alt Hacker News> And in fact businesses have to regularly check for requests even like "please don't send me messages" to be compliant.
That's only vaguely true. The FCC has effectively said "here's a list of words that are considered reasonable opt out words and let the courts decide what is reasonable when there is a dispute." [0] They're basically deferring to the courts to determine reasonableness.
Obviously it's a good practice to remove people who are intentionally obtuse, but the courts really don't like people who don't follow the instructions, especially because sending "please don't send me messages" is more inconvenient than sending "STOP":
> The court held that “[t]he totality of the plausibly alleged facts, even when viewed in Plaintiff’s favor, militate against finding that Plaintiff’s revocation method was reasonable.” It also rejected the notion that there is something improper about prompting called parties to text “STOP,” explaining that “heeding Defendant’s opt-out instruction would not have plausibly been more burdensome on Plaintiff than sending verbose requests to terminate the messages.”
[1]
That said, it's reasonable to expect that replying "stop" regardless of case should stop those messages from coming through.
[0]: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-24A1.pdf
[1]: https://tcpablog.com/2017/revocation-consent-must-reasonable...
Replies
Sorry for the late reply, but these are rules from the CTIA, not the FCC that I am referring to. The CTIA being an industry body for telecoms in US.
> but the courts really don't like people who don't follow the instructions
If you contact me without my consent I now have to follow your instructions to stop your harassment?
Nonsense.
> The FCC has effectively said "here's a list of words that are considered reasonable opt out words and let the courts decide what is reasonable when there is a dispute." They're basically deferring to the courts to determine reasonableness.
Yikes. The lawyer dog comes to mind (a Fifth and Sixth Amendment Supreme Court case). Suspect speaks voluntarily to police until he realizes they suspect him of a crime. He stops and says, "I want a lawyer, dawg." What is meant to happen then is that the interrogation is stopped until that point. Police carried on the interrogation, and the Court ruled that statements he made in that period of time were admissible in securing a conviction against him.
When this was appealed, the Louisiana Supreme Court declined to hear it, saying, with a completely straight face, that there was ambiguity, and that since the police could reasonably believe that he was in fact asking for a canine lawyer, i.e. Lawyer McDog, Esquire, and that they couldn't find such an attorney, there was no invocation of counsel that warranted a termination of the interview.