Robocalls Land Dish Network Record $280M Penalty
A federal district court entered the judgment against Dish Network for violating the Federal Trade Commission's Telemarketing Sales Rule.
June 06, 2017 at 06:04 PM
7 minute read
Unsolicited telemarketer calls are bad enough for the people receiving them, but now Dish Network is on the hook for $280 million because of its call centers' dialing practices.
A federal district court entered that whopping judgment against Dish Network Monday for violating the Federal Trade Commission's Telemarketing Sales Rule. Those rules prohibit telemarketers from calling numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, bars robocalls and prohibits calls to consumers who have requested not to be called by telemarketers.
Judge Sue Myerscough of the Central District of Illinois ordered Dish to pay $168 million to the federal government, a record penalty for violations of the FTC Act. Another $112 million will go to the states of California, Illinois, North Carolina and Ohio, who joined the lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of the FTC. In a 475-page decision, Myerscough wrote that Dish was liable for violations committed by call centers the company hired to sell its products because Dish “knew or should have known” of their actions. Myerscough's ruling also imposed a 20-year compliance plan on Dish.
“The significance of the case is here you have a legitimate, well-known industry actor having to make sure those selling its products don't do so illegally,” said Lois Greisman, associate director of the FTC's Division of Marketing Practices. “The order forces them to really clamp down on how they market their product both directly and indirectly and that's a big deal and it should send a signal to other industry actors.”
However, the judge declined to grant an immediate ban on Dish's telemarketing, as requested by the government. Still, Dish said in a statement emailed to the National Law Journal that it “respectfully disagrees” with the judge's ruling, and plans to appeal.
“The amounts awarded in this case radically and unjustly exceed, by orders of magnitude, those found in the settlements in similar actions, notably against DirecTV, Comcast and Caribbean Cruise Lines,” the company said. “DISH is being held responsible for telemarketing activities conducted by independent third parties, including in circumstances where such third parties intentionally hid their telemarketing efforts from DISH.”
The case was filed in 2009 after the FTC investigated Dish and referred the case to the Justice Department. After years of litigation over discovery and other issues, the judge granted summary judgment in the government's favor in 2014. But what exactly Dish was liable for was still disputed, and the case went to a bench trial in January 2016 that lasted roughly five weeks.
Dish was first represented by a team of lawyers from Kelley Drye & Warren. A team from Orrick, led by partner Peter Bicks, joined the case shortly before the trial began.
Related Articles:
|- How In-House Lawyers Responded to the FTC's 'Influencer' Letters
- Meet the Government Lawyer Who Tweets '@SCOTUSplaces'
- Trump Announces Slate of Big Law Nominees for DOJ, Agency Posts
Unsolicited telemarketer calls are bad enough for the people receiving them, but now
A federal district court entered that whopping judgment against
Judge Sue Myerscough of the Central District of Illinois ordered Dish to pay $168 million to the federal government, a record penalty for violations of the FTC Act. Another $112 million will go to the states of California, Illinois, North Carolina and Ohio, who joined the lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of the FTC. In a 475-page decision, Myerscough wrote that Dish was liable for violations committed by call centers the company hired to sell its products because Dish “knew or should have known” of their actions. Myerscough's ruling also imposed a 20-year compliance plan on Dish.
“The significance of the case is here you have a legitimate, well-known industry actor having to make sure those selling its products don't do so illegally,” said Lois Greisman, associate director of the FTC's Division of Marketing Practices. “The order forces them to really clamp down on how they market their product both directly and indirectly and that's a big deal and it should send a signal to other industry actors.”
However, the judge declined to grant an immediate ban on Dish's telemarketing, as requested by the government. Still, Dish said in a statement emailed to the National Law Journal that it “respectfully disagrees” with the judge's ruling, and plans to appeal.
“The amounts awarded in this case radically and unjustly exceed, by orders of magnitude, those found in the settlements in similar actions, notably against
The case was filed in 2009 after the FTC investigated Dish and referred the case to the Justice Department. After years of litigation over discovery and other issues, the judge granted summary judgment in the government's favor in 2014. But what exactly Dish was liable for was still disputed, and the case went to a bench trial in January 2016 that lasted roughly five weeks.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Radical Left Judges'?: Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden's Judicial Picks
4 minute read'There Is No Time to Waste': Matt Gaetz Withdraws From AG Nomination
3 minute readFrom ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250