> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# AT&T pays for unwanted calls
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/at-t-pays-for-unwanted-calls-2/
- Published: 2003-02-24T16:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-23T01:38:47.000Z
- Author: John Wood
- Tags: local, Santa Monica, #archive-import

Seeking refuge from unsolicited phone calls to his Santa Monica home, Deverin Karol called AT&T last March and asked to be placed on a “do not call” list.

But nearly a year later the calls were still flooding in, Karol said, so he filed a lawsuit against his phone service provider for $5,000 — the limit in small claims court.

Unwanted telemarketing calls are illegal and under the 1991 Telephone Consumer Protection Act and companies placing them can be held liable for $500 in damages for each call. That amount in turn can be tripled if the caller intentionally violates a recipient’s “do not call” request.

Karol claimed that AT&T and their subsidiaries did just that. In his complaint, he alleged that AT&T “knowingly and willfully” placed repeated telemarketing calls to his home, beginning in March of 2001.

Malcolm Ross, an AT&T representative, told the court a different story. He brought a print-out of all incoming calls answered at Karol’s home over the past two years. Ross said the document proved only one of the calls came from a telemarketer, and it was placed before Karol asked not to be contacted.

“My contention is that we complied (with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act). He contacted us, requested us to stop (calling) and we did,” Ross said. “We’ve all been on the receiving end of unsolicited calls and it’s annoying.”

Karol, who kept a detailed log of the time and date of each unwanted call, further questioned the phone company’s actions.

“Is it possible that this is wrong? Absolutely. Is it possible that these records are doctored? Absolutely. This is a company that denied receiving certified mail from me,” Karol told the court.

Karol, who said he has not collected on previous judgments of $1,000 and $2,500 against other companies for similar abuses of the law, claimed he wasn’t suing for the money. He told the court he just wants to put an end to the unsolicited calls.

Commissioner Roberta Kyman, who took the matter under submission, later ruled against the phone company for $500 plus court costs.

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on February 24, 2003.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/022403.pdf?ref=smdp.com)