Photo Source: Flickr, Contact Center Compliance

Since 2003, emphasis on contact center compliance has risen. The interest in regulation divided the industry into two distinct factions: one seeking to avoid the expense and fly under the radar to escape detection and the other complying to safeguard their image and client relationships. Professional contact centers have been forced to comply with an increase in regulation or face stiff fines and penalties from the government.

State and federal legislators assigned steep fines to the compliance laws to force call centers into compliance. For example, states prohibiting caller id blocks will enforce fines of $1,000 up to $25, 000 per incident. Craftmatic and its subsidiaries paid $4.4 million to settle sundry FTC telemarketing compliance charges. ADT agreed to pay more than $2 million for allowing non-compliant calls to consumers on the federal Do Not Call (DNC) list.

The fines are steep but it’s the operational limitations that accompany these fines that cost or hurt these organizations. The additional measures assigned to these settlements increase these companies’ cost of doing business, shrink their potential market and significantly impact response rate.

The announcement of these fines and limitations to market become a political platform to demonstrate the effectiveness of call compliance laws and regulations. While the FTC and FCC maintain different measures for complaints reaching “critical mass,” both administrations clearly want to portray themselves as the consumers’ advocate.

State Attorneys must present evidence of their job performance and will dip from the most popular and consumer passionate areas as often as they can to secure votes. These agencies offer consumers easy access to complaint forms and promote an estimated 2.5 minutes completion time to tout the simplicity of their forms. These combined techniques keep consumers engaged and willing to report offenders. Thereby, keeping the pool of potential violators stocked for future investigations and fines.

The FTC and FCC will only initiate a civil investigation when complaints against an organization reaches critical mass, while some states might chose to pursue violators for first complaints. Companies have no visibility to the number of complaints being generated by their telemarketing activities. Not only that but, the average consumer is ignorant of the laws and protections afforded them under these laws. Therefore, many complaints are filed for calls customers perceive to be in violation of their rights but often are permissible.

Companies are powerless and have zero control of the frequency of complaints against them and will never know when these will achieve critical mass at any level. This is why organizations consider compliance a full time job and often staff a compliance officer to ensure a “Safe Harbor.”

“Safe Harbor” is an organization’s ability to demonstrate that they employed the necessary processes and technology to comply with the laws and regulations as they apply to the organization. These costs include the purchase of or upgrading dialer, voice recorder and other technology capable of meeting the standards dictated by state and federal regulations. Additionally, someone with a legal background must comb through the maze of laws and regulations to provide accurate interpretation and guidance. On the other hand, the calling restrictions and compliance requirements drive production inefficiencies that cost companies revenue and performance bonuses.

So how does an organization avoid these fines while continuing to operate an effective and viable telemarketing program?

The answer is very simple: comply with the laws as best you can and position your organization to effectively and efficiently address any and every inquiry or civil investigation by establishing a “Safe Harbor.”