Articles Posted in FCC Enforcement

Published on:

By and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others.  This month’s issue includes:

  • FCC Extends Consent Decree After New “Issues” Arise
  • FCC Resolves Pirate Radio Investigation With 20-Year Consent Decree
  • Spurious Emissions Lead to Notice of Violation for FM Translator Licensee

Order Extends Consent Decree Obligations Through 2029

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau recently released an Order amending a 2024 Consent Decree with a nationwide business communications company extending the company’s compliance obligations by an additional year.  Under the amended terms, the company will now be required to file compliance reports through 2029 and report any noncompliance with the FCC’s rules or the Consent Decree during the now extended term within 15 days of discovery.  The Order did not assess any new fines, but incorporated the extended reporting period and updated several provisions of the original Consent Decree.  The FCC did not elaborate on the reasons it deemed the extension necessary, stating only that it was done “to resolve issues arising after adoption and release of the Consent Decree.”

As we discussed here in April 2024, the company agreed to the original Consent Decree to resolve an FCC investigation into its unauthorized control and operation of multiple private business radio licenses.  The investigation stemmed from the company’s acquisition of entities holding FCC licenses without prior FCC approval, along with continued operations under expired or improperly transferred authorizations.  To resolve the investigation, the company agreed to pay a $100,000 civil penalty, implement a multi-year compliance plan, and submit annual compliance reports to the FCC for four years.  Due to the additional “issues,” the four-year compliance plan is now a five-year compliance plan.

The important takeaway from this proceeding is that a consent decree does not mark the end of an investigatory encounter with the FCC, but is merely a waypoint.  The penalty for a repeated offense while the consent decree is still in effect can be substantial.  In addition, most consent decrees require the alleged violator to promptly report any new violations to the FCC, greatly increasing the likelihood that new violations will come to light (and of course concealing violations that a consent decree requires be promptly reported ramps up the risk of severe FCC enforcement action considerably).  So those who sign a consent decree thinking the worst is behind them need to make a concerted effort to ensure that there are no future violations as well, particularly during the term of the consent decree.  The enforcement process does not end when the “voluntary contribution” payment is made under a consent decree.  It continues quietly, through compliance reports, follow-up reviews, and, when needed, renewed enforcement action.

Massachusetts Pirate Radio Operator Agrees to Lengthy 20-Year Consent Decree

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau has entered into a Consent Decree with an individual operating a pirate radio station in Massachusetts.  Pirate radio operations are illegal under the Communications Act of 1934 and can interfere with licensed communications, posing a danger to the public by interfering with licensed stations carrying public safety messages, including Emergency Alert System transmissions.

The Consent Decree follows the FCC’s issuance of a $40,000 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in April 2024 for operating an unauthorized FM broadcast station without a license.  In the NAL, the FCC found that the individual had twice violated the FCC’s Rules, on June 6 and July 11, 2023, by operating an unauthorized radio station.  Under Section 511 of the Communications Act, the FCC may impose a fine against any person “who willfully and knowingly does or causes or suffers to be done any pirate radio broadcasting.” Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others. This month’s issue is a special edition:

FCC Enforcement Monitor—The Government Shutdown Edition
While shutdowns of the federal government have become depressingly common, the FCC has generally been less affected than most government agencies because it is not funded by taxpayer dollars but by regulatory fees paid by broadcasters and others regulated by the FCC. However, because the FCC collects those fees in arrears—at the end of the fiscal year they fund rather than the beginning—the FCC must borrow operating funds from the federal government to operate and then repay that debt when regulatory fees are collected at the end of the fiscal year. That is the reason the FCC is never able to extend its regulatory fee collection deadline beyond September 30, the last day of the federal fiscal year.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others.  This month’s issue includes:

  • $7,000 Consent Decree for National Cell Phone Provider Marketing Unauthorized Smartphone
  • FCC Pursues Missouri Property Owners Over Pirate Radio Broadcasts
  • New Hampshire AM Station Gets Notice of Violation for Failing to Air Station IDs

FCC Settles Investigation Into Marketing of Unauthorized Smartphone

A national wireless provider entered into a Consent Decree with the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau for marketing a smartphone in the United States prior to receiving equipment authorization for it from the Commission.  The phone was announced and marketing of it commenced on May 14, 2024.  The provider advertised and otherwise marketed the phone for over a week until it was made available for purchase on May 23, 2024.  The phone received an FCC equipment authorization on May 29, 2024.  During that two-week period, thousands of phones were sold to consumers in violation of the FCC’s equipment marketing rules.

Section 302(b) of the Communications Act and Section 2.803(b) of the FCC’s Rules prohibit marketing or importing radio frequency devices prior to receiving equipment authorization by the FCC.  “Marketing” includes selling, leasing, offering for sale or lease, advertising for sale or lease, importing, shipping, or distributing the device for sale or lease.  Sections 2.1203 and 2.1204 of the FCC’s Rules require radio frequency devices to receive equipment authorization approval prior to importation into the U.S. unless the device qualifies for an exemption and complies with the FCC’s applicable technical and administrative requirements.

In October 2024, the FCC sent a Letter of Inquiry (LOI) to the provider requesting information about the marketing of the smartphone and seeking information regarding compliance with the FCC’s import restrictions.  The provider timely responded to the LOI, explaining that it typically “relies on manufacturers to ensure that FCC equipment authorization procedures are met” and citing its contractual terms with the manufacturer regarding authorization prior to delivery.  The FCC determined, however, that those contractual references were insufficient to avoid a violation of its import rules.

To resolve the matter, the provider entered into a Consent Decree with the Enforcement Bureau under which it agreed to implement a Compliance Plan and make a $7,000 voluntary contribution to the U.S. Treasury.  The Consent Decree requires the provider to designate a compliance officer, implement a multi-part Compliance Plan, file annual compliance reports with the Commission for the next three years, and verify that all devices have proper FCC authorization (or qualify for an exemption) prior to accepting delivery of them.

Missouri Property Owners Warned Over Illegal Radio Broadcasts

The Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Illegal Pirate Radio Broadcasting (Notice) to two property owners in Boonville, Missouri.  The Enforcement Bureau’s Columbia Office investigated the property after receiving a complaint about unlicensed operation.  The agents confirmed, using direction-finding techniques, that unauthorized transmissions were emanating from the property on two separate occasions: December 18, 2024, and August 21, 2025.

FCC records indicated that no license had been issued for a broadcast station at that location, and the Enforcement Bureau determined that exemptions for extremely low-powered devices also did not apply. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others.  This month’s issue includes:

  • Low Power FM Licensee Cedes De Facto Station Control Through Contract
  • Pirate Radio Station Operator Arrested During Live Broadcast
  • Northeast Property Owners Warned Over Illegal Radio Broadcasts

Short-Term License Renewal and $2,000 Consent Decree for LPFM Control Violation

The FCC’s Media Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with the licensee of a North Carolina low power FM (LPFM) station to resolve an investigation into whether the licensee violated Section 310(d) of the Communications Act and Section 73.865 of the FCC’s Rules.  Under those provisions, an LPFM station cannot be transferred or assigned to another party without the FCC’s prior consent.

To determine whether control of a broadcast station has transferred, the FCC considers “actual or legal control, direct or indirect control, negative or affirmative control, and de facto as well as de jure control.”  An analysis of de facto control looks at the exercise of control over a station’s programming, personnel, and finances, among other things.  Surrendering control over these matters to another person transfers de facto control of the station.

Following receipt of a complaint alleging the station’s former licensee was controlling the station pursuant to a local marketing agreement, the FCC conducted an investigation.  It concluded that the current licensee had ceded control of the station to the former licensee by entering into an agreement that gave the former licensee “sole right and privilege to determine the selection of programs” and required the station to “broadcast the provided programming, in its entirety, as delivered by [the former licensee] without any editing, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.”  Broadcast licensees are not allowed to convey such unfettered control over a station’s programming to another party. Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others.  This month’s issue includes:

  • TV Group Owner Enters $222,500 Consent Decree Over Pornographic Broadcast Hack
  • Kentucky Radio Station License Revoked Over Unpaid Regulatory Fees
  • FCC Threatens Chinese Telecom Provider With Fines for Failure to Fully Respond to FCC Inquiries

Pornography on Background Monitor During Newscast Leads to Costly Consent Decree

A group owner of TV stations entered into a Consent Decree with the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau to resolve an investigation into the broadcast of indecent material during a 6 p.m. newscast.

Section 73.3999 of the FCC’s Rules prohibits the broadcast of obscene material at any time and prohibits the broadcast of indecent material between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., primarily to protect children from being exposed to inappropriate content.

After receiving a complaint about pornographic material appearing during a weather report in October 2021, the FCC sent a Letter of Inquiry (LOI) to the station’s licensee in November 2021.   The licensee’s parent company responded to the LOI and confirmed that the material aired for approximately 13 seconds on a monitor which was visible behind the weatherperson during the weather segment.  The broadcaster explained that the accidental airing of the material, which was aired without the station’s prior knowledge or involvement, was caused by an unauthorized third party who exploited a wireless screencasting feature of the on-set monitor to display the content.  The legacy wireless network had been installed prior to the licensee’s acquisition of the station and, as was discovered after the incident, it lacked password protection.

Upon spotting the material displayed on the monitor, the station promptly switched to a full-screen weather graphic to end the broadcast of the material, issued an on-air apology, and conducted an internal investigation which included working with local law enforcement to identify the party responsible for transmitting the material to the monitor.  The broadcaster reported that the content did not pass through the station’s normal production systems and attributed the breach to unauthorized access via the unsecured legacy wireless network.  Upon discovering that the monitor had a screencasting capability that had been exploited, the broadcaster subsequently disabled screencasting capabilities for all monitors located at its stations, deactivated the vulnerable network, and took the added step of removing all wireless components from its existing monitors and any newly acquired monitors at all of its stations.

Despite the police’s inability to determine who was responsible for exploiting the previously unknown wireless capability of the monitor, and the extraordinary steps taken by the broadcaster to prevent a recurrence not just at this station, but at all of its stations, the FCC pursued an investigation of the broadcaster.

To resolve the investigation, the broadcaster entered into a Consent Decree with the Enforcement Bureau.  Under the terms of the Consent Decree, the broadcaster agreed to make a “voluntary contribution” of $222,500 to the United States Treasury, implement a multi-year Compliance Plan (including appointing a Compliance Officer, creating a Compliance Manual, conducting employee training and establishing operating procedures to prevent such an occurrence in the future, and committing to promptly notify the FCC of any future violations of either the indecency rules or of the Consent Decree), and submit regular compliance reports to the FCC over a three-year period.

FCC Revokes Kentucky Radio Station’s License After Years of Unpaid Regulatory Fees

 The FCC revoked the license of a Kentucky AM radio station for failing to pay regulatory fees for six fiscal years, going back to 2013.

Under Section 9 of the Communications Act and Section 1.1151 of the FCC’s Rules, the Commission has the authority to assess annual fees to cover its operational costs.  Late payment of these fees incurs a 25% penalty plus interest. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others.  This month’s issue includes:

  • CB Radio Operator’s Transmission of Indecipherable Sound Effects Leads to $25,000 Fine
  • Low Power FM Radio Licensee Enters Consent Decree Over Airing of Commercials
  • Interfering Bluetooth Speaker Leads FCC Field Agents to Florida Spa

Unauthorized CB Radio Use Results in $25,000 Fine

An Illinois Citizens Band Radio Service (CB) operator was fined $25,000 for engaging in unauthorized operation of a CB radio and willfully or maliciously causing interference.  Operating a CB radio no longer requires an FCC license, but its operation must still comply with all FCC rules.  Among the activities that are generally prohibited are transmission of one-way verbal communications, music and sound effects, and conversations longer than five minutes.

Section 95.933 of the FCC’s Rules also prohibits CB transmissions that include advertising for political candidates or for goods or services, and also prohibits transmitting live radio or TV broadcasts.  In this case, the violator transmitted nonverbal, indecipherable sound effects for long periods of time.  The resulting Forfeiture Order noted that unauthorized CB operations disrupt proper CB uses like “travelers’ assistance, warnings of hazardous road conditions, reporting accidents, etc.”

In the Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL) that preceded the Forfeiture Order, the FCC detailed the relevant facts, including complaints of transmissions of comedy routines, air raid siren sounds, and digital noises.  A visit to the area by an FCC field agent determined that unintelligible, data-like noises were coming from an antenna on the violator’s home.  The individual failed to respond to an on-scene Notice of Interference to Authorized Radio Stations left by the agent.  After subsequently receiving a Notice of Unlicensed Operation, the individual spoke with the regional office of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau and claimed that a battery-operated transmitter inside a milk crate had been placed at a corner near his house.  He failed, however, to submit any documentation corroborating the existence of such a device.  On a second visit to the area, the field agent observed a data-like transmission similar to what was observed during the initial site visit but did not observe a transmitting milk crate.

The 2023 NAL described the individual’s history of non-compliance with FCC rules dating back to 1999, including his failure to pay a previous $14,000 fine.  The individual did not respond to the NAL, so the FCC proceeded to issuing a fine.

The FCC’s base fine for each day of unauthorized operation is $10,000, and for each day of interference is $7,000.  The Enforcement Bureau determined that the violations occurred on two days and assessed a fine of $25,000, the highest total fine the Enforcement Bureau is allowed to fine a non-common carrier under its delegated authority.  The individual has 30 days to pay the $25,000 fine, which will be made slightly more difficult by the fact that the FCC limits credit card payments to the agency to $24,999.99.

Low Power FM Station Signs Consent Decree Over Underwriting Violations

A Virginia low power FM (LPFM) radio licensee entered into a Consent Decree with the FCC to resolve issues related to airing commercial advertising.  The LPFM station’s license renewal application drew a Petition to Deny and informal objection making a number of allegations, including that the station participated in a prohibited operating agreement with other parties in violation of Section 73.860(e) of the FCC’s Rules, deviated from the educational purpose stated in the station’s initial construction permit (CP) application, made false certifications in the CP application, and regularly aired commercial announcements in violation of Section 399B of the Communications Act and Sections 73.503(d) and 73.801 of the FCC’s Rules. Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others.  This month’s issue includes:

  • Public File Violations Lead to Spate of FCC Consent Decrees
  • California Tower Owner Cited for Multiple Violations
  • Montana TV Translators Miss License Renewal Deadline

Public File Violations Lead to Consent Decrees with Multiple California Licensees

In a flurry of Consent Decrees, the FCC resolved investigations into Public Inspection File violations by three California television licensees.  Two of the Consent Decrees impose $32,500 civil penalties for willfully and repeatedly violating the FCC’s rules by failing to timely upload to the Public Inspection File required Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists and children’s commercial limits certifications.  The third licensee agreed to pay a $42,500 civil penalty for the same violations, as well as for the late filing of a license to cover application and the resulting unauthorized operation.

In each instance, while processing license renewal applications, the FCC’s Media Bureau noted that the applicant had been unable to certify that all required documentation had been uploaded to the station’s Public Inspection File when required during the license term.  Each station disclosed that it had been late in uploading Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists and children’s commercial limits certifications to its Public Inspection File, asserting “administrative oversight and/or employee turnover.”

Section 73.3526(e)(11)(i) of the FCC’s Rules requires that every full power commercial television station place in its Public Inspection File “a list of programs that have provided the station’s most significant treatment of community issues during the preceding three month period.”  Section 73.3526(e)(11)(ii) of the FCC’s Rules requires that every full power commercial television station place in its Public Inspection File “records sufficient to permit substantiation of the station’s certification, in its license renewal application, of compliance with the commercial limits on children’s programming….”

Each Consent Decree details the respective station’s failure to timely upload multiple Issues/Programs Lists and commercial limits certifications.  The first station uploaded 26 Issues/Programs lists late and 21 children’s commercial limits certifications late.  The second station uploaded 31 Issues/Programs Lists late and 23 children’s commercial limits certifications late.  The third station uploaded 27 Issues/Programs lists late and 20 children’s commercial limits certifications late.  Each station had several such Lists and certifications that were uploaded over a year late.  As of the date each Consent Decree was adopted, the respective station had uploaded all required documents to its Public Inspection File.

With regard to the third station, in addition to the late Quarterly Issues/Program Lists and children’s commercial limits certifications, it had failed to timely file a license to cover application.  In June 2021, the FCC granted the station a construction permit to modify the station’s facilities to increase power.  The construction permit had an expiration date of June 2024.  Despite timely completing construction of the new facilities around October 2021, the licensee did not file a license application for the new facilities until March 2025.  Sections 73.3536 and 73.3598(a) of the FCC’s Rules require that a license application be filed promptly upon completion of construction. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others.  This month’s issue includes:

  • Virginia Sheriff and FCC Determine Public Safety Interference Caused by Handheld Radio
  • Unauthorized Operation by Puerto Rico AM Station Leads to Notice of Violation
  • Signal Booster Operated by Luxury Apartment Building in Texas Interferes with Local Public Safety System

Virginia Investigation Results in Notice of Unlicensed Operation for Interfering with a Public Safety Communications System

Following an investigation by a Virginia sheriff’s office into interference with the county’s public safety radio communications system, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau conducted its own investigation and issued a Notice of Unlicensed Operation (NOUO) to an individual.

According to the NOUO, the sheriff’s office determined that a handheld Motorola two-way radio was transmitting signals in an attempt to self-authenticate and thereby access the county’s system.  The handheld unit used a unique identification code and had apparently been illegally programmed to operate on the county’s licensed frequencies.  The investigation led to an individual who admitted that he had programmed the radio to operate on the county’s frequencies and that he was the one operating it at the time the device attempted to self-authenticate and gain access to the county’s public safety radio system.

Under Section 301 of the Communications Act, use of radios like the one in question must generally be licensed by the FCC unless they transmit at a sufficiently low level of power to qualify under Part 15 of the FCC’s Rules for unlicensed operation.  The handheld radio in question was not certified as a Part 15 device.

In addition, any person operating a radio transmitter on frequencies exclusively licensed for public safety use needs an FCC license.  The NOUO stated that no such license had been issued to the individual.

Violators of Section 301 are subject to “substantial monetary fines, in rem arrest action against the offending radio equipment, and criminal sanctions including imprisonment.”  The individual has 10 days to respond to the FCC with a description of the steps he is taking to avoid future unlicensed operation and interference.

Puerto Rico AM Station Receives Notice of Violation for Unauthorized Operation

A Puerto Rico AM radio station recently received a Notice of Violation (NOV) from the FCC.  In the NOV, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau stated that field agents out of its Miami office observed the station operating in violation of its license.  Specifically, the agents reported that the station was operating from a single tower with a non-directional pattern, whereas the station’s license specifies a directional antenna pattern using a two-tower array.  The station had not requested and obtained Special Temporary Authority from the FCC to operate at variance from its licensed parameters.

Within 20 days of the issuance of the NOV, the licensee is required to file a response which “(i) must fully explain each violation, including all relevant surrounding facts and circumstances, (ii) must contain a statement of the specific action(s) taken to correct each violation and preclude recurrence, and (iii) must include a timeline for completion of any pending corrective action(s).”  The licensee must also include “an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury, signed and dated by an authorized officer of [the licensee] with personal knowledge of the representations provided” in its response.  The FCC may then take additional enforcement action once it has the relevant facts in hand. Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others.  This month’s issue includes:

  • Puerto Rico Broadcaster Agrees to $4,500 Consent Decree for Unauthorized LPTV Operation
  • Eleventh Circuit Rejects FCC’s Rationale for Broadcast Ownership Fine
  • FCC Proposes $325,322 Fine for Miami Radio Pirate

Unauthorized Operation Leads to $4,500 Consent Decree for Puerto Rico LPTV Station

The licensee of a Puerto Rico LPTV station and the FCC’s Media Bureau entered into a Consent Decree to resolve an investigation into whether the licensee engaged in unauthorized operation.

The LPTV station was displaced by the FCC’s broadcast Incentive Auction and subsequent spectrum repack.  The licensee filed a displacement application to move to Channel 14, and a construction permit was granted in July 2018 with a July 2021 expiration date.  Because land mobile operations can be affected by TV transmissions on Channel 14, the construction permit contained a condition that the station “identify and substantially eliminate objectionable interference” and required the station to submit documentation showing “that objectionable interference will not be caused….”  Section 73.617(b)(2)(ii) of the FCC’s Rules requires TV permittees for new operations on Channel 14 to take steps prior to construction to identify potential interference.

When construction of the station was completed, the licensee filed an application to license the facility which contained a statement that the station complied with the special condition in the construction permit, but did not provide any technical proof to support that statement.  The station then began operations prior to receiving FCC approval to do so.  Media Bureau staff requested an amendment to supplement the “no objectionable interference” exhibit at the time the application was filed, and again in October 2024 when no amendment was received in response to the first request.  Responding to the second request, the licensee submitted an exhibit demonstrating there would be no objectionable interference, and then filed for Special Temporary Authority (STA) to continue operating while the license application was pending.

Section 73.1745(a) of the FCC’s Rules and Section 301 of the Communications Act require that a station have an FCC license in order to operate.  The FCC found that in the absence of either an STA or a license, the station had been operating without authorization for over three years. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others.  This month’s issue includes:

  • Seven-Figure Fine Proposed for Robocaller Targeting FCC Staff
  • FCC’s Enforcement Bureau Issues Payola Warning to Broadcasters
  • California Noncommercial TV Station Licensee Enters $25,000 Consent Decree to Wrap Up Investigation Into Multiple Rule Violations

FCC Proposes Seven-Figure Fine for Telecom Company Accused of Allowing Bad Actors to Use Its Network to Intimidate FCC Staff

The FCC proposed a multi-million dollar fine against a voice service provider accused of failing to prevent illegal voice traffic on its network.  Some of the pre-recorded calls targeted FCC staff and their families and purported to be from the FCC’s “Fraud Prevention Team,” which does not exist.  The calls attempted to extract money from the recipients through intimidation.

Under Section 64.1200(n)(4) of the FCC’s Rules, a voice service provider must take “affirmative, effective measures to prevent new and renewing customers from using its network to originate illegal calls, including knowing its customers and exercising due diligence in ensuring that its services are not used to originate illegal traffic.”  The rule gives voice service providers discretion as to how they police their own networks as long as the measures they put in place effectively prevent the origination of illegal traffic and ensure they know their customers.  Knowing your customer involves collecting and verifying customer information, including their corporate records, government identification, and the addresses from which they will be originating their calls.  The FCC has warned providers that high-volume callers merit heightened scrutiny to ensure they will not abuse the provider’s network.

In a redacted Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL), the FCC detailed the parties involved in the alleged scheme, including the voice service provider and two of its customers.  The two customers were accepted as customers on the same day, and while they provided different names and email addresses, they both had the same physical address (a Toronto hotel) and used the same domain name.  According to the NAL, on the same day they were accepted as customers and into the next day, the two entities originated automated calls that reached FCC staff and sought to connect the recipients to a live caller who, in at least one case, demanded $1,000 in gift cards to help the caller avoid jail time for “crimes against the state.”

The FCC worked with the Industry Traceback Group to determine the origin of the suspected illegal robocalls.  The Enforcement Bureau then subpoenaed call records from the voice service provider and learned that the two customers made nearly 2,000 calls over the two days that FCC staff reported receiving calls.  The FCC’s investigation revealed that the information the customers provided to the voice service provider was false and that the voice service provider did not corroborate or independently verify the customers’ information, thereby failing to apply the scrutiny necessary for the company to know its customers.  The FCC noted that the customers paid the provider in untraceable bitcoin, which helped to conceal their identities, but said it was not a factor in the FCC’s finding of apparent rule violations. Continue reading →