6/18/2015: FCC’s Post-TCPA Decision Press Release

  • Email
  • Print
  • Printing Articles

    1. Click here to print!
    2. ...or print directly from your browser by choosing File > Print... from the menu or by pressing [Ctrl + P]. Our printer-friendly stylesheet will make sure extraneous website stuff isn't printed.
    3. You're done!

    Close this message.

  • Comments
  • RSS

WASHINGTON, June 18, 2015 – The Federal Communications Commission today adopted a  proposal to protect consumers against unwanted robocalls and spam texts. In a package of  declaratory rulings, the Commission affirmed consumers’ rights to control the calls they receive.  As part of this package, the Commission also made clear that telephone companies face no legal  barriers to allowing consumers to choose to use robocall-blocking technology.

The rulings were informed by thousands of consumer complaints about robocalls the FCC  receives each month. Complaints related to unwanted calls are the largest category of complaints  received by the Commission, numbering more than 215,000 in 2014.

Today’s action addresses almost two dozen petitions and other requests that sought clarity on how  the Commission interprets the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), closing loopholes  and strengthening consumer protections already on the books. The TCPA requires prior express  consent for non-emergency autodialed, prerecorded, or artificial voice calls to wireless phone  numbers, as well as for prerecorded telemarketing calls to residential wireline numbers.  The rulings provide much needed clarity for consumers and businesses. Highlights for consumers  who use either landline or wireless phones include:

  • Green Light for ‘Do Not Disturb’ Technology
    • Service providers can offer robocall-blocking technologies to consumers and implement market-based solutions that consumers can use to stop unwanted robocalls.
  • Empowering Consumers to Say ‘Stop’
    • Consumers have the right to revoke their consent to receive robocalls and robotexts in any reasonable way at any time.
  • Reassigned Numbers Aren’t Loopholes
    • If a phone number has been reassigned, companies must stop calling the number after one call.
  • Third-Party Consent
    • A consumer whose name is in the contacts list of an acquaintance’s phone does not consent to receive robocalls from third-party applications downloaded by the acquaintance.

Additional highlights for wireless consumers include:

  • Affirming the Law’s Definition of Autodialer
    • “Autodialer” is defined in the Act as any technology with the capacity to dial random or sequential numbers. This definition ensures that robocallers cannot skirt consumer consent requirements through changes in calling technology design or by calling from a list of numbers.
  • Text Messages as Calls
    • The Commission reaffirmed that consumers are entitled to the same consent-based protections for texts as they are for voice calls to wireless numbers.
  • Internet-to-Phone Text Messages
    • Equipment used to send Internet-to-phone text messages is an autodialer, so the caller must have consumer consent before calling.
  • Very Limited and Specific Exemptions for Urgent Circumstances
    • Free calls or texts toalert consumers to possible fraud on their bank accounts or remind them of important medication refills, among other financial alerts or healthcare messages, are allowed without prior consent, but other types of financial or healthcare calls, such as marketing or debt collection calls, are not allowed under these limited and very specific exemptions. Also, consumers have the right to opt out from these permitted calls and texts at any time.

Today’s actions make no changes to the Do-Not-Call Registry, which restricts unwanted telemarketing calls, but are intended to build on the Registry’s effectiveness by closing loopholes and ensuring that consumers are fully protected from unwanted calls, including those not covered by the Registry.

By taking action today, the Commission is embracing the opportunity afforded by the 23 requests for clarification of the law to clearly stand with consumers against unwanted calls.

Action by the Commission June 18, 2015 by Declaratory Ruling and Order (FCC 15-72).

Chairman Wheeler and Commissioner Clyburn, Commissioners Rosenworcel and O’Rielly approving and dissenting in part and Commissioner Pai dissenting. Chairman Wheeler, Commissioners Clyburn, Rosenworcel, Pai and O’Rielly issuing statements.

  • Email
  • Print
  • Printing Articles

    1. Click here to print!
    2. ...or print directly from your browser by choosing File > Print... from the menu or by pressing [Ctrl + P]. Our printer-friendly stylesheet will make sure extraneous website stuff isn't printed.
    3. You're done!

    Close this message.

  • Comments
  • RSS

Posted in Accounts Receivable Management, Collection Laws & Regulations, Collection Laws and Regulations, Collection Technologies, Debt Collection News, Dialers, TCPA .

×
Subscribe to our email newsletters

Continuing the Discussion

We welcome and encourage readers to comment and engage in substantive exchanges over topics on insideARM.com. Users must always follow our Terms of Use. Also know that your comment will be deleted if you: use profanity, engage in any kind of hate speech, post an incoherent or irrelevant thought, make a point of targeting anyone, or do anything else we find unsavory. Your comment will be posted under your current Display Name, shown below. If you'd like to change your Display Name, you must update it on the My Profile page.

  • avatar Kenlyn Gretz says:

    We need some help from the Wireless Association. http://www.ctia.org A centralized database of consumers/end users and their current cell phones so we all call the right party. No business wants to call the WRONG party, that is a waste of our time. The CTIA should be helping this cause and they don’t because they make money off of the wrong number calls (end user minutes are used up ).
    Robocall-blocking technology: This tool may be a good thing. If blocking technology is available and consumers use it, great. At least I will know who does not want my calls. That is if the wireless industry can take the blocking off when the phone number is re-assigned. Imagine their liability of the consumers do not get important calls. Then, I think of this: If blocking is available to a consumer and they don’t use it can we still be liable under the TCPA?

Leave a Reply