TCN Launches TCN Operator, Its Next-Generation Call Center Platform with a Comprehensive Suite of Automated Agent Tools and Advanced Apps
Share Article
TCN, Inc. today announced the launch of TCN Operator, the next generation of its flagship platform. A scalable and flexible cloud-based platform, TCN Operator features a comprehensive set of easy-to-use, automated agent tools and advanced apps that all work together to boost agent productivity and improve customer experience. TCN Operator is a holistic collection of advanced call center tools that are seamlessly integrated into one cloud-based platform that puts everything in one place and allows monitoring of operations from virtually anywhere.” - Jesse Bird, chief technology officer, TCN
The Eleventh Circuit’s far-reaching decision in
Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Management Services, Inc. which we previously covered on this blog continues to raise questions for the wide range of industries that fall within the FDCPA’s definition of “debt collectors.” To put it briefly, the Eleventh Circuit held that a debt collector violates the FDCPA when it communicates with any third party including a vendor or other party assisting with the collection or servicing of the loan regarding the loan or debt.
One issue not considered by the Eleventh Circuit is whether the court’s interpretation of the FDCPA’s prohibition on disclosures to third parties renders the statute unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Last month, the Supreme Court resolved a long-standing circuit split over the definition of an “automatic telephone dialing system” (ATDS) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The highly-anticipated decision in
Facebook v. Duguid narrowed the type of equipment that constitutes an ATDS, and therefore drastically limited the scope of “automated” calls and texts that violate the TCPA.
The definition of an ATDS has been a frequent disagreement among the circuits, particularly since the D.C. Circuit struck the FCC’s broad interpretation of the TCPA in 2018 in
Legal Disclaimer
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
When a dialing platform or voice service provider is sued under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), it often can successfully move to dismiss because it did not make the calls at issue or is immune from liability as a common carrier.
These and other defenses were recently raised by several voice service providers in a putative TCPA class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of West Virginia, but were rejected when the court denied the carriers motion to dismiss. The court s decision provides a critical lesson and warning for voice service providers and emphasizes the need to step up illegal robocall mitigation efforts.