DMA Ethics Committees Call Attention to Non-Compliant Companies

August 28, 2007 ― The Direct Marketing Association (DMA), acting on consumer complaints, yesterday published the names of five companies whose marketing practices are not in compliance with DMA’s self-regulatory Guidelines for Ethical Business Practice.

DMA works with both member and non-member companies to promote good business practices for direct marketers. Compliance with the Guidelines is a requirement of DMA membership. DMA’s Committee on Ethical Business Practice and Teleservices Ethics Committee are comprised of executives from member companies who investigate complaints about marketing practices that may violate DMA's self-regulatory guidelines.

"For the vast majority of complaints DMA receives, we are able to work with the companies to correct non-compliant practices and resolve the issues satisfactorily,” said Patricia Kachura, DMA’s senior vice president for corporate responsibility. “When we are unable to do so, our policy is to publicly name the companies that fail to cooperate with our investigations or comply with DMA’s ethical guidelines.”

If a company does not cooperate with DMA, and the committees believe violations of law may also have occurred, DMA refers the complaint to the appropriate law enforcement agencies.

From January – July 2007, the two DMA committees investigated 37 complaints about mail, e-mail, and telephone solicitations as well as the collection and sharing of marketing data. DMA was able to work with most of the companies involved to correct questionable practices.

However, concerns were not resolved with the following five companies, none of which are DMA members:

· Star Financial (Irvine, CA) did not fully address committee concerns about allegedly misleading promotional offers. The company initially responded to DMA’s inquiry by revising the questioned mortgage loan promotion, but did not address the lack of a privacy policy on its Web site.

· ExclusiveGiftCards.com (Delray Beach, FL) did not respond to committee concerns about the source of promotional e-mails and the alleged promotion of “free” gift certificates. The matter was referred to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for review.

· Aristar Resorts (Phoenix, AZ) was referred to the FTC, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Arizona Attorney General’s office because of committee concerns about cell phone calls allegedly made without affirmative consent.

· DADA USA, Inc. (New York, NY) was referred to the FTC, the FCC, and the New York Attorney General’s office for alleged failure to obtain affirmative consumer/parental consent for its ringtone subscription service, failure to disclose clearly and conspicuously the material terms of its agreement, and alleged failure to promptly honor refund and cancellation requests.

· Union Federal Mortgage Corporation (Nanuet, NY) was referred to the FTC, the FCC, the New York Attorney General’s office, and the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs because of committee concerns regarding alleged unsolicited automated calls.

In addition to the 37 in-depth case reviews, staff from DMA’s Corporate Responsibility department handled more than 5,000 inquiries from consumers needing assistance with reducing their overall volume of unwanted solicitations; having their names removed from lists of specific marketers; or making complaints about marketing transactions.

To access the full case report from DMA’s ethics committees, click here.

To access DMA’s Guidelines for Ethical Business Practice, click here.

# # #