United States v. Corporations for Character, L.C., 116 F. Supp. 3d 1258

FTC enforcement action against Corporations for Character, L.C., Feature Films for Families, Inc., Family Films of Utah, Inc., and Forrest Sandusky Baker III over alleged deceptive telemarketing; multiple campaigns including FOP, firefighter charities, Kids First, and Velveteen Rabbit; disputes over script evidence and Do-Not-Call compliance; proceedings include two evidentiary motions and five summary-judgment motions; court consolidated Florida action with Utah case.
Defendants provide fundraising and film-marketing via telemarketing using prerecorded snippets; retain large portions of proceeds; campaigns allegedly involved misleading statements regarding budgets, costs, and use of contributions.
FTC alleges statements misled consumers during FOP/Firefighters campaigns, Kids First volunteer program, and Velveteen Rabbit promotions; also alleges Do-Not-Call violations and improper caller-ID disclosures.
Defendants challenge the FTC’s evidence as hearsay/original-content issues and seek to strike exhibits; FTC contends sample scripts and recordings suffice to show content and deception.
Court grants partial summary judgment on some factual statements while denying others; certain Do-Not-Call liabilities established; remaining issues to be tried.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
First Amendment defense viability	FTC may pursue non-fraudual §5/TSR claims focused on content.	Defendants argue limits on charitable solicitation under First Amendment shield enforcement.	First Amendment defense not dispositive; material issues remain for trial.
Reasonable-consumer standard applicability	Section 5/TSR deceptive-practice standard applies to misleading statements.	Argues strict reliance on fraud-based approach; constitutional limits.	Court analyzes under reasonable-consumer standard; material factual disputes remain.
Kids First and Velveteen Rabbit misrepresentations	Sample scripts show statements to consumers were misleading.	Scripts show possible snippets; actual conversations contested.	disputed; some statements survive summary-judgment review, others require trial.
Do-Not-Call Registry liability for Kids First/KR campaigns	Calls violated TSR §310.4(b)(l)(iii)(B) and §310.4(b)(l)(iii)(A) (internal list).	Safe-harbor defenses and established business relationships may negate liability.	Summary judgment granted on liability for Kids First calls under §310.4(b)(l)(iii)(B); other Do-Not-Call issues reserved for trial.
Internal Do-Not-Call safe harbor applicability	Defendants failed compliance, contradicting safe harbor.	Evidence shows procedures/training; disputes over enforcement.	Dispute reserved for trial; safe-harbor defense unresolved.

Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 444 U.S. 620 (U.S. Supreme Court 1980) (First Amendment limits on charitable-solicitation laws; narrow tailoring required)
Maryland v. Joseph H. Munson Co., 467 U.S. 947 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (Prophylactic limits on charitable solicitations; fraud action can still constrain solicitations)
Riley v. National Federation of the Blind of North Carolina, 487 U.S. 781 (U.S. Supreme Court 1988) (Charitable-solicitation restrictions; distinction between content-based claims and broad bans)
Illinois ex rel. Madigan v. Telemarketing Associates, Inc., 538 U.S. 600 (U.S. Supreme Court 2003) (Exists room for fraud actions to guard against false solicitations; content-focused enforcement permissible)
FTC v. LoanPointe, LLC, 525 F. App’x 696 (10th Cir. 2013) (Appellate authority on FTC Act penalties and knowledge standards)