Home -> Law Blog Directory -> International Law Blogs -> Misleading Advertising Law

International Law

: Misleading Advertising Law

FTC Warns Consumers About Potential Charity Scams

Disasters bring out frauds and short cons.

The FTC, in its usual rational disclosure mode, suggests that if;

If you are asked to contribute to a charity, the FTC recommends that you:

Ask for the name of the charity if the telemarketer does not provide it promptly;

Ask what percentage of your donation will support the cause described in the solicitation;

Call the charity to find out if it's aware of the solicitation and has authorized the use of its name;

Do not provide any credit card or bank information until you have reviewed all information from the charity and made the decision to donate;

Ask for a receipt showing the amount of the contribution and stating that it is tax deductible; and

Avoid cash gifts. For security and tax record purposes, it's best to pay by check - made payable to the beneficiary, not the solicitor.

None of this is very good advice.

If you are solicited by telephone, you are on some broker's list - a sucker's list.

The caller will likely know a lot of information about you already, and the call is designed to push your hot buttons for action and not reflection.

It is not useful for the FTC to pretend that these behavioral tricks don't exist.

Weapons of Fraud, a free publication from the AARP, contains some scary examples of the telemarketing compliance techniques.

Take my word for it, after listening to the taped telephone calls from skilled telemarketers intent on bashing your mental defences and taking your money, you will buy an answering machine and screen your calls.

Related articles

• LifeLock and Identity Theft [via Zemanta]
• How to Avoid the Dreaded Telemarketer [via Zemanta]
• House extends national do-not-call registry [via Zemanta]
• Fake 'Do Not Call' E-Mail Is Back [via Zemanta]
• FTC Cracks Down On "Do Not Call" Abuse [via Zemanta]
• Why "Do Not Track" is Stupid [via Zemanta]

Full post as published by Misleading Advertising Law on June 17, 2008 (boomark / email).