STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER JESSICA ROSENWORCEL APPROVING IN PART, DISSENTING IN PART Re: In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278, WC Docket No. 07-135 Picture this. A family sits down to the dinner table. It’s more than an occasion to eat. It’s a chance to tell tales of the day and reconnect in a busy world where the demands on our time can feel unrelenting. I know this scene well. Because in my household, with two parents, two jobs, two kids, and too little time in the day, the dinner hour is sacred. But all too often the bliss of this ritual is interrupted— by Rachel from cardmember services, by an announcement that we’ve been pre-approved for a cruise or credit card, or by any number of other robocalls presenting us with information we did not ask for, do not want, and do not need. I detest robocalls. I’m not alone. Year-in and year-out, Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaints are the largest single category of complaints that consumers lodge with us here at the Commission. We receive thousands of complaints a month about robocalls. Our friends across town at the Federal Trade Commission receive tens of thousands more—at one point receiving nearly 200,000 in a single month. Ugh. It’s time—long past time—to do something about this. This is exactly why Congress passed the Telephone Consumer Protection Act which paved the way for the Do-Not-Call Act and registry. Like any law, these are not fool-proof. But if we update our policies we can not only give them modern meaning but we can find new ways to honor our cherished right to be left alone. In some ways, we achieve this lofty goal today, but in others we fall short. First, the good stuff. We bring clarity to the law and empower consumers with tools to avoid unwanted and harassing calls. Specifically, we make clear that nothing in the law prevents phone companies from deploying the latest technologies to block unwanted robocalls. We also make clear that consumers have the right to revoke any prior consent to receive robocalls. So when a consumer no longer wants to receive a company’s robocalls they have the unequivocal right to say stop. These efforts will help consumers manage robocalls, reduce unwanted intrusions, and bring a little more peace to the dinner hour. Next, the imperfect. Consumers have made clear—abundantly clear—they want fewer robocalls. So I do not understand why for some sectors of the economy this Commission gives the green light for more robocalls when consumers want a red one. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act is straightforward: it requires a company to get a consumer’s prior express consent before making robocalls to their number. But today we do away with this requirement for big banks, healthcare providers, and pharmaceutical companies. They get a loophole. The Order couches this exemption in high-minded rhetoric about informing consumers about upcoming healthcare appointments and threats to their credit. But despite this rhetoric, the result is obvious— consumers can expect to receive more robocalls from healthcare providers and banking institutions. Moreover, this puts the Commission in the ridiculous business of policing speech made in these calls and itemizing the number of calls permitted by these entities. The same result could be accomplished through private contract. Every one of us knows that. Every one of us signs countless forms to see a doctor or set up a bank account or arrange a loan. Giving our consent on these forms is not only sensible—it would get this agency out of the business of enumerating what calls can be made and what can be said on those calls. Because I think we need fewer robocalls and not more, on this aspect of today’s decision I dissent. Finally, I want to note that we have more work to do. Just last week, the Senate Special Committee on Aging held a hearing about robocalls and scams in which bad actors prey on consumers by faking or “spoofing” caller ID information. Call spoofing can be a pernicious tactic, confusing consumers who believe they are getting calls from a legitimate government agency or company when in fact it is a scammer on the other end of the line. We need to crack down on this predatory behavior—and if we lack the tools to do so, we need to revise our policies or seek help from Congress to better protect consumers. In addition, we need to give serious consideration to how our robocall policies impact schools. To prevent truancy and create early warning for possible child abduction, many school districts call parents to alert them when students are not in class. But their efforts are getting caught in a web of lawsuits and the Commission needs to take a hard look at how to fix this. I know this has been a rollicking effort and a contentious proceeding. But in many ways, today’s efforts will bring a little more relief from commercial solicitation, a little more quiet in our homes, and a little more peace to the dinner hour—to the extent it does, today’s decision has my support.