A new report from the Wall Street Journal on FCC robocall enforcement set off a minor scrum over the effectiveness of the FCC’s TCPA efforts under Chairman Pai. The report claimed that, despite recent eye-popping enforcement actions and policy proposals aimed at curbing unwanted calls, the FCC collected only a fraction of those fines so far. Out of $208.4 million in fines issued since 2015 for violations of the FCC’s robocalling and associated telemarketing rules, the agency collected just $6,790, or less than one-hundredth of one percent. None of the over $200 million in robocall-related fines imposed under Chairman Pai’s leadership have been collected to date, including the record-setting $120 million penalty issued last year against a robocalling platform and its owner for placing over 96 million “spoofed” marketing robocalls.

This report prompted commentary from Commissioner Rosenworcel, who tweeted that these “measly efforts” were “not making a dent in this problem” and called for carriers to provide free call blocking tools to consumers. In our view, however, the report really doesn’t relate to the vigor – or alleged lack thereof – of FCC robocall enforcement efforts. Instead, the small amount of assessed fines that are actually collected starkly demonstrates the internal and external hurdles faced by the FCC, which impact all types of enforcement actions, not just robocalls. The report likely will rekindle Congressional criticism of FCC enforcement processes and calls for more systematic solutions to the problem of unwanted calls.


Continue Reading

In February 2019, the FCC issued an Enforcement Advisory warning marketers of LED signs that their products must be authorized, properly labeled, and contain the required user disclosures before being marketed in the United States. The Enforcement Advisory followed a slew of enforcement actions in 2018 totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties against

As we enter the dog days of summer, the FCC continues to turn up the heat on equipment marketing enforcement. But while million dollar fines for marketing noncompliant devices capture the spotlight, the FCC also quietly issued a number of equipment marketing actions focused on a single type of device: LED signs. In just the last three months, the FCC has settled over ten investigations involving the marketing of LED signs used in digital billboards for commercial and industrial applications without the required authorizations, labeling, or user manual disclosures. Each action involved an entity that either manufactured or sold (or both) LED signs. The agency’s recent actions should be a shot across the bow to any retailer of LED signs to ensure that their devices are properly tested and authorized prior to sale. Otherwise, these companies may face significant fines and warehouses of unmarketable devices.

Continue Reading

In the largest forfeiture ever imposed by the agency, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a $120 million fine against Adrian Abramovich and the companies he controlled for placing over 96 million “spoofed” robocalls as part of a campaign to sell third-party vacation packages.  The case has received significant attention as an example of the growing issue of spoofed robocalls, with lawmakers recently grilling Mr. Abramovich about his operations.  The item took the lead spot at the agency’s May meeting and is emblematic of the Pai FCC’s continued focus on illegal robocalls as a top enforcement priority.  While questions remain regarding the FCC’s ability to collect the unprecedented fine, there is no question that the FCC and Congress intend to take a hard look at robocalling issues this year, with significant reforms already teed up for consideration.

Continue Reading

E-Rate fraud is back in the spotlight following the indictment of a Dallas charter school CEO and the owner of a contracting company for an alleged kickback scheme resulting in over $300,000 in illegal subsidies. Federal prosecutors stated that the pair violated the E-Rate program’s competitive bidding requirements and submitted fraudulent invoices to the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”).  The indictment comes on the heels of major FCC settlements and enforcement actions against educational institutions and service providers for alleged E-Rate violations.  FCC Chairman Pai has repeatedly criticized the administration of the E-Rate program and the indictment may spur further calls for action to combat fraud in the program.

Continue Reading

Stressing the importance of receiving truthful and accurate information, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) reached a $1.7 million settlement with inmate calling services provider Securus Technologies, Inc. and related entities (“Securus”) to resolve allegations that Securus submitted misleading information to the FCC in support of a pending transfer of control.  Although the settlement cleared the way for the transfer’s approval, the FCC held up the deal for months while it investigated statements made by Securus representatives.  As a result, the FCC’s action supports the adage that “haste often makes waste” in telecommunications-related deals and that submitting misleading information to the FCC can come with significant consequences.


Continue Reading

Continuing its assault on unlicensed broadcast operations, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) issued a unanimous Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”) at its September meeting proposing the statutory maximum fine of $144,344 against a pirate radio operator as well as the owners of the property housing the unlicensed station.  The action represents the first time the FCC has found landowners apparently liable for pirate radio operations on their property and the first Commission-level NAL issued against a pirate radio operation.  Imposing penalties on property owners that support pirate operations has been a longstanding goal for Commissioner O’Rielly, and Chairman Pai signaled that cracking down on pirate stations remains a key enforcement priority for the FCC.

Continue Reading

As part of its August 2017 Open Meeting, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”) proposing over $82 million in fines against Philip Roesel and the insurance companies he operated for allegedly violating the Truth in Caller Act by altering the caller ID information (a/k/a “spoofing”) of more than 21 million robocalls in order to generate sales leads and avoid detection by authorities.  The FCC separately issued a Citation against Mr. Roesel and his companies for allegedly violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by transmitting the robocalls to emergency, wireless, and residential phone lines without consent.  The NAL and Citation represent just the latest salvos in the FCC’s continuing assault on robocalling in general and deceptive uses of spoofing in particular.  With $200 million in proposed fines in only two cases, it is clear that such issues will remain an enforcement priority under Chairman Pai.

Continue Reading

On November 25, FCC Enforcement Bureau Chief Travis LeBlanc penned a blog post outlining the Commission’s enforcement process and touting the upward trend in recent years in collecting fines issued for violations of the Communications Act and the Commission’s rules.  The post was written in response to a recent Politico article suggesting that the agency may be more interested in grabbing headlines rather than actually collecting the massive fines it has announced in recent years.


Continue Reading

fcc_equipEvery aspect of American life today seems to involve interaction with an increasing number of digital devices, sensors, and other electronics. Estimates are that by 2020, there will be more than 50 billion devices tied into the Internet of Things. Even apart from the IoT, there are myriad opportunities in today’s market for the productive and profitable deployment of new technology and applications. The equipment that makes this possible is subject to a broad framework of FCC regulation designed to protect wireless communications from harmful interference applicable to manufacturers, retailers, importers, distributors, and other parties involved in marketing, selling, and using the devices.
Continue Reading