On August 1, the FCC took another step in its ongoing effort to combat deceptive and unlawful calls to consumers. This action once again sets its sights on a common target:  concealment or alteration of the originating number on a communication. This practice is known as “spoofing” and, when conducted with an intent to cause harm to consumers, is unlawful. In the August 1 Report and Order, the FCC amended its Truth In Caller ID rules to expand anti-spoofing prohibitions to foreign-originated calls and text messaging services.

Once these rules take effect, the FCC closes a significant gap in its prior rules – calls which originate outside the United States – at the same time that it acts preemptively to prohibit deceptive spoofing in a growing area – text messaging. In the process, the FCC will enhance one of its most commonly used tools in its effort to combat unlawful robocalls – fines for unlawful spoofing. Generally, the FCC has attacked parties that originate unlawful robocalls by fining them for the subsidiary violation of spoofing the unlawful calls. In telecommunications enforcement, spoofing violations are the tax evasion charges to Al Capone’s criminal enterprise.


Continue Reading

At the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) December Open Meeting, commissioners voted to approve a Declaratory Ruling (“Ruling”) that classifies native forms of wireless messaging, short message service (“SMS”) and multimedia messaging service (“MMS”), as information services, and declares that such services are free from regulation as commercial mobile services. The FCC’s objective with the Ruling is to remove uncertainty for messaging service providers about applicable regulations and also enable wireless messaging providers to adopt more rigid efforts to block spam and spoofing messages.  This action comes only a few months after Commissioner Mike O’Rielly publicly called for the FCC to finally act on the pending classification proceeding.

Continue Reading

The FCC plans to take aim again at unwanted texts and robocalls at its next meeting scheduled for December 12, 2018. Unwanted robocalls and texting consistently top the list of complaints received by the FCC and that has driven much regulatory attention by the agency in recent years. Specifically, at its December meeting, the FCC intends to classify most text messaging as an “information service” to preserve service providers’ ability to block robotexts and other unsolicited messages. The FCC’s anticipated action comes after years of debate regarding the proper regulatory treatment for text messaging and could have far-reaching impacts by exempting such services from the standard “common carrier” rules applicable to most legacy telecommunications. The FCC also plans to order the creation of a reassigned numbers database that would allow robocallers and others to check in advance whether a particular number still belongs to a consumer that has agreed to receive prerecorded calls. Rounding out the major actions, the FCC released draft items that would: (1) set the stage for the next Spectrum Frontiers auction of high-band spectrum; (2) offer additional funding to rural broadband recipients of Connect America Fund money if they increase high-speed offerings; and (3) issue the FCC’s first consolidated Communications Marketplace Report, providing a comprehensive look at industry competition. The December items cover many priority Pai FCC topics and would affect service providers of all sizes while tackling longstanding consumer protection and broadband deployment issues. You will find more details on the significant December items after the jump:

Continue Reading

On October 13, 2015, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) issued a Public Notice seeking comment on a Petition for Expedited Declaratory Ruling (Petition) from Twilio Inc. (Twilio), a cloud-based developer-platform for communications services, requesting that the Commission clarify that certain messaging services are “telecommunications

With class action cases proliferating, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) continues to receive petitions seeking guidance on the applicability of its rules to various calling or texting scenarios. In the latest example, the FCC issued a Public Notice seeking comment on a Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed by TextMe, Inc. (“TextMe”). TextMe provides a free

New rules issued by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") last year are about to take effect. These rules will make it more difficult for businesses to make telemarketing calls and texts to wireless customers and to certain residential customers by requiring express written consent (1) to make telemarketing calls using an autodialer or prerecorded message

Jameson Dempsey co-authored this post.
In a ruling that FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai described as “a win for consumers and for innovative companies alike,” the FCC granted a petition for declaratory ruling filed by SoundBite Communications, Inc., finding that one-time text messages confirming a consumer’s request not to receive any future text messages do not violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”).  The Order represents a significant victory for mobile marketing firms like SoundBite and companies conducting mobile marketing, which have been inundated  with actual and threatened class action lawsuits over such confirmatory messages.

Although the ruling is an important victory, the FCC’s rationale for permitting the messages is relatively narrow and not all confirmatory messages will be permitted.  Moreover, the FCC’s ruling in effect imposes a requirement that confirmatory texts be sent within five minutes of the consumer’s opt-out request.  Companies engaging in mobile marketing should review their practices carefully before sending additional confirmatory text messages in reliance on the FCC’s ruling.
Continue Reading

Once again, USAC and the federal Universal Service Fund are driving fundamental classification questions regarding telecom services.  In the latest example, USAC has requested the FCC’s guidance on how to treat text messaging services for universal service purposes.  Several parties have tried before to have the FCC opine on the classification of text messaging services, with no luck so far.  Only time will tell whether USAC’s request will spur FCC action where others have failed.


Continue Reading

As consumers increasingly rely on mobile phones, marketers naturally are following.  Text messaging, in particular, has proven to be a popular marketing method.  It is not surprising, therefore, that we are seeing in increase in litigation over the obligations of senders and mobile carriers with respect to text messaging campaigns. 

The latest example of this trend

On Friday, June 19, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court decision involving a mobile marketing campaign. A key issue in the case is whether text messages are subject to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA"), a law that was drafted before the advent of text messaging. Although the Ninth Circuit remanded the case so that the district court could develop more facts, the decision underscores the importance of ensuring that marketers get express consent before sending text messages to consumers. 

Background on the Case

Laci Satterfield became a registered user of Nextones in order to receive a free ring tone. During the registration process, Ms. Satterfield checked a box which read, in part: "I would like to receive promotions from Nextones affiliates and brands." On January 18, 2006, Ms. Satterfield received a text message from Simon & Schuster advertising a novel by Stephen King. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Satterfield filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Simon & Schuster’s text message campaign violated the TCPA.

In June 2007, the Federal Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment to Simon & Schuster holding that the company did not violate the TCPA. Specifically, the court determined that the text message campaign did not violate the TCPA’s prohibition against using an automatic telephone dialing system (an "ATDS") because the device used to send the messages did not fall within the statutory definition of an ATDS. Moreover, the court found that Ms. Satterfield had agreed to receive text messages when she registered for Nextones.

Ninth Circuit Opinion

On Friday, June 19, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court had erred because (1) the text message was a "call" within the meaning of the TCPA, (2) there was a disputed issue of material fact as to whether the system Simon & Schuster used was an ATDS, and that (3) Ms. Satterfield did not consent to receive messages from Simon & Schuster because Simon & Schuster is not an affiliate or brand of Nextones.

The TCPA applies to certain types of "calls." Simon & Schuster had argued that the sending of text messages did not constitute a "call" under the TCPA. Although the district court did not rule on that point, the Ninth Circuit disagreed with Simon & Schuster’s argument. The term "call" is not defined by the TCPA. However, the Federal Communications Commission has noted that the statute


Continue Reading