{"id":555,"date":"2007-02-24T00:50:51","date_gmt":"2007-02-24T04:50:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/shlep\/2007\/02\/24\/protection-for-door-to-door-purchasers\/"},"modified":"2007-02-24T00:50:51","modified_gmt":"2007-02-24T04:50:51","slug":"protection-for-door-to-door-purchasers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/shlep\/2007\/02\/24\/protection-for-door-to-door-purchasers\/","title":{"rendered":"protection for door-to-door purchasers"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0\"doorFrontF\"\u00a0 St. John’s law professor Jeff Sovern had a post\u00a0this week at Consumer Law & Policy Blog<\/em> on the continued\u00a0relevance of door-to-door sales regulation<\/a>\u00a0(Feb. 21, 2007).\u00a0 Although “Door-to-door sales were more common in the pre-spam, pre-telemarketing era,”\u00a0Jeff suggests that the Do Not Call Registry may have spurred increased use of door-to-door (“field selling”) by marketers.\u00a0\u00a0 This effect is also suggested by the New York Times<\/em> article “For Youth, a Grim Tour on Magazine Crews<\/a>,”\u00a0Feb. 21, 2007, which outlines terrible abuse of the young people used in door-to-door crews (and has links to related materials).<\/p>\n

A CNN\/AP<\/em> article from November 2003 asserts that the DNC Registry has in fact produced a resurgence in door-to-door sales. “Do-not-call list revives door-to-door sales<\/a>”\u00a0 states:<\/p>\n

“Now that the national do-not-call list makes it impossible to reach millions of potential customers, some marketing companies are returning to an old-fashioned alternative: door-to-door salespeople. . .<\/p>\n

“Other factors besides the do-not-call list have prompted companies to put sales staff back on the street. Unsolicited e-mail annoys most computer users, and improved spam-blockers make the tactic less effective. And it’s hard to persuade customers to visit a company’s Web site.”\u00a0\u00a0. . .<\/p>\n

“But door-to-door has its limits because it’s expensive and inefficient, said Walter Janowski, an analyst for the Gartner Group in Stamford, Connecticut.” . . .<\/p>\n

\"doorFront\"\u00a0“Door-to-door sales people also can run into similar problems as telemarketers\u2014laws, most of them local, that limit or ban soliciting. Some residential communities and urban apartment complexes prohibit it. Some towns require permits or have other restrictions, as in Rockville Centre, New York, which keeps a “do-not-knock” list that residents can join.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Localities have tried several tactics to protect residents from door-step solicitation and canvassing.\u00a0 However, in Watchtower<\/a> Bible & Tract Soc\u2019y of N.Y., Inc. v. Vill. of Stratton<\/em>, 536 U.S. 150 (2002), the U. S. Supreme Court struck down as a violation of free speech rights, an ordinance requiring permits and pre-registration for all<\/em> kinds of canvassing and solicitation.\u00a0 Nonetheless, the provisions<\/a> of the ordinance allowing residents to bar uninvited canvassers from their property by filing\u00a0a \u201cNo Solicitation Registration Form\u201d\u00a0and\u00a0posting\u00a0a \u201cNo Solicitation\u201d sign were not<\/em> challenged in Watchtower v. Stratton<\/em>, and the Court indicated that such regulation would be permitted.<\/p>\n

\"NoSolicitationS\"\u00a0 Do Not Knock laws<\/a> have, therefore, been enacted in localities around the nation, including Parma, OH\u00a0(text<\/a>); Berkeley, CA; New Brunswick, NJ; and Rockville Center, NY.\u00a0\u00a0 Under such laws, the resident must ask to be placed on the local Do Not Knock or No Solicitation list, and display a sticker.\u00a0 The application form allows the resident to designate various exceptions.\u00a0 If interested in DNK protection, check with your municipality to see whether it has a Do Not Knock list.\u00a0 As the Watchtower<\/em> Court reminds us, posting your own No Solicitation sign (and refusing to come to the door or engage in conversation) will often be more than adequate protection.<\/p>\n

The Federal Trade Commission’s\u00a0<\/strong>Cooling Off Rule<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0 \"doorFront\"\u00a0\"doorFrontF\"<\/p>\n

The consumer’s most potent protection against making pressured or otherwise unwise purchases at home is the Federal Trade Commission’s\u00a0Cooling Off Rule<\/a>\u00a0(formally known as Rule Concerning Cooling-Off Period for Sales Made at Homes or at Certain Other Locations; 16 CFR Part 429).\u00a0 It is explained in plain English in the FTC fact sheet The Cooling Off Rule: When and How to Cancel a Sale<\/a>.\u00a0 In brief:<\/p>\n

The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) Cooling-Off Rule gives you three days to cancel purchases of $25 or more. Under the Cooling-Off Rule, your right to cancel for a full refund extends until midnight of the third business day after the sale.<\/p>\n

The Cooling-Off Rule applies to sales at the buyer’s home, workplace or dormitory, or at facilities rented by the seller on a temporary or short-term basis, such as hotel or motel rooms, convention centers, fairgrounds and restaurants. The Cooling-Off Rule applies even when you invite the salesperson to make a presentation in your home.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The item purchased must be $25 or more, and there are several exceptions (e.g<\/em>., sales made entirely by mail or telephone, sales involving real estate, insurance, or securities). So, please\u00a0read the Fact Sheet<\/a> to learn of the exceptions, your\u00a0rights to information, how to cancel, and what to do if the seller does not comply.\u00a0<\/p>\n