on illegal robocalls

receive calls. It also targets Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service providers who facilitate tens of billions of illegal robocalls every year, which often originate overseas.

“Everybody hates robocalls — and everybody gets them, including me. Minnesotans file more complaints about robocalls with our office than about any other single problem. When it’s tough to afford your life, the last thing any of us needs is a scammer coming at us,” Ellison said.

“Minnesota is continuing to join forces in this fight with the federal government, attorneys general, and law enforcement around the country. We’re going to keep at it until every Minnesota is safe from this scourge.”

“Today, government agencies at all levels are united in fighting the scourge of illegal telemarketing. We applicants but not to others necessarily advantages the former at the expense of the latter,” Roberts wrote.

Though not a surprise, the decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina drew widespread condemnation from civil rights groups and praise from conservative politicians.

In my view as a race and equity legal scholar focused on business, the court had subtly established an affirmative action expiration date in its 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision.

In that case, Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in her majority opinion that “race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time,” adding that the “Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.”

In this opinion, the court moved that deadline to the forefront, and it is no longer the throwaway line that some believed at the time.

What the court’s are taking action against those who trick people into phony consent to receive these calls and those who make it easy and cheap to place these calls,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, who appeared at a news conference in Chicago today announcing the initiative. “The FTC and its law enforcement partners will not rest in the fight against illegal telemarketing.”

Ellison said he is committed to fighting the scourge of illegal robocalls and since he took office, has been active with national partners in doing so. In August 2022, he joined a multistate investigation into 20 so-called gateway providers that are allegedly responsible for enabling much of the robocall traffic in the United States, as part of the thennewly formed Anti-Robocall

Multistate Litigation Task Force.

In May 2023, he joined 48 states and the District of Columbia in suing Avid Telecom for generating more than 7.5 billion illegal robocalls to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, the first lawsuit to arise from the Anti-Robocall Multistate Litigation Task Force. In August 2019, Ellison joined 51 state attorneys general and 12 telecoms providers in adopting a set of principles to fight robocalls. Out of these principles have come free call-blocking and the common identification by providers of likely scam calls, both of which protect consumers and limit scammers access to them. Minnesota’s actions build on the work of its state and federal partners including

One of the most pressing concerns is the potential reduction in credit card access for minority communities. Credit cards have been crucial tools for economic empowerment, enabling individuals to establish credit histories and access financial growth opportunities. However, by imposing stricter regulations on credit card companies, the bill could increase the cost of providing credit cards. This could lead to lenders tightening their lending standards, making it more difficult for members of minority communities, particularly those with limited credit histories, to secure credit cards. This reduced access exacerbates existing economic disparities, hindering the upward mobility and financial well-being of minority individuals and communities. Additionally, the impact of the Credit Card Competition Act on rewards programs is deeply concerning. While the legislation claims to reduce fees, it could force credit card issuers to reconsider their business strategies. To make up decision in these 2023 cases means for college admissions officers is that the mere mention of using race to address racial and arguably gender disparities is unconstitutional. By their very nature, academia and corporations are conservative, and general counsels at these entities are likely to caution against any program targeting historically underrepresented people. At the most optimistic, this ruling forces higher learning institutions to revise programs and look to remedy past wrongs on a case-by-case basis. But its my belief that O’Connor’s deadline was one of desire and not reality. The vestiges of past discrimination and the unfortunate existence of ongoing discrimination continue. No deadline has made these wrongs

Jealous