June 4, 2023

Volume XIII, Number 155


June 03, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 02, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

TCPA Regulatory Update — FCC Enforcement Bureau Proposes Record Fine Against Robocaller

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau, aided by the USTelecom-led Industry Traceback Group, took action against a Florida-based company that allegedly engaged in an illegal robocall calling campaign to sell health insurance. The Enforcement Bureau issued its proposed $45 million fine — the largest TCPA robocall fine in FCC history — as part of a Notice of Apparent Liability (“NAL”) to the company for allegedly making over 500,000 robocalls. According to the FCC, the calls advertised that states’ health insurance open enrollment periods had been reopened due to COVID-19. The calls instructed consumers to call the number back to hear more about their options or that if they stayed on the line, the call would automatically be transferred to a call center operated by the company. The company obtained the numbers from consumers seeking online health insurance quotes but allegedly did not disclose that providing a telephone number might result in that consumer receiving robocalls. The company had also purchased phone numbers from third-party vendors.

The FCC’s investigation was prompted by a report from the Industry Traceback Group of suspected illegal robocall traffic. Following that report, the Enforcement Bureau reviewed consumer complaints, including those found online, about the company and its calls.

The Commissioners adopted the NAL by a vote of 4–0. Chairwoman Rosenworcel issued a separate statement in which she noted the severity of the fine but also called for more statutory and regulatory authority for the FCC to take action, explaining that “for [the FCC] to be truly effective when it comes to stopping robocalls more authority is needed. For starters, the decision last year by the Supreme Court in Facebook v. Duguid narrowed the definition of autodialer under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which could lead to less consumer protection from these annoying calls. We need to fix that. We also need more tools to catch those behind these calls, including the ability to seize assets to stop them in their tracks and even the authority to enable the Federal Communications Commission to go to court directly and collect against these bad actors — each and every one of them.”

©1994-2023 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume XII, Number 81

About this Author

Russell H. Fox, Communications Attorney, Mintz Levin, Regulatory Approvals

With over 35 years in the wireless telecommunications industry, Russell is among the most experienced wireless communications attorneys in the country. Unique among his peers, Russell assists clients on federal legislative, regulatory, and transactional matters. He analyzes legislation on behalf of clients, participates in proceedings before the FCC and other federal agencies, negotiates spectrum agreements, and represents wireless providers in spectrum auctions. He is also frequently consulted on matters involving US spectrum use and policy.

Whether they are in the middle of a...

Jonathan P. Garvin Communications & Media Attorney Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo Washington, DC

Jon focuses his practice on a wide range of legal challenges facing companies in the communications and media industries. He regularly advises clients on transactional, regulatory, and compliance issues before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) involving wireless, broadband, broadcast, and cable matters. In addition, Jon advises broadcast and print media clients on FTC and state-specific advertising rules and advises broadcast companies on Television Spectrum Repack and FCC license requirements. 

Jon brings FCC experience and insight to his engagements with the firm’s...