-
CUSTOMIZED SPEECH AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
...commercial mailings is permissible, but similar regime for political content might be problematic); Mainstream Mktg. Servs., Inc. v. FTC, 358 F.3d 1228, 1233 & n.2 (10th Cir. 2004) (expressing "no opinion as to whether the do-not-call registry would be constitutional if it applied to po......