5 Highlights from the FCC's Report on Illegal Robocalls

Last week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released its first report on illegal robocalls, which outlines what the FCC have been working on to fight this issue. Here are some highlights from the report.

[article_ad]

1. Robocall Regulations

The report outlines the different laws and regulations that help the FCC regulate robocalls, including the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), Truth in Caller ID Act, and Do Not Call Implementation Act. The report also adds a side note that other industry-specific laws might apply, specifically calling out the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

2. Volume of Robocalls Continues to Increase, As Does Volume of Complaints

The volume of robocalls continues to increase, according to the report, but the data lumps together both legal robocalls made by legitimate businesses trying to communicate with their customers and illegal robocalls made by scammers. The FCC recognizes that legitimate business do try to make calls to their consumers in compliance with the TCPA, but that the framework created by legitimate businesses to place high volumes of calls to their customers also provides a ripe environment for scammers to take advantage of the situation.

The report notes a fluctuating, but generally increasing, amount of complaints made about robocalls. This is due to a number of factors according to the FCC, including an increase in robocalls, outreach to consumers about how to file complaints, and consumers filing complaints against legal, legitimate calls.

3. Caller ID Authentication

One initiative that the report mentions is actively being pursued is Caller ID Authentication. In other words, confirming that the call received by the consumer is actually coming from the number displayed. The FCC’s Chariman Ajit Pai called on voice service providers to “adopt a robust call authentication system and launch that system no later than 2019.” Comments to Chairman Pai’s request confirmed affirmed providers' commitment to this cause.

4. Enforcement Initiatives

Between 2010 and 2018, the FCC imposed monetary forfeitures of almost $246,000,000 through enforcement actions. These enforcement actions were brought against purported violates of the TCPA and the Truth in Caller ID Act.

5. Challenges Facing the FCC

The report lists several challenges that the FCC is facing in its efforts to combat illegal robocalls. These include:

• Many illegal robocalls seem to originate in foreign countries.
• These calls appear to be coming from VoiP providers, many of whom do not update the FCC nor keep accurate records of all calls made across their networks
• The 1 year statute of limitations for TCPA actions makes it difficult for the FCC to complete complex investigations into the issue.
• Notice via citation requirements that the FCC must follow prior to a forfeiture proceeding give time for offenders to incorporate under a new name and evade the issue.

insideARM Perspective

One very interesting comment made in this report states:

When their phone rings, consumers may not have enough information to tell whether the call is wanted, unwanted, or illegal. The phone may display Caller ID and possibly a label from their voice service provider or a third-party application.  But Caller ID may be spoofed or blocked, and labelers may not have complete information about the calling party. Currently, the only certain way to determine whether a call is wanted or unwanted is to answer it or let it go to voicemail, and hope the caller leaves a message.

(Emphasis added).

The FDCPA, as well as case law that interprets the statute, lays out many restrictions about what a debt collector can and cannot say when communicating with consumers. The debt collector generally may not reveal information about the account to third parties, which causes an awkward authentication dance in the beginning of phone calls. The two most recent editions of iA’s Video Series discuss this exact issue (here are links to Part 1 and Part 2). Voicemails go a step further: debt collectors have prescribed scripts they need to use in order to leave voicemails that do not trigger an onslaught of litigation. The scripts are somewhat vague and, quite frankly, would make it difficult for a consumer to determine whether the voicemail came from a legitimate business.

When a consumer receives a call from a debt collector using a number unknown to the consumer, the report states that the consumer has two choices to determine whether the call is legitimate: answer the call (which only happens 52% of the time) or wait for a voicemail. The voicemail, as discussed above, will sound weird, decreasing the odds of the consumer calling back.

This illustrates what we at insideARM have been stating for a while: debt collectors are left in the dust.