Last Thursday a bunch of R.E.A.C.H. members sat down with FCC Commissioner Carr’s Office to discuss the pending NPRM involving lead generation and the parameters of consent under the TCPA.
We discussed a bunch of topics related to the NPRM and gave a quick presentation about the value of the industry, the challenge it now faces and–importantly–the fact that NCLC, EPIC and Public Knowledge are obtaining MILLIONS from TCPA judgments and settlements as funds are funneled to them via cy pres distributions.
You can read the entire ex parte filing here: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1091553405920/1
In the meantime though, I have to ask whether the NCLC doesn’t have to follow the rules everyone else does.
I mean, as already mentioned, they are pocketing millions as a “non profit” while claiming to represent “low income” clients–what a scam.
But there’s more to it than that.
For instance on August 24, 2023 Margot Saunders met with Rosenworcel’s chief legal advisor to discuss the NPRM. What was discussed exactly? I have no idea. Here is all it says:
This ex parte notice relates to a meeting that occurred today between me and Ramesh Nagarajan,
Chief Legal Advisor to Chairwoman Rosenworcel. During the meeting we discussed the comments
filed by the National Consumer Law Center on behalf of our low-income clients, as well as several
other national consumer and privacy groups in relation to 1) the FNPRM relating to unlawful text
messages,1 and 2) the NPRM relating to revocation of consent.
They discussed the comments. Ok… what exactly was discussed? No idea right?
Well, what’s interesting is the rules require a MEANNGFUL disclosure. Specifically they provide:
A person who makes an oral ex parte presentation subject to this section shall submit to the Commission‘s Secretary a memorandum that lists all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and summarizes all data presented and arguments made during the oral ex parte presentation. Memoranda must contain a summary of the substance of the ex parte presentation and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. If the oral ex parte presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter’s written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum.
See 47 C.F.R. 1.1206(b).
It is pretty obvious that the NCLC is NOT following the rules here. And that’s weird because they certainly know the rules– they’re in front of the Commission all the time.
Maybe they just think the rules don’t apply to them?
The rules also provide:
If a notice of an oral ex parte presentation is incomplete or inaccurate, staff may request the filer to correct any inaccuracies or missing information. Failure by the filer to file a corrected memorandum in a timely fashion as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, or any other evidence of substantial or repeated violations of the rules on ex parte contacts, should be reported to the General Counsel.
Dear FCC Staff: please request the NCLC supplement its August 24, 2023 filing to comply with the rules everyone else has to follow.