Leave me alone! The delicate balance of privacy and commercial speech in the evolving do-not-call registry.

(1.) See, Mainstream Mktg. Servs., Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 358 F. (3d 1228, 1240 (10th Cir. 2004).

(2.) Id. at 1234.

(3.) FED. TRADE COMM'N, CURRENT DO NOT CALL REGISTRATIONS BY CONSUMER STATE/TERRITORY (Sept. 30, 2007), http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/microsites/ donotcall/pdfs/DNC-Registrations-10-05-20071.pdf (listing the total number of registered numbers across the country at 145,498,656).

(4.) See, e.g., Mainstream Mktg., 358 F. (3d at 1236 n.9 (explaining the First Amendment challenge to the do-not-call list).

(5.) Id. at 1236.

(6.) See Press Release, Federal Trade Commission, FTC Pledges Not to Drop Any Numbers From Do Not Call Registry, Pending Final Congressional or Agency Action on Whether to Make Registration Permanent (Oct. 23, 2007), available at http://www.ffc.gov/opa/2007/10/dnctestimony.shtm.

(7.) Do-Not-Call Improvement Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-187, 122 Stat. 633 (codified at 15 U.S.C. [section][section] 6101 note, 6151-6155).

(8.) 358 F. (3d 1228 (10tb Cir. 2004).

(9.) 447 U.S. 557 (1980).

(10.) Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 102 Pub. L. No. 243, 105 Stat. 2394 (codified as amended at 47 U.S.C. [section] 227 note (2000)).

(11.) Telephone Consumer Protection Act [section] 2(15).

(12.) 47 U.S.C. [section] 227(b)(1)(A). It is important to note that this includes mobile and cellular telephones, exempting them from commercial solicitations regardless of whether or not the number is registered on the do-not-call list.

(13.) Id. [section] 227(b)(1)(B).

(14.) Id. [section] 227(b)(1)(C).

(15.) Id. [section] 227(b)(1)(D).

(16.) Id. [section] 227(b)(2).

(17.) Id. [section] 227(c)(3).

(18.) Rules and Regs. Implementing the Tele. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 F.C.C.R. 8752, 8765 (1992).

(19.) See 15 U.S.C. [section] 6101 (2000).

(20.) Pub. L. No. 103-297, 108 Stat. 1545 (1994) (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. [section][section] 6101-6108 (2000)).

(21.) See Fed. Trade Comm'n, Facts for Consumers: A Guide to the Federal Trade Commission (2004), http://www.fte.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/general/gen03.shtm#bcp.

(22.) 15 U.S.C. [section] 6102(a)(2).

(23.) See id. [section] 6102(a)(1).

(24.) Id. [section] 6102(a)(3)(A).

(25.) Id. [section] 6102(a)(3)(B).

(26.) Id. [section] 6102(a)(3)(C).

(27.) Id. [section] 6102(a)(3)(D).

(28.) Id. [section] 6102(a).

(29.) 60 Fed. Reg. 43842 (Aug. 23, 1995) (codified as amended at 16 C.F.R. pt. 310 (2008)).

(30.) Id. [section] 310. (3(a)(1).

(31.) Id. [section] 310. (3(a)(1)(iv)-(v).

(32.) Id. [section] 310.4(b)(1)(ii); see generally [section] 310.4(a)-(b).

(33.) Id. [section] 310.4(c).

(34.) See generally Rules and Regs. Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 F.C.C.R. 17459 (2002); Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 C.F.R. pt. 310.

(35.) Rules and Regs. Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 F.C.C.R. 17459, para. 1.

(36.) Id.

(37.) See Rules and Regs. Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 68 Fed. Reg. 44,144 (July 25, 2003) (codified as amended at 47 C.F.R. pts. 64 and 68).

(38.) See Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 C.F.R. pt. 310.

(39.) See Rules and Regs. Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, Annual Report on the Nat'l Do-Not-Call Registry, 19 F.C.C.R. 24002, para. 5 (2004) [hereinafter Annual Report] (discussing Congress's swift actions to overrule the decision of United States v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 282 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (W.D. Okla. 2003)).

(40.) Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 C.F.R. pt. 310.

(41.) Id.

(42.) See Mainstream Mktg. Servs., Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 358 F. (3d 1228, 1233 (10th Cir. 2004).

(43.) See Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n, 436 U.S. 447, 463 n. (20 (1978).

(44.) Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 447 U.S. 557, 563 n.5 (1980) (quoting Ohralik, 436 U.S. at 456) (internal notation omitted).

(45.) See id. at 561.

(46.) Va. Pharmacy Bd. v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748, 770 (1976).

(47.) Cent. Hudson, 447 U.S. at 561-62.

(48.) See id. at 563.

(49.) See Rodney A. Smolla, The "Do-Not-Call List" Controversy: A Parable of Privacy and Speech, 38 CREIGHTON L. REV. 743, 747 (2005) (citing Semayne's Case, (1604) 77 Eng. Rep. 194, 195 (K.B.)).

(50.) Accord United States v. Orito, 413 U.S. 139, 142 (1973).

(51.) See, e.g., Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dep't, 397 U.S. 728, 737 (1970) ("The ancient concept that 'a man's home is his castle' into which 'not even the king may enter' has lost none of its vitality.").

(52.) Mainstream Mktg. Servs., Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 358 F.3d 1228, 1233 (10th Cir. 2004).

(53.) See Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 484-85 (1988).

(54.) See id. at 485.

(55.) Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 716-17 (2000) (quoting Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)).

(56.) See Mainstream Mktg., 358 F.3d at 1228.

(57.) Id. at 1233.

(58.) The court mistakenly refers to the do-not-call registry as an opt-in program, when in fact the members of the registry are deciding to opt-out of receiving telemarketing calls. For a better explanation of the difference between an opt-in and an opt-out program, see United States v. Playboy Entm't Group, 529 U.S. 803, 841-42 (2000) (Breyer, J., dissenting). See also Rules and Regs. Implementing the Tele. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 68 Fed. Reg. 44, 144 (July 25, 2003) (codified at 47 C.F.R. pts. 64, 68) (explaining the decision not to adopt an "opt-in" approach).

(59.) Mainstream Mktg. Servs., Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 543 U.S. 812 (2004).

(60.) See Mainstream Mktg., 358 F.3d at 1236-37. Perhaps because it is not at issue, the court in Mainstream Marketing does not specifically address the first prong, and subsequently refers to the analysis as a "three-part test governing First Amendment challenges to regulations restricting non-misleading commercial speech that relates to lawful activity." Mainstream Mktg., 358 F.3d at 1237.

(61.) Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 447 U.S. 557, 566 (1980).

(62.) Id. at 563-64.

(63.) Id. at 568.

(64.) Id. at 568-69.

(65.) See Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525, 554 (2001) (stating that none of the petitioners contest the importance of the state's interest); Thompson v. W. States Med. Ctr., 535 U.S. 357, 371-73 (2002) (holding that the restrictions were more extensive than necessary, even assuming, arguendo, that the government's interest was substantial).

(66.) Thompson, 535 U.S. at 368-69.

(67.) See id. at 374.

(68.) See id. at 368-69; Lorillard Tobacco Co., 533 U.S. at 564 (conceding that the interest was substantial and going further to explain that it may even be compelling).

(69.) Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec., 447 U.S. at 566.

(70.) Id.

(71.) See id. at 569.

(72.) Id. at 566.

(73.) See id. at 570.

(74.) Id. ("In addition, no showing has been made that a more limited restriction on the content of promotional advertising would not serve adequately the State's interests."); see also Thompson v. W. States Med. Ctr., 535 U.S. 357, 373 (2002).

(75.) Mainstream Mktg. Servs., Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 358 F.3d 1228, 1237 (10th Cir. 2004).

(76.) Id. at 1237-38 (quoting Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 484-85 (1988)).

(77.) Id. at 1238 (quoting Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761, 768-69 (1993)) (emphasis added).

(78.) Id.

(79.) See id.

(80.) See id. at 1238-39.

(81.) Id. at 1241.

(82.) Id. (referencing H.R. REP. No. 102-317, at 16 (1991)).

(83.) See id.

(84.) Id at 1240.

(85.) Id.

(86.) Id. at 1241-42.

(87.) Id. at 1242.

(88.) For an explanation of the court's confusion of the opt-in/opt-out distinction in this case, see discussion supra, note 58.

(89.) Mainsteam Mktg., 358 F.3d at 1242.

(90.) Id. at 1243.

(91.) Id. at 1244.

(92.) Id. at 1243. See e.g., Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dep't, 397 U.S. 728, 729-30, 738 (1970); Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943); United States v. Playboy Entm't Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 815 (2000).

(93.) Mainsteam Mktg., 358 F.3d at 1243.

(94.) Id. (quoting Rowan, 397 U.S. at 738).

(95.) See id. at 1243-44.

(96.) See id. at 1244.

(97.) See id. at 1244-45.

(98.) Id. at 1245 (10th Cir. 2004).

(99.) Id. at 1244.

(100.) See id.

(101.) See id.

(102.) See id.

(103.) Id. at 1245.

(104.) See Telemarketing Sales Rule, 68 Fed. Reg. 4580, 4640 (Jan. 29, 2003) (to be codified at 16 C.F.R. pt. 310).

(105.) See id. [section] 310.

(106.) See id. [section] 310.

(107.) Pub. L. No. 110-187, 122 Stat. 633 (codified at 15 U.S.C. [section][section] 6101 note, 6151-6155).

(108.) See Enhancing FTC Consumer Protection in Financial Dealings, with Telemarketers and on the Internet: Testimony Before the Subcomm. on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection of the H. Comm. on Energy and Commerce, 110th Cong., at 10, n.19 (2007) (statement of Lydia Parnes, Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection), available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/testimony/ 071023ReDoNotCallRuleEnforcementHouse P034412.pdf, [hereinafter Statement of FTC].

(109.) Mainstream Mktg. Servs., Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 358 F.3d 1228, 1245 (10th Cir. 2004).

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates