2 Groups Split on No-Call Registry

WASHINGTON —  The nation’s two biggest telemarketing groups have disconnected over the federal government’s “do-not-call” registry: One has pledged to honor it and the other to fight it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Direct Marketing Assn. and the American Teleservices Assn. had been united in their opposition to the registry, which was created last summer. A federal appeals court upheld it last month after the DMA and ATA filed suit.

The DMA then promised to drop further legal challenges and not call any of the 57 million phone numbers that had been submitted to the Federal Trade Commission.

The ATA , however, decided to continue to press its case. ATA Executive Director Tim Searcy called the DMA late Tuesday to inform the group.

“The bottom line is that this decision affects all of us,” Searcy said. “It will create an environment where things like direct mail and e-mail are fair game for legislators. We are fighting this ... for the industry as a whole.”

Searcy said the registry had nearly crippled the $100-billion telemarketing industry. He said that about 2 million of the industry’s 6.5 million workers were likely to lose their jobs.

The ATA opted to pursue an appeal, he said, to “address serious constitutional issues” regarding freedom of speech.

Numbers on the do-not-call list are off-limits to most telemarketing calls. Violators are subject to fines as high as $11,000 a call.

The DMA’s decision not to pursue an appeal may help preserve its image as a public-spirited group. H. Robert Wientzen, the group’s president, said Wednesday that “there is more to lose than to gain in terms of public perception of our industry.”

Some marketers are members of both the ATA and DMA. Wientzen said the DMA mostly represents big companies that farm out their direct sales operations, while the ATA is largely made up of firms that actually make the sales calls. Searcy declined to provide the ATA membership list. Documents filed with the FTC say members include SBC Communications Inc., the biggest local phone service provider in California; Tribune Co., publisher of the Los Angeles Times; and dozens of small marketers.

The distinction between the two groups is lost on Americans who have grown weary of hearing from telemarketers.

“The industry’s image wasn’t good to begin with ... and they realize that making arcane legal arguments” over direct marketers’ free-speech rights to call consumers “probably doesn’t help,” said Laurie Babin, professor of marketing at the University of Mississippi. “Consumers just want to be left alone.”

Wientzen said he thought the ATA probably would lose at the high court.

“We really didn’t feel comfortable pursing the low chance of the Supreme Court accepting the case,” Wientzen said. “We continue to believe the government should not do this ... but at some point you need to listen to the desires of the consumer.”

Even if the Supreme Court sided with the ATA, he said, the DMA would continue to abide by the do-not-call list.