What are the Consequences of Telemarketing Fraud? скачать в хорошем качестве

What are the Consequences of Telemarketing Fraud?

I am Justin Paperny with Compliance Mitigation. I am happy to share this valuable case study featuring DISH Network, a large publicly-traded company. As government press releases show, DISH used aggressive sales tactics, including violating the Federal Trade Commission’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) when it failed to scrub consumer phone numbers through the Do Not Call registry. Further, as I discuss in this video, DISH hired third-party marketing firms and did little to confirm that those firms followed FTC rules and regulations. By the end of this video, you will be able to: Understand and identify aspects of telemarketing fraud. Understand that the government is not deterred in pursuing lengthy investigations. Describe and understand and the legal concept of willful blindness. Understand and explain the implications of extensive investigations on a company. Identify the Federal Trade Commission and better understand how the agency interacts with actions taken by companies and employees. Background on DISH Network and their history of telemarketing fraud: Prior to 2009, DISH Network engaged in high-pressure phone sales tactics in an effort to secure customers from their cable competition. They also retained offshore call centers to contact potential customers. The company’s internal culture was driven by a grow-at-all-costs strategy that also famously led to extreme burnout among internal employees. The company even had sleeping and bathing areas for call center employees, encouraging them to work double and even triple shifts. Pressure was driven from the top-down, at every level. Under that pressure, employees worked excessive overtime in order to meet overly aggressive sales goals. As a result, attention to compliance suffered greatly during this time. Analysis: Many people believe large US corporations enjoy a certain degree of immunity from government prosecution for various reasons. They hire high paid lobbyists, make large political contributions and hire teams of high-priced attorneys to protect their interests. Size and money, however, do not inoculate a company from ending up a target of a federal investigation. The DISH Network is just such a large US corporation, with over 16,000 employees, providing access to television shows and movies, wireless broadband and cellular phone services to almost 12 million customers. It’s a well-known company, in business for almost 25 years, generating billions of dollars in revenue. They also serve as a cautionary tale that no company is immune from prosecution for violation of The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Rules and Regulations, in a case that finally settled in December 2020, after more than a decade of litigation. Recommendation A company’s corporate culture tends to drive employee conduct. Most companies begin small without giving much thought to that culture. They concern themselves with how to survive and then grow within a challenging regulatory environment. At some point, however, companies must critically analyze and document the culture they aspire to in a measured Code of Conduct. Without one, they risk exposure to significant civil and criminal liability for failure to follow the rules. Developing internal rules and designating someone in charge of ensuring compliance becomes critical for any company with over 20-30 employees and/or a couple of millions of dollars in revenue.[1] Those rules, in turn, must be followed by everyone in the organization, including the founders and CEO. Employees quickly spot hypocrisy, undermining their determination to follow rules that do not equally apply to everyone. Companies must also choose partners wisely. Hiring outside contractors to perform services will not shield a company from liability for actions conducted by the outside contractor. Companies must conduct their own due diligence into third-parties they hire, demonstrating responsibility as a good corporate citizen. Government agents and prosecutors quickly and easily determine that a company has acted willfully blind, whether such was the case or not. They use 20/20 hindsight, analyzing the facts from the perspective that best proves their case. Conducting and documenting due diligence helps guide them away from that perspective. To learn more about how our team at Compliance Mitigation can help simply call 949-205-6056 or send an email to Team@ComplianceMitigation.com. Thank you, Justin Paperny P.S. Early in the video, I reference a New York Times article, Who's Making All Those Spam Calls. Here is the link: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/27/ma...