Federal Communications Commission      DA 13-2031
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
In the Matter of
Message Communications, Inc.
)
)
)
)
)
File No.:  EB-TCD-13-00007541
CITATION
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH AN FCC ORDER  
Adopted:  October 23, 2013 Released:  October 23, 2013
By the Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This is an official CITATION, issued by the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission or FCC) pursuant to Section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 
(Communications Act or Act)
1
to Message Communications, Inc. and Mr. Robert Mahanian (collectively, 
Message Communications or Company) for failing to comply with a Commission order issued by the 
Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) pursuant to delegated authority
2
in a Letter of Inquiry (LOI) dated March 
28, 2013.  
II. BACKGROUND
2. The Bureau’s Telecommunications Consumers Division (Division) is investigating the 
Company for its compliance with federal laws and FCC regulations concerning the use of automatic 
dialing equipment and the federal Do-Not-Call regulations, specifically, Section 227(b) of the 
Communications Act and Section 64.1200 of the FCC’s rules.
3
On March 28, 2013, the Division sent an 
                                                     
1
47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(5).
2
See 47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(3).
3
Section 227(b)(1)(A) of the Communications Act and Section 64.1200(a)(1) of the Commission’s rules specify that 
unless a call is made for emergency purposes or with the prior express consent of the called party, it is unlawful for 
any person within the United States, or any person outside the United States if the recipient is within the United 
States, to initiate calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice: 1) to any 
emergency telephone line (including any “911” line and any emergency line of a hospital, medical physician or 
service office, health care facility, poison control center, or fire protection or law enforcement agency); 2) to the 
telephone line of any guest room or patient room of a hospital, health care facility, elderly home, or similar 
establishment; or 3) to any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized 
mobile radio service, or other radio common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for 
the call.  See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(i)–(iii); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(1)(i)–(iii).  By making prerecorded message 
calls on behalf of itself or third parties (its clients), Message Communications necessarily “initiates” calls for the 
purposes of Section 64.1200 of the FCC’s rules.  See Joint Petition Filed by DISH Network, LLC, for Declaratory 
Ruling Concerning the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) Rules, Declaratory Ruling, FCC 13-54, 2013 
WL 1934349, at para. 26 (May 9, 2013) (“a person or entity ‘initiates’ a telephone call when it takes the steps 
necessary to physically place a telephone call.”).
Federal Communications Commission      DA 13-2031
2
LOI to Message Communications initiating its investigation.
4
  On April 24, 2013, Division staff called 
and spoke with Robert Mahanian, president of Message Communications.  Mr. Mahanian acknowledged
that he had received the LOI and stated that he was represented by counsel.  Mr. Mahanian stated that his 
attorney would be handling the Company’s response and would contact the Division to discuss the matter.
3. Beginning on April 25, 2013, Division staff spoke by telephone and corresponded by 
email with David B. Felsenthal, counsel for Message Communications, concerning the LOI.
5
  On June 7, 
2013, Message Communications filed its response to the LOI.
6
  The Response was materially deficient.  
Among other things, the LOI ordered the Company to provide certain documents and information relating 
to the Company’s activities during the time period of September 1, 2012, to March 28, 2013.  The 
Response, in contrast, only included documents and information dating from late March 2013 through 
mid- to late-April 2013—i.e., almost wholly outside the period of interest specified in the LOI.
4. On June 13, 2013, the Division e-mailed counsel for the Company and outlined the 
deficiencies in the Response.
7
  The Division requested that Mr. Felsenthal “contact [Division staff] as 
soon as possible to discuss/explain the apparent gaps in your client’s response.”
8
  When counsel for the 
Company failed to respond to the Division’s e-mail, Division staff followed up by phone and by e-mail 
again on June 21, 2013, requesting that Mr. Felsenthal contact the Division “as soon as possible to 
discuss” the matter.
9
5. Neither counsel for the Company nor Message Communications/Robert Mahanian ever 
responded to the Division’s e-mail and telephone messages.  To date, Message Communications has not 
provided any of the apparently missing documents and files, and has offered no explanation for its 
continued lack of compliance with the terms of the LOI.
                                                     
4
Letter from Richard A. Hindman, Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission, to Message Communications, Inc. (March 28, 2013) (on file in EB-TCD-13-
00007541) (LOI).  
5
See E-mail from Kristi Thompson, Deputy Division Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement 
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to David B. Felsenthal, Novian & Novian LLP, Counsel to Message 
Communications, Inc. (April 25, 2013, 5:48 PM EDT) (on file in EB-TCD-13-00007541); E-mail from David B. 
Felsenthal, Novian & Novian LLP, Counsel to Message Communications, Inc. (May 28, 2013, 7:30 PM EDT) (on 
file in EB-TCD-13-00007541); E-mail from Kristi Thompson, Deputy Division Chief, Telecommunications 
Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to David B. Felsenthal, Novian 
& Novian LLP, Counsel to Message Communications, Inc. (May 29, 2013, 9:35 AM EDT) (on file in EB-TCD-13-
00007541); E-mail from David B. Felsenthal, Novian & Novian LLP, Counsel to Message Communications, Inc. 
(June 5, 2013, 1:57 AM EDT) (on file in EB-TCD-13-00007541); E-mail from Kristi Thompson, Deputy Division 
Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to 
David B. Felsenthal, Novian & Novian LLP, Counsel to Message Communications, Inc. (June 5, 2013, 10:52 AM
EDT) (on file in EB-TCD-13-00007541).
6
See Letter from David B. Felsenthal, Novian & Novian LLP, Counsel to Message Communications, Inc., to Kristi 
Thompson, Deputy Division Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission (June 7, 2013) (on file in EB-TCD-13-00007541).
7
See E-mail from Kristi Thompson, Deputy Division Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement 
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to David B. Felsenthal, Novian & Novian LLP, Counsel to Message 
Communications, Inc. (June 13, 2013, 10:59 AM EDT) (on file in EB-TCD-13-00007541).
8
Id.
9
See E-mail from Kristi Thompson, Deputy Division Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement 
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to David B. Felsenthal, Novian & Novian LLP, Counsel to Message 
Communications, Inc. (June 21, 2013, 3:00 PM EDT) (on file in EB-TCD-13-00007541).
Federal Communications Commission      DA 13-2031
3
III. APPLICABLE LAW AND VIOLATIONS  
6. Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 403 of the Communications Act
10
afford the Commission broad 
authority to investigate potential violations of the Act.  Section 4(i) authorizes the Commission to “issue 
such orders, not inconsistent with this [Act], as may be necessary in the execution of its functions.”
11
  
Section 4(j) states that “[t]he Commission may conduct its proceedings in such manner as will best 
conduce to the proper dispatch of business and to the ends of justice.”
12
  Section 403 grants the 
Commission “full authority and power at any time to institute an inquiry, on its own motion, in any case 
and as to any matter or thing concerning which complaint is authorized to be made, to or before the 
Commission by any provision of this [Act], or concerning which any question may arise under any of the 
provisions of this [Act], or relating to the enforcement of any of the provisions of this [Act].”
13
  Further, 
Section 403 gives “[t]he Commission . . . the power to make and enforce any order or orders” relating to 
its inquiries into compliance with the Act.
14
  
7. Pursuant to this authority, the Division sent an LOI to Message Communications on 
March 28, 2013, directing the Company to provide certain information and documents in connection with 
its investigation into the Company’s compliance with Section 227(b) of the Act and Section 64.1200 of 
the FCC’s rules.
15
  Company president Robert Mahanian and Company counsel David B. Felsenthal 
acknowledged to Division staff that the Company had received the LOI, and by its counsel the Company 
provided a response on June 7, 2013.  As noted above, however, the Response was materially deficient 
and failed to provide numerous documents and files required by the LOI.
16
  A party may not ignore the 
directives in a Commission order issued by the Bureau pursuant to delegated authority in an LOI.
17
  
Message Communications’ violation is particularly egregious because “[m]isconduct of this type exhibits 
contempt for the Commission’s authority and threatens to compromise the Commission’s ability to 
adequately investigate violations of its rules.”
18
  
8. Accordingly, we find that Message Communications has violated a Commission order by 
failing to provide the information and documents required by the LOI and by the filing deadline of June 7, 
2013.     
IV. NOTICE OF DUTY TO COMPLY WITH LAW: 
9. Message Communications is hereby on notice that if it subsequently engages in any 
conduct of the type described in this Citation it may be subject to further legal action, including monetary 
fines (forfeitures).  Such forfeitures may be based on both the conduct that led to this Citation and the 
                                                     
10
  47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), 403.
11
  47 U.S.C. § 154(i). 
12
  47 U.S.C. § 154(j). 
13
  47 U.S.C. § 403.
14
Id.
15
47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(i)–(iii); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(1)(i)–(iii).
16
See paras. 3–4, above.
17
See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B).  See also Technical Commc’n Network, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 1018 (Enf. Bur. 2013) (TCN NAL); Net One Int’l Net One, LLC Farrahtel Int’l, 
LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 16493 (Enf. Bur. 2011); LDC Commc’ns, 
Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 300 (Enf. Bur. 2012); SBC Commc’ns, Inc., 
Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589 (2000).
18
See TCN NAL, 28 FCC Rcd at 1020; Fox Television Stations, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 25 
FCC Rcd 7074, 7081 (Enf. Bur. 2010) (“Prompt and full responses to Bureau inquiry letters are essential to the 
Commission’s enforcement function.”) (emphasis added).
Federal Communications Commission      DA 13-2031
4
conduct following it.
19
  In this regard, we warn Message Communications that it is under a continuing 
obligation to respond to the LOI.  Further, failure to respond to the LOI is a continuing violation and each 
day that the Company fails to respond constitutes a separate violation for which enforcement action may 
be taken.
20
  Accordingly, by this Citation, Message Communications is on notice that it is obligated to 
take immediate steps to comply with the LOI by providing the information and documents identified 
therein to ensure that it does not continue to violate the Communications Act.           
V. RESPONDING TO THIS CITATION
10. Message Communications may respond to this Citation within thirty (30) days from the 
release date of this Citation either through (1) a written statement, (2) a teleconference interview with the 
Commission’s Telecommunications Consumers Division in Washington, DC, or (3) a personal interview 
at the Commission Field Office nearest to its place of business.
11. If the Company would like to arrange a teleconference or personal interview, please 
contact Kristi Thompson at (202) 418-1318.  Such teleconference or interview must take place within 
thirty (30) days of the date of this Citation.  If the Company would like to submit a written response, 
including any supporting documentation, the Company must send the response within thirty (30) days of 
the date of this Citation to the address below:
Richard A. Hindman, Chief
Telecommunications Consumers Division
Enforcement Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW, Rm. 4-C224
Washington, DC 20554
In addition, the Company must send an electronic copy to Kristi Thompson at kristi.thompson@fcc.gov.  
Reference EB-TCD-13-00007541 when corresponding with the Commission.
12. Reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request.  
Include a description of the accommodation needed including as much detail as possible.  Also include 
the name and contact information for the individual we can contact if we need more information.  Please 
allow at least five (5) business days advance notice; last minute requests will be accepted, but may be 
impossible to fill.  Send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 
Bureau:
For sign language interpreters, CART, and other reasonable accommodations: 202-418-
0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty);
For accessible format materials (braille, large print, electronic files, and audio format): 
202-418-0531 (voice), 202-418-7365 (tty).
13. If the Company chooses to respond to this Citation, be advised that it is a violation of 
Section 1.17 of the Commission’s rules (47 C.F.R. § 1.17) for any person or a staff member of that person 
to make any false or misleading written or oral statement of fact.  Specifically, no person shall:
                                                     
19
See 47 U.S.C § 503(b)(5). See also S. Rep. No. 95-580, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. at 9 (1977) (if a person or entity that 
has been issued a citation by the Commission thereafter engages in the conduct for which the citation of violation 
was sent, the subsequent notice of apparent liability “would attach not only for the conduct occurring 
subsequently but also for the conduct for which the citation was originally sent.”) (emphasis added).
20
47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D).  See Section VI—Future Compliance, below.
Federal Communications Commission      DA 13-2031
5
In any written or oral statement of fact, intentionally provide material factual 
information that is incorrect or intentionally omit material information that is 
necessary to prevent any material factual statement that is made from being incorrect 
or misleading; and
In any written statement of fact, provide material factual information that is incorrect 
or omit material information that is necessary to prevent any material factual 
statement that is made from being incorrect or misleading without a reasonable basis 
for believing that any such material factual statement is correct and not misleading.
21
14. Further, the knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of 
any material fact, in reply to this Citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
15. If Message Communications violates Section 1.17 of the Commission’s rules or the 
criminal statute referenced above, the Company may be subject to further legal action, including 
monetary fines pursuant to Section 503 of the Communications Act.
16. Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3), we are informing you that the 
Commission’s staff will use all relevant material information before it, including information that you 
disclose in your interview or written statement, to determine what, if any, enforcement action is required 
to ensure your compliance with the Communications Act and the Commission’s rules.
VI. FUTURE COMPLIANCE  
17. If, after receipt of this Citation, Message Communications violates the Communications 
Act or the FCC’s rules by engaging in conduct of the type described herein, the Commission may impose 
monetary forfeitures of up to $16,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to 
a statutory maximum of $122,500 for any single continuing violation.
22
  In addition, violations of the 
Communications Act or the Commission’s rules can result in criminal sanctions, including 
imprisonment.
23
                                                     
21
47 C.F.R. § 1.17.
22
47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D).  Section 503(b)(2)(D) provides for forfeitures of up to $10,000 for each violation or 
each day of a continuing violation, up to a maximum of $75,000 for a single continuing violation in cases, as here, 
where the violation does not involve a Commission licensee or common carriers, among others.  See 47 U.S.C. 
§ 503(b)(2)(D).  In accordance with the inflation adjustment requirements contained in the Debt Collection 
Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-134, Sec. 31001, 110 Stat. 1321, the Commission implemented an 
increase of the maximum statutory forfeiture under section 503(b)(2)(D) to $16,000 for each violation or each day of 
a continuing violation, up to a maximum of $112,500 for any single continuing violation.  See 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b).  
See also Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission’s Rules, Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect 
Inflation, 23 FCC Rcd 9845 (2008).  In 2013, the Commission increased its maximum statutory forfeitures to reflect 
further inflation.  See Amendment Of Section 1.80(B) Of The Commission's Rules, Adjustment of Civil Monetary 
Penalties to Reflect Inflation, Order, DA 13-1615, 78 FR 49371 (Rel. Aug. 1, 2013) (amendment of section 1.80(b) 
to reflect inflation increased the forfeiture maxima applicable in this case).
23
See 47 U.S.C. §§ 401, 501.
Federal Communications Commission      DA 13-2031
6
VII. ORDERING CLAUSES
18. IT IS  ORDERED that a copy of this Citation shall be sent by first class mail and 
certified mail to Robert Mahanian, 861 N. Norman Place, Los Angeles, CA 90049, with a copy to David 
B. Felsenthal, Novian & Novian, LLP, 1801 Century Park East, Suite #1201, Los Angeles, CA 90067.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Richard A. Hindman
Chief
Telecommunications Consumers Division
Enforcement Bureau