<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Business Law Center</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.bizlawcenter.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.bizlawcenter.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:57:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>On the Horizon: More Restrictive Robocalling Rules for Debt Collectors</title>
		<link>http://www.bizlawcenter.com/2012/02/03/on-the-horizon-more-restrictive-robocalling-rules-for-debt-collectors/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bizlawcenter.com/2012/02/03/on-the-horizon-more-restrictive-robocalling-rules-for-debt-collectors/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:57:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Seth Heyman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Telemarketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robodialing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TCPA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bizlawcenter.com/?p=548</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Newly proposed FCC rules would require debt collectors  who use automated telephone dialing systems to send recorded calls to wireless numbers to obtain a prior written agreement evidencing the consumer’s consent to receive them.  ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bizlawcenter.com/2012/02/03/on-the-horizon-more-restrictive-robocalling-rules-for-debt-collectors/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Clear Disclosure, Valid Consent</title>
		<link>http://www.bizlawcenter.com/2012/01/20/clear-disclosure-valid-consent/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bizlawcenter.com/2012/01/20/clear-disclosure-valid-consent/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:24:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Seth Heyman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet Marketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Continuity Program Disclosures]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bizlawcenter.com/?p=546</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent Massachusetts class action lawsuit, the Plaintiff accused a company marketing a continuity membership program of deceptively tricking her into enrolling. The Court disagreed, and granted the Defendant&#8217;s motion for summary judgment. As grounds for its decision, the Court stated that the Plaintiff “cannot now show the necessary connection between the allegedly deceptive [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bizlawcenter.com/2012/01/20/clear-disclosure-valid-consent/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CALM Act Rules Enacted</title>
		<link>http://www.bizlawcenter.com/2011/12/29/calm-act-rules-enacted/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bizlawcenter.com/2011/12/29/calm-act-rules-enacted/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2011 22:36:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Seth Heyman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CALM Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercials]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Communication Commission]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bizlawcenter.com/?p=543</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This week the Federal Communications Commission enacted regulations that implement the provisions of the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act, which was passed last year by Congress. Under the new rules, which take effect on December 13, 2012, advertisements cannot be louder than the programming surrounding them. “TV commercials, such as those for OxiClean, ShamWow!, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bizlawcenter.com/2011/12/29/calm-act-rules-enacted/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DNC Requests:  No Means No</title>
		<link>http://www.bizlawcenter.com/2011/12/26/dnc-requests-no-means-no/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bizlawcenter.com/2011/12/26/dnc-requests-no-means-no/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Dec 2011 21:11:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Seth Heyman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FTC Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Guidelines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Telemarketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DNC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Do Not Call]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Trade Commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FTC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Telemarketing Sales Rule]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bizlawcenter.com/?p=542</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently settled a telemarketing enforcement action that it brought against Americall Group, Inc., based on allegations that the Illinois telemarketing firm interfered with the right of consumers to be placed on companies’ internal do-not-call lists, and that it disguised its identity on caller ID. Americall, a telemarketer specializing in calls [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bizlawcenter.com/2011/12/26/dnc-requests-no-means-no/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FTC Crackdown Illustrates the Importance of TSR Compliance</title>
		<link>http://www.bizlawcenter.com/2011/12/23/ftc-crackdown-illustrates-the-importance-of-tsr-compliance/</link>
		<comments>http://www.bizlawcenter.com/2011/12/23/ftc-crackdown-illustrates-the-importance-of-tsr-compliance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2011 20:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Seth Heyman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FTC Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Telemarketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Trade Commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FTC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[robocalling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Telemarketing Sales Rule]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bizlawcenter.com/?p=539</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Two recent enforcement actions against so-called “robocallers” illustrate the vital importance of compliance with FTC regulations governing the use of recorded voice messaging in marketing campaigns.  The actions are part of the Commission's ongoing efforts to crack down on illegal pre-recorded voice messaging.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bizlawcenter.com/2011/12/23/ftc-crackdown-illustrates-the-importance-of-tsr-compliance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

