OK. Thanks. That makes me feel/sleep much better.
Nathan. … You’re a Rock Star!!!
Here is the final court order.
Note that the court order defines a home inspector contracted to Thornberry as falling under this court order, as follows:
IMO, one precedent of concern to you might be the rules that this order places upon “Lead Generators” in future cases.
For example…
This order makes the above requirement the duty of the “Lead Generator” who is responsible to the FTC for his compliance. This would, IMO, render the present contract language mandated by Thornberry as noncompliant and puts the inspector/Lead Generator, not Thornberry, at risk for noncompliance.
Using a home inspection agreement for this purpose is unethical and … according to one state attorney general … “legally invalid”.
Chris’s original intent to put this into a separate form for inspectors wishing to participate in these kickbacks was the way to go. Turning a blind eye to this to accommodate kickbacks from Thornberry is your prerogative … but it is not in the best interest of the public, IMO.
Thanks Nathan! I couldn’t of done it without your help… You’re Awesome!
Nick I think the limits of liability should be a separate piece of paper. I would think that the consumer would want to know that more than us giving their number out.
Hey you two…that is nothing. Bushart has quadrupled his home inspection business in the last 6 months!
Reminds me of a song…Nothing from nothing leave nothing, ya gotta have something…
He’s out of order? Your out of order…Nicks out of order, Farsettas out of order…all of damn Nachi it out of order!..
Sorry, I like Al
I will repeat my statement that, in its order, the court defines a “Lead Generator” in the exact same manner that a home inspector contracts to Thornberry … “any person that provides, in exchange for consideration, consumer information to a Seller or Telemarketer for use in the marketing of any goods or services.”
The court order places requirements and accountability upon such “lead generators”.
IMO, one precedent of concern to you might be the rules that this order places upon “Lead Generators” in future cases.
For example…
This order makes the above requirement the duty of the “Lead Generator” who is responsible to the FTC for his compliance. This would, IMO, render the present contract language mandated by Thornberry as noncompliant and puts the inspector/Lead Generator, not Thornberry, at risk for noncompliance.
Using a home inspection agreement for this purpose is unethical and … according to one state attorney general … “legally invalid”.
Chris’s original intent to put this into a separate form for inspectors wishing to participate in these kickbacks was the way to go. Turning a blind eye to this to accommodate kickbacks from Thornberry is your prerogative … but it is not in the best interest of the public, IMO.
My post directed to Nick Gromicko stands. Whatever kind of spin that this lead broker wants to place upon it is of no concern to me.
I will repeat my statement that, in its order, the court defines a “Lead Generator” in the exact same manner that a home inspector contracts to Thornberry … “any person that provides, in exchange for consideration, consumer information to a Seller or Telemarketer for use in the marketing of any goods or services.”
The court order places requirements and accountability upon such “lead generators”.
IMO, one precedent of concern to you might be the rules that this order places upon “Lead Generators” in future cases.
For example…
This order makes the above requirement the duty of the “Lead Generator” who is responsible to the FTC for his compliance. This would, IMO, render the present contract language mandated by Thornberry as noncompliant and puts the inspector/Lead Generator, not Thornberry, at risk for noncompliance.
Using a home inspection agreement for this purpose is unethical and … according to one state attorney general … “legally invalid”.
Chris’s original intent to put this into a separate form for inspectors wishing to participate in these kickbacks was the way to go. Turning a blind eye to this to accommodate kickbacks from Thornberry is your prerogative … but it is not in the best interest of the public, IMO.
My post directed to Nick Gromicko stands. Whatever kind of spin that this lead broker wants to place upon it is of no concern to me.
Nothing changes the fact that, within the last two weeks, the FTC is cracking down on alarm systems companies that are telemarketing home owners using private information sold to them by lead brokers.
Caveat emptor.
Nathan is correct.
Jim,
The order clearly states the following.
ORDER
I. Prohibition Against
Abusive Telemarketing Practices
IT IS ORDERED that, in connection with Telemarketing, Defendants and their
Representatives are permanently restrained and enjoined from engaging in, causing others to engage in, or assisting others engaging in, any of the following practices:
A. Initiating any Outbound Telephone Call to any person at a telephone number on
the National Do Not Call Registry, unless Defendants prove that:
- Defendants have obtained the express agreement, in writing, of such
person to place calls to that person. Such written agreement shall clearly
evidence such person’s authorization that calls made by or on behalf of Defendants may be placed to that person, and shall include the telephone number to which the calls may be placed and the signature of that person;
or
- Defendants have an Established Business Relationship with such person,
and that person has not previously stated that he or she does not wish to
receive Outbound Telephone Calls made by or on behalf of Defendants;
By signing my agreement my clients clearly agrees to be contacted by a third party provider. If you don’t want to be contacted my client clearly has the option to opt out. How you ask… don’t sign my agreement. In my case however I tell them to contact me no later than 2 hours after the inspection is complete because I never send info to Nathan any earlier than that. There is nothing wrong with what Nathan or I as a home inspector is doing and the order clearly states that in my opinion unless I’m missing something.
He is simply comparing what you do to the order.
Sorry Billy, that doesn’t fit with Bushart’s agenda and has been summarily ruled irrelevant and worthy to be ignored.
I do thank you for pointing it out for all the inspectors who have had their businesses and ethics questioned over the past year.
I have to disagree. James chooses his words carefully, especially when he is not in the members-only sections.
That is designed to mislead those who are either using RWS services or considering them by making them think Nate, or inspectors he works with or Nate’s contracts are mentioned in the court order. When called on it, he can feign a poor choice of wording, but the impression he intended has been made. The truth is irrelevant, what matters is what he can make people think is true.