.
Storm of anti-Obama text messages linked to Virginia firm
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A controversial Virginia marketing and polling firm appears to have used a legal loophole to bombard scores of Americans with unsolicited text messages berating President Barack Obama less than a week before Election Day.
More than a dozen different messages landed on the screens of phone users late on Tuesday, originating from mysterious websites instead of phone numbers. They attacked Obama and Democrats on a variety of issues such as abortion, foreign policy, same-sex marriage and taxation.
The domain names of those websites had been registered with GoDaddy.com through a firm that masks original owners.
On Wednesday, Reuters compiled a list of at least nine websites gathered from reporters who received the political text messages. A review of websites that track domain name registrations revealed that three of the nine websites that sent the messages were registered by Jason Flanary. Those sites had been suspended for spam and abuse.
An email for Jason Flanary indicated he works for ccAdvertising, a division of FreeEats.com Inc. Neither Flanary or the firm returned requests for comment.
CcAdvertising’s website says: “All ccAdvertising services are compliant with all Do Not Call regulations and exceptions.”
Based in Centreville, Virginia, ccAdvertising is a firm that has represented Republican candidates. It has been fined, sued and pursued for aggressive political pushes that state authorities and private parties have argued violate laws against robo-calls and other types of automated phone contact.
- National gay rights group Human Rights Campaign complaint letter to the FCC [pof]
- FTC to Announce More Cases Against Deceptive “Robocallers”
Oct 3, 2012 – Supreme Court declines Indiana robo-call case | The Indiana Lawyer
The Supreme Court of the United States came back for its 2012 session and decided it will not take the appeal filed by a provider of prerecorded telephonic messages seeking to overturn enforcement of a ban on automated robo-calls in Indiana. FreeEats.com Inc. used an artificially intelligent calling system to contact residents throughout the country on behalf of its clients, including Economic Freedom Fund. The messages were political in nature. In 2006, Indiana filed a complaint alleging FreeEats.com had violated the state’s Autodialer Law. FreeEats.com contended the law violates the Indiana Constitution’s free speech clause.
FREEEATS.COM, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of INDIANA and Steve Carter, Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-3900.
Argued April 3, 2007. — September 12, 2007
Before MANION, EVANS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.John R. Maley, Barnes & Thornburg, Indianapolis, IN, John F. Cooney (argued), Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellant.Thomas M. Fisher (argued), Steve Carter, Office of Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendants-Appellees.Mark A. Davis, Office of Attorney General, Raleigh, NC, Amicus Curiae.
FreeEats.com, Inc., a provider of prerecorded telephonic messages, filed in federal district court a motion for a preliminary injunction and a declaratory judgment seeking to prevent Indiana from enforcing its statute prohibiting the use of automatic dialing machines to send prerecorded messages to Indiana telephone subscribers. Three days earlier, Indiana had filed an action in an Indiana state court against one of FreeEats’ clients, the Economic Freedom Fund, and numerous then-unknown prerecorded telephonic message providers, to enforce the Indiana statute. Based on its first-filed state court action, Indiana moved the district court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction pursuant to the principles of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), and to stay the case pending the resolution of its motion. The district court denied both of Indiana’s motions, as well as FreeEats’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Indiana and FreeEats cross-appealed. We reverse the district court’s denial of Indiana’s motion to dismiss pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine, and vacate its denial of FreeEats’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
State of North Dakota ex rel. Stenehjem v. FreeEats.com, Inc.
State of North Dakota
ex rel. Wayne Stenehjem,
Attorney General, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
FreeEats.com, Inc., dba
The FreeEats Companies,
ccAdvertising,
ccAdvertising.biz,
ccAdvertising.Info,
ElectionResearch.com,
FECads.com, and
FECResearch.com, Defendant and Appellant
——————————————————————————–
Appeal from: District Court, South Central Judicial District, Burleigh County Judge Gail H. Hagerty
