Are we permitted to call customers (when we have not received a response to our mailings regarding opting-in for overdraft protection) even if they are on the external or our internal Do Not Call lists. Since this is related to a service they already have and we are merely trying to establish whether the wish to retain that service, it is not a new marketing endeavor, correct, and therefore not subject to DNC prohibitions?

Yes, I would agree that it would be OK.

What if I say no I don't want the overdraft service and you try to convince me to sign up for it? The call just turned into a marketing call and you would be hard pressed to convince me that the underlying purpose of the call was not to "market" this product to the ones opting out.

If they didn't return your notice then I would assume they did not want to opt in.

Dan, I think that could be a dangerous assumption. The mail in our area is so bad, that you could not assume that the customer received it.

To keep it from turning into a marketing call, just take a yes or no answer and if they want more information, refer them to their local branch or call center.

Dan - in today's wacky regulatory witch-hunt world, I'd be leery of assuming that no response means they aren't interested. I envision an over-zealous regulator assuming that no response meant that the customer did not receive the mailing/statement stuffer/email and that without proof to the negative (and we all know you can't prove a negative) then they're gonna have to write you up for not providing notice.

I'd rather have to defend that the call was an attempt to clarify if they received notice rather than a marketing call.

I'll be the first to admit that I have not studied this rule extensively because deposit ops is handled by another person and does not fall under my umbrella. In fact I have only skimmed the high lights.

Does the revision require you to "prove" that the consumer received your notice? The only way to do this is send everything by certified mail with a return receipt requested. Also does it require you to have an "opt out" for the overdraft program?

If you did not receive returned mail then I would assume the notice was received, what other assumption am I to make. If I don't have return mail and they have not responded by the specified date then I will assume they chose not to opt in and I will not pay their overdrafts.




The delivery of the mail by the USPS is not yours or my responsibility.


If there is something in the regulation that mandates you have proof the notice was received and that you must either have an opt in or an opt out to the overdraft program then I stand corrected, but if there is no such regulatory requirement then I'll be darned if I'm going to create additional work for myself.

And to get back to the phone call. The whole purpose of your call is to solicit the customer to opt in to a service that you provide. I still can't see this as anything but a marketing call. You are asking them if they are interested in a product that you are offering.

Mr. Customer, we recently mailed you information concerning our overdraft program asking you to reply if you wanted to opt in. We have not received that reply therefore we are calling to see if you are interested in opting in to our program offering so that we may continue to honor your overdrafts through the program.

How is that not a marketing/solicitation call?

There is not currently any regulation other than Reg F concerning correspondent conentration risk, and while there is a new proposal winding its way through the process, regulators are already writing banks up for have a concentration of over 25% at any one correspondent. There are many other issues of this nature that regulators are doing at this time of heightened scrutinization. So, while I agree that there is nothing that requires you to prove it was received, it would not surprise me to see a regulator grab hold of this and make it an issue.

It is in reference to a service they already have (see Anon poster's original information). Marketing is for a product the customer does not yet have. This appears to be merely a service call to establish the customer's desire to continue the existing service. In keeping with the spirit of the regulation, I believe taking this step to establish the customer's desire would supercede the internal Do Not Call list. Especially given the potential for customer problems if they think they have the service still and it just "goes away" because they failed to respond.

Hold the fork, I agree with SamIam!

The planets must be in alignment!