Monthly TCPA Digest - March 2017

by Mintz Levin

Mintz Levin

We are pleased to present the latest edition of our Monthly TCPA Digest, providing insights and news related to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). This month’s issue features updates on Congress’s approach to tech policy, the appointment of Ajit Pai as Chairman of the FCC, and various other Commission releases and action.

If you have suggestions for content you would like us to feature in this newsletter, or if you have any questions about the topics presented in this issue, please feel free to reach out to an attorney on Mintz Levin’s TCPA and Consumer Calling Practice team. You can click here to subscribe.

In This Edition

Part I – TCPA: Regulatory

Commission Releases and Actions

Part II – TCPA: Legislative

Interest This Congress in Tech Policy Bodes Well for TCPA Update

Part III – TCPA: Class Action and Litigation Updates

Chairman Pai’s Appointment: an Opportunity to Right the Ship

Part I – TCPA: Regulatory

Commission Releases and Actions

By Russell Fox and Radhika Bhat

  • The FCC adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) and Notice of Inquiry (“NOI”) that proposes to make it permissible for voice service providers to block certain illegal robocalls, noting in particular that robocalls where the Caller ID is faked – i.e. “spoofed” robocalls – can lure consumers into scams or lead to identity theft. Specifically, the NPRM proposes to adopt rules that would allow providers to block robocalls when (i) the subscriber to a particular number requests that calls originating from that number be blocked; or (ii) the calls are from invalid numbers, valid numbers that are not allocated to a voice service provider, or valid numbers that are allocated but not assigned to a subscriber. The FCC further tentatively concluded that an “illegal robocall” subject to provider-initiated blocking is one that violates the requirements of the TCPA or the Telemarketing Sales Rule, as well as any call made for the purpose of defrauding a consumer as prohibited under a variety of federal and state laws and regulations, including the Truth in Caller ID Act. The NPRM also seeks comment on how to address spoofing from internationally-originated numbers. The related NOI seeks comment on (i) objective standards that would indicate to a reasonably high degree of certainty that a call is illegal; (ii) whether to create a safe harbor for providers from their call completion obligations when they rely on objective criteria to prevent illegal robocalls from reaching consumers; and (iii) ways that callers who make legitimate calls can guard against being blocked and ways to ensure that legitimate callers whose calls are blocked by mistake can prevent further blocking.
  • The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau issued a Public Notice seeking comment on Craig Cunningham and Craig Moskowitz’s Petition for Rulemaking and Declaratory Ruling. The petition argues that prior Commission orders finding that persons who knowingly release their phone numbers have given their consent to be called at that number, absent instructions to the contrary, conflict with the plain language of the TCPA by allowing parties to make calls with implied consent, rather than with prior express consent as the statute mandates. The petition asks that the Commission initiate a rulemaking adopting requirements that (i) consent must be expressly provided (ideally the Commission would also require all express consent to be given in written form); and (ii) express consent must be specifically about receiving autodialed and artificial voice calls. In addition, the petition requests that the Commission issue a declaratory ruling to remove uncertainty regarding the meaning of “prior express consent” that has resulted from prior orders. Comments were due March 10, 2017 and reply comments were due March 27, 2017.

Other Notable Filings

  • Paul Ambruster filed and then withdrew a Petition for Rulemaking and Declaratory Ruling asking that the Commission clarify that a common carrier must act on its customer’s request to revoke consent to receive the carrier’s autodialed or pre-recorded/artificial voice calls, despite a common carrier’s ability under the TCPA to make such calls without the prior express consent of its customer. Ambruster stated that his petition was prompted by T-Mobile, which had taken the position that since a carrier need not obtain consent, consent is never needed, and therefore it matters not if a subscriber revokes it. The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau initially sought comment on the petition, but later terminated its consideration of the petition in response to Ambruster’s and T-Mobile’s joint motion to withdraw it.
  • The Republican National Committee (“RNC”) was one of the many parties that filed comments on Craig Moskowitz and Craig Cunningham’s Petition for Rulemaking and Declaratory Ruling. Among other things, the RNC argued that the petition’s proposals would unduly burden core political speech in violation of the First Amendment.

Part II – TCPA: Legislative

Interest This Congress in Tech Policy Bodes Well for TCPA Update

Congress is gearing up to legislate on a host of different issues related to technology and telecommunications. The House got off to an early start in January when it approved seven tech and telecom bills. One of those bills, the Anti-Spoofing Act of 2017 (H.R. 423), would close legal loopholes that bad actors exploit to “spoof” (i.e., to present false caller ID information) in order to misrepresent themselves in phone calls and texts. Sponsored by Representative Grace Meng (D-NY), the bill sailed through the House by a vote of 398-5. A day later, the Senate Commerce Committee unanimously approved a companion measure, titled the Spoofing Prevention Act of 2017 (S.134). Introduced by Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), the Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce Committee, this bill is a strong candidate for passage on the Senate floor.

More recently, several other tech bills have been introduced, including the Help Americans Never Get Unwanted Phone Calls (HANGUP) Act. Authored by Senator Ed Markey (D-MA), the legislation would remove a provision in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 that exempts government contractors and federal debt collectors from the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). This bill, which Senator Markey introduced earlier this month with Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), is a new version of the Act that he introduced last Congress. The two bills are nearly identical, with one exception: The new version reverses the Federal Communications Commission’s “Broadnet” decision, which found that the TCPA “does not apply to calls made by or on behalf of the federal government in the conduct of official government business, except when a call made by a contractor does not comply with the government’s instructions.” The HANGUP Act was referred to the Senate Commerce Committee where it awaits consideration.

As we have argued in previous alerts, the bills updating the TCPA that will have the best chance of becoming law are those that strengthen the law’s protections for consumers and reduce its ambiguity for businesses. During this Congress, Democrats have already started to advocate for the first of these two causes. Last month, Senator Markey led a letter, signed by eight other Senate Democrats, to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai calling for the Commission to take greater action against robocalls. Republicans have also advocated for tougher measures to clamp down on robocalls, which they have proposed to be included in a broader package that also clarifies the TCPA’s requirements for businesses.

This month, the Senate Commerce Committee held an FCC oversight hearing, which featured some discussion of robocalls. Committee Chairman Thune (R-SD) reaffirmed his interest in ensuring that the TCPA does not punish legitimate telemarketing activity, while Chairman Pai noted his work on rules to block robocalls from spoofed phone numbers.

At the hearing, two issues that could affect the future of the TCPA received a lot of attention: commissioner vacancies and process reform. Ranking Member Nelson and Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) urged President Trump to re-nominate former FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel to the Commission. Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) called on the Senate to return to the practice of pairing nominees of different parties together to confirm them simultaneously. He suggested that the Senate hold one vote to confirm both Chairman Pai (whom President Trump nominated to a full term this month) and former Commissioner Rosenworcel. Chairman Thune also asked Commissioner Mignon Clyburn to commit to serving out her full term; she said she has no plans to leave.

On process reform, Chairman Pai noted his commitment to release the text of items before the Commission considers them at its open meetings. He also voiced support for consolidating the FCC’s reporting obligations to Congress and reforming the Sunshine Act to allow for more collaborative and efficient decision-making among commissioners. Commissioner Michael O’Rielly, a vocal supporter of process reform, called for establishing a Bureau of Economics within the FCC, requiring rigorous cost-benefit analyses of all rulemakings, and instituting automatic sunsets for all Commission rules. He also said the FCC should limit the use of delegated authority, under which bureaus, rather than commissioners, can issue decisions. In the past, he has said that commissioners should be able to block bureaus from exercising delegated authority on any item on which two or more commissioners want a panel vote.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee had been slated to hold an FCC oversight hearing the same day as the Senate Commerce Committee did. However, it postponed the hearing due to Committee work on the Affordable Care Act. We expect the hearing to be rescheduled for this spring.

Part III – TCPA: Class Action and Litigation Updates

Chairman Pai’s Appointment: an Opportunity to Right the Ship

President Trump has appointed Commissioner Ajit Pai to serve as chairman of the FCC. The appointment is significant and will mark a shift in the Commission’s approach to the TCPA.

The “TCPA has become the poster child for lawsuit abuse,” notes Chairman Pai.[1] “Because plaintiffs may enforce the statute via class action[,] suits under the Act present lucrative opportunities for plaintiffs’ firms.”[2] Chief Justice Roberts has gone as far as to describe the statute as the “strangest” he has seen.[3] Adding to confusion and abuse, the Commission has issued a variety of inconsistent and overreaching orders and rulings throughout the last decade that have expanded the statute’s reach and created fertile ground for enterprising plaintiffs’ attorneys.

One of the Commission’s most notable missteps is its July 2015 TCPA Omnibus Declaratory Ruling and Order. There the Commission significantly increased exposure to TCPA suits by broadening the oft-contested definition of an automatic telephone dialing system. Among other issues, the Commission also addressed calls to reassigned numbers, impractically proclaiming that consent under the TCPA must be obtained from current subscribers to telephone numbers. Chairman Pai responded with a 12-page Dissenting Statement noting that rather than incentivizing “plaintiffs to go after the illegal telemarketers, the over-the-phone scam artists, and the foreign fraudsters[,] trial lawyers have found legitimate, domestic businesses a much more profitable target.”[4]

The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which has received briefing and held arguments, now holds the fate of the Ruling in its hands. If the Court sides against the Commission and directs it to reconsider the Ruling, Chairman Pai’s dissent provides more than a glimpse into the TCPA belt-tightening that the plaintiff’s bar can expect. For example, we can expect to see an automatic telephone dialing system definition that closely tracks the statute’s language and focuses on the present (rather than hypothetical) capacity of dialing equipment. Likewise, Chairman Pai’s dissent indicates that moving forward the Commission would endorse a more business-friendly and pragmatic “expected-recipient approach” to calls accidentally made to reassigned numbers.

Regardless of how the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rules, we can expect the Commission to correct the trajectory of the statute through pending and new petitions. By way of example, a petition that has been pending before the Commission since November 2015 asks for confirmation that faxes initiated, and received, in digital form do not fall within the purview of the TCPA’s fax provisions – though a pro-defendant ruling may have been unlikely under former Chairman Tom Wheeler, confirmation that these types of transmissions do not violate the TCPA is likely with Chairman Pai at the helm.

Chairman Pai recognizes that the “TCPA has strayed far from its original purpose. And the FCC has the power to fix that.”[5] With the appointment of Chairman Pai, who formerly served as Associate General Counsel at Verizon Communications, the Commission now has the power and opportunity to right the ship.


1  Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Ajit Pai, In re Rules & Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 30 FCC Rcd 7961 (2015).

2  Reliable Money Order, Inc. v. McKnight Sales Co., 704 F.3d 489, 491 (2013).

3  Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 132 S. Ct. 740 (2012) (No. 10-1195), Transcript Oral Argument.

4  Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Ajit Pai, In re Rules & Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 30 FCC Rcd 7961 (2015).

5  Id.


[View source.]

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Mintz Levin | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Mintz Levin

Mintz Levin on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.