Articles Posted in

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:

  • 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 →