Presidential Who's Who gets hefty fine

The Federal Communications Commission has ordered a Valley Stream company, Presidential Who’s Who, to pay a $345,000 fine for what they say are violations of consumer privacy. The company on Rockaway Avenue recognizes top business and professional individuals for their success in a yearly publication, which is advertised to consumers.

FCC officials said this organization has delivered several unsolicited advertisements to telephone fax machines of 69 consumers between September 2009 and April of this year.

In the commission’s Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, also known as an NAL, on Sept. 13, FCC states at least 73 unsolicited faxes were sent to consumers to advertise entry into and the sale of the company’s publication, “Presidential Who’s Who Among Business and Professional Achievers.” This move, FCC stated, is in violation of section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934, which makes it unlawful to use any telephone, facsimile machine, computer or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement in the U.S. unless there is an established business relationship between two parties and certain conditions are met.

“We put up the NAL and that is what we have to say about it,” said David Fiske, director of the commission’s Office of Media Relations. “We had contact with the parties involved and we stand by our document.”

Fiske added that the bureau got complaints and then issued the action, which is the second one against the company, according to the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau. A citation was filed in June 2008 in response to one or more consumer complaints that alleged the company faxed unsolicited advertisements for entry in and sale of their publication. The citation warned that subsequent violations of the Act and the commission’s rules could result in fines of up to $11,000 per violation for the company.

According to the NAL, a company representative requested an interview with commission staff and made a claim that the fax on which the citation was based was not an advertisement. FCC officials disagreed with the claim citing that the company’s faxes promoted free services serving as a pretext for later solicitations and consumers did not give their permission for the faxes, according to complaints.

The current imposed fine is based on those 69 consumer complaints made after the date of the 2008 citation. As stated in the NAL, the commission’s forfeiture policy statement does not establish a base forfeiture amount for sending the unsolicited advertisements, but the commission has previously considered $4,500 per unsolicited fax advertisement to be an appropriate base amount, which is applied to each of the violations totaling $315,000. Three consumers out of the 69 made a request to the company to stop sending faxes, according to the FCC. The commission considers $10,000 per unsolicited fax advertisement when company continues to send faxes despite a consumer request to cease and desist.

The company had 30 days after the Sept. 13 release date of the NAL to either pay the full amount or file a written statement seeking a reduction or cancellation of the proposed fine, according to the NAL. But the case is still ongoing. “They had the opportunity to come back and say they think we are wrong for the following reasons,” Fiske said. “The next step is that we receive information from the company and a decision is made.”

The company has the opportunity to submit evidence and arguments in response to show no fine should be imposed or that some lesser amount should be assessed. In a phone conversation to the Herald, a representative from Presidential Who’s Who involved in the proceedings declined to comment, citing it as a private matter.