Can someone explain why this part is necessary?
>7. Cash the check and dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice. (You're agreeing to not sue them again for the exact same violation.)
I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message
61–70 of 145 posts
Re: I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message
#62I think a much easier way would be if we just taxed phone calls at 1 cent each. I mean absolutely everything else is already taxed: you pay taxes just to stay alive. the least that could be done is add a 1 cent tax to each phone call, just enough to stop the mass phone calling.
An online game, Eve Online, let's you set a fee for anyone not in your contacts to message you, with a default fee. You get some of it and "the government" (the game) gets the rest. The first time you message someone, you get prompted to pay the fee or discard your message.
I want this in real life. Set a default of a $1 or so. Your carrier gets $0.25, you get $0.75. You can adjust the fee to $0 or $1000. Carrier gets 25%.
Re: I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message
#63Can someone explain why this part is necessary? >7. Cash the check and dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice. (You're agreeing to not sue them again for the exact same violation.)
I would assume that it is legalese to put their minds at ease.
Re: I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message
#64This only works for the least common kind of a spammer: a real, registered business that you can identify. Most spammers are con artists, scammers, and phishers who know to keep their identities secret, let alone link you to their corporate website.
Eh, I rarely get any of that spam. I constantly get spam from politicians begging for money.
Re: I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message
#65This only works for the least common kind of a spammer: a real, registered business that you can identify. Most spammers are con artists, scammers, and phishers who know to keep their identities secret, let alone link you to their corporate website.
Eh, I rarely get any of that spam. I constantly get spam from politicians begging for money.
Though, to be fair, those could be scammers actually, I've never responded or confirmed that they are real.
Re: I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message
#66Would this apply to unsolicited reachouts from recruiting firms?
Re: I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a world where we pay for stamps, why didn't bulk unsolicited mail go away? This won't work.
Why wouldn't this solve the problem? Phone calls have a real cost, however small it may be, to both the recipient and the carriers. Everyone accepts paying for stamps. What makes paying for calls different, and such an abhorrent idea that we shouldn't even discuss it? EDIT: Parent comment was replaced with something completely different so my reply makes no longer makes sense, but I'm leaving it unchanged.
In a world where we pay for stamps, why didn't bulk unsolicited mail go away? Why would it work for telephones?
Re: I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
These calls are already illegal. There is a Do not call list. The gov has just been completely inept at enforcement, I don’t think we need extra tax, just enforce the laws we have.
clearly the current model doesn't work well enough. US laws don't stop Nigerian scammers abusing weak telecom systems. Adding a tax paid by the carrier incentivises them to collect it from the upstream chain all the way back to the caller.
Us laws COULD stop these scammers, but the govt has been too scared to actually lock out the carriers that are carrying these spam calls or selling these big blocks of local numbers. It seems like they are starting to play hardball, but we’ll see:
“ The Cox/Jones/Sumco Panama operation appears to be responsible for making more than eight billion unlawful prerecorded message calls to American consumers since at least 2018. The robocalls include prerecorded marketing messages which encouraged consumers to follow prompts to speak with a “warranty specialist” about extending or reinstating their car warranty.
As announced on July 7, the enforcement bureau issued a notice authorizing all voice service providers to cease carrying any traffic originating from the Cox/Jones/Sumco Panama operation consistent with FCC regulations.
At the same time, the Bureau sent cease-and-desist letters to eight voice service provider to warn them to stop carrying this suspicious traffic. The eight service providers have not responded to the letters and so, as provided in the public notice, the bureau is directing all other carriers to refuse to carry this traffic.”
Basically what the FCC decided to do was ID this org, tell the carriers who sell to this org to stop, and if they don’t stop, require other carriers to lock out the carriers who sell to the spammer.
https://www.mykxlg.com/news/national/fcc-targeting-phone-ser...
Re: I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message
#69Lawyer here. I do this kind of work for a client. Good for this guy for taking the fight to the spammers. As we head into election season, a lot of us are going to get unsolicited text messages like this. You too can sue for them! Some of what was said in the tweets regarding your rights and what you have to do to file a claim are, in my experience and opinion, not correct. The general idea is right, but some of the…
So, someone hired you to try and monetize their inbound spam? How lucrative is that?
Re: I won a suit against a party that sent me an unsolicited text message
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why wouldn't this solve the problem? Phone calls have a real cost, however small it may be, to both the recipient and the carriers. Everyone accepts paying for stamps. What makes paying for calls different, and such an abhorrent idea that we shouldn't even discuss it? EDIT: Parent comment was replaced with something completely different so my reply makes no longer makes sense, but I'm leaving it unchanged.
In a world where we pay for stamps, why didn't bulk unsolicited mail go away? Why would it work for telephones?
> In a world where we pay for stamps, why didn't bulk unsolicited mail go away? Why would it work for telephones?
Different situation. Bulk mail is not illegal, in fact the USPS subsidizes it. Spam calls ARE illegal. Hopefully phone carriers will not give discounts for explicitly illegal uses of their networks, but we can deal with that later if it happens.