Sorry, just saw this post, below:
First read the Foti case. There are several problems with that message, and if pursued properly they should reult in a check for you. The ACA "kind of" reccomends this language, but even they say it is open to lawsuit/ liability, and what you wrote doesn't even jibe with what they have "kind of" reccomended.
From the ACA information I have they recommended a message quoted above from the OP or no voicemail at all.
Here are slam dunk problems:
If their message gets to the right person it is a violation because there is no mii miranda.
The above VM complied with that -- MM stated.
If their message gets to the right person it violates because they fail to properly identify themselves.
The above VM complied with that -- company name and toll-free phone number given.
If their message gets to someone other than the proper party third party disclosure has taken place. It is not proper to put it upon the listener to hang up. Thats like handing a kid a loaded weapon and saying "don't touch the trigger", they have to do more than that since they can't leave their compliance and your right to privacy in the hands of unknown persons with unknown intentions and motivations.
Possibly. However, in this situation VM was delivered to correct person. The above version of FOTI gave option to call back to have number removed and stated a 3 second pause.
If this was a cell, you have a TCPA violation.
If cell was given to OC, and/or if permission was given to use dialing system and/or manual dialed call was made, then no violation.
@geoaimnet: You don't need a physical address to send CMMRR, it can be sent to a post office box. They get the cards to pick it up just like a regular address.
@scubamate: If they try to lie about their address (for example: giving a fake address), then yes it could be a violation.
@AXXEL: If the CA has several office locations, then it possible to have different addresses.