FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
TH E CHAI RMAN
July 15,2015
The Honorable Gus Bilirakis
U.S. House of Representatives
2313 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Bilirakis:
Thank you for your letter regarding pending petitions for declaratory ruling on the
applicability ofthe Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Commission's related
rules. In your letter, you state that some protections created by TCPA need to be modernized to
reconcile the law with the modem communications landscape and urge the Commission to
implement reforms that provide greater clarity and guidance for callers. In addition, you raise
concerns that some new exceptions under consideration could weaken the effectiveness of the
current prohibitions on unwanted calls. I agree with both sets of observations, and the item
adopted at the Commission's June Open Meeting reflects the careful balance that you detail in
your letter.
Let me assure you that the Commission is committed to the TCPA's goal of protecting
consumers from unwanted calls and texts. We know consumers value their privacy, regardless
of whether unwanted efforts to reach them target their home landlines or wireless phones. The
TCPA makes clear that consumers can choose which calls they want and do not want. That is
why I led the Commission to crack down on robocalls, spam texts, and telemarketing calls,
which are the number one source of consumer complaints at the FCC. We took action to resolve
more than 20 petitions by providing, as you suggest, much needed clarity on number of TCPA
issues to business and other callers. Our actions send one clear message: consumers have the
right to control the calls and texts they receive.
In your letter, you raise concerns businesses and other callers are adversely affected
because we have not updated the TCP A to reflect modem calling and consumer expectations. To
the contrary, our actions provide the clarifications that responsible businesses need to maintain
lawful use of robocalling equipment. Indeed, we interpret the TCPA in a common-sense way that
benefits both callers and consumers. This includes providing limited exceptions that clear the
way for time-sensitive calls about consumer healthcare and bank accounts so that consumers can
get the information as quickly as possible. With important conditions on the number of calls and
opt-out ability, we prove that both consumers and businesses can win under the TCP A.
With this decision, the Commission empowered consumers in a number of ways. For the
first time, the Commission clarified that there is no legal reason carriers should not offer their
customers popular robocall-blocking solutions so that consumers can use market-based
-----_ .._------
Page 2-The Honorable Gus Bilirakis
approaches to stop unwanted calls. We also make it clear that it should be easy for consumers to
say "no more" even when they've given their consent in the past.
We also closed a number of loopholes. For example, we clarified the definition of
"autodialers" to include any technology with the potential to dial random or sequential numbers.
Our action is true to Congress's intent when passing the law and would ensure that robocallers
cannot skirt consent requirements through changes in technology design. We also closed the
"reassigned number" loophole, making clear that consumers who inherit a phone number will not
be subject to a barrage of unwanted robocalls consented to by the previous subscriber to the
number.
You also expressed concern that some new exceptions could weaken the effectiveness of
the current prohibitions on unwanted calls. As noted above, while we will allow some very
limited and specific exceptions, such as time-sensitive alerts to customers regarding possible
fraud and suspicious activity involving consumer bank accounts, it is important to note that these
narrow exemptions do not include practices like debt collection and marketing, and consumers
will have the right to opt-out of such calls.
The Commission's decisions on these issues were based on an extensive record in
response to the petitions, including numerous informative meetings with trade associations, small
business owners, state attorneys general, consumer groups, and other interested parties. Please
be assured that we have carefully considered the input of all stakeholders, including callers and
consumers alike.
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further
assistance.
Sincerely,
.I
~eeler
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
TH E CHAJ R MAN
July 15,2015
The Honorable Tony Cardenas
U.S. House of Representatives
1508 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Cardenas:
Thank you for your letter regarding pending petitions for declaratory ruling on the
applicability of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Commission's related
rules. In your letter, you state that some protections created by TCPA need to be modernized to
reconcile the law with the modem communications landscape and urge the Commission to
implement reforms that provide greater clarity and guidance for callers. In addition, you raise
concerns that some new exceptions under consideration could weaken the effectiveness of the
current prohibitions on unwanted calls. I agree with both sets of observations, and the item
adopted at the Commission's June Open Meeting reflects the careful balance that you detail in
your letter.
Let me assure you that the Commission is committed to the TCPA's goal of protecting
consumers from unwanted calls and texts. We know consumers value their privacy, regardless
of whether unwanted efforts to reach them target their home landlines or wireless phones. The
TCPA makes clear that consumers can choose which calls they want and do not want. That is
why I led the Commission to crack down on robocalls, spam texts, and telemarketing calls,
which are the number one source of consumer complaints at the FCC. We took action to resolve
more than 20 petitions by providing, as you suggest, much needed clarity on number of TCPA
issues to business and other callers. Our actions send one clear message: consumers have the
right to control the calls and texts they receive.
In your letter, you raise concerns businesses and other callers are adversely affected
because we have not updated the TCPA to reflect modem calling and consumer expectations. To
the contrary, our actions provide the clarifications that responsible businesses need to maintain
lawful use of robocalling equipment. Indeed, we interpret the TCP A in a common-sense way that
benefits both callers and consumers. This includes providing limited exceptions that clear the
way for time-sensitive calls about consumer healthcare and bank accounts so that consumers can
get the information as quickly as possible. With important conditions on the number of calls and
opt-out ability, we prove that both consumers and businesses can win under the TCP A.
With this decision, the Commission empowered consumers in a number of ways. For the
first time, the Commission clarified that there is no legal reason carriers should not offer their
customers popular robocall-blocking solutions so that consumers can use market-based
Page 2-·· The Honorable Tony Cardenas
approaches to stop unwanted calls. We also make it clear that it should be easy for consumers to
say "no more" even when they've given their consent in the past.
We also closed a number ofloopholes. For example, we clarified the definition of
"autodialers" to include any technology with the potential to dial random or sequential numbers.
Our action is true to Congress's intent when passing the law and would ensure that robocallers
cannot skirt consent requirements through changes in technology design. We also closed the
"reassigned number" loophole, making clear that consumers who inherit a phone number will not
be subject to a barrage of unwanted robocalls consented to by the previous subscriber to the
number.
You also expressed concern that some new exceptions could weaken the effectiveness of
the current prohibitions on unwanted calls. As noted above, while we will allow some very
limited and specific exceptions, such as time-sensitive alerts to customers regarding possible
fraud and suspicious activity involving consumer bank accounts, it is important to note that these
narrow exemptions do not include practices like debt collection and marketing, and consumers
will have the right to opt-out of such calls.
The Commission's decisions on these issues were based on an extensive record in
response to the petitions, including numerous informative meetings with trade associations, small
business owners, state attorneys general, consumer groups, and other interested parties. Please
be assured that we have carefully considered the input of all stakeholders, including callers and
consumers alike.
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if! can be of any further
assistance.
Sincerely,Hi!-
~ler
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
July 15,2015
The Honorable Leonard Lance
U.S. House of Representatives
133 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Lance:
Thank you for your letter regarding pending petitions for declaratory ruling on the
applicability of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Commission's related
rules. In your letter, you state that some protections created by TCPA need to be modernized to
reconcile the law with the modem communications landscape and urge the Commission to
implement reforms that provide greater clarity and guidance for callers. In addition, you raise
concerns that some new exceptions under consideration could weaken the effectiveness of the
current prohibitions on unwanted calls. I agree with both sets of observations, and the item
adopted at the Commission's June Open Meeting reflects the careful balance that you detail in
your letter.
Let me assure you that the Commission is committed to the TCPA's goal of protecting
consumers from unwanted calls and texts. We know consumers value their privacy, regardless
of whether unwanted efforts to reach them target their home landlines or wireless phones. The
TCPA makes clear that consumers can choose which calls they want and do not want. That is
why I led the Commission to crack down on robocalls, spam texts, and telemarketing calls,
which are the number one source of consumer complaints at the FCC. We took action to resolve
more than 20 petitions by providing, as you suggest, much needed clarity on number of TCPA
issues to business and other callers. Our actions send one clear message: consumers have the
right to control the calls and texts they receive.
In your letter, you raise concerns businesses and other callers are adversely affected
because we have not updated the TCPA to reflect modem calling and consumer expectations. To
the contrary, our actions provide the clarifications that responsible businesses need to maintain
lawful use of robocalling equipment. Indeed, we interpret the TCP A in a common-sense way that
benefits both callers and consumers. This includes providing limited exceptions that clear the
way for time-sensitive calls about consumer healthcare and bank accounts so that consumers can
get the information as quickly as possible. With important conditions on the number of calls and
opt-out ability, we prove that both consumers and businesses can win under the TCPA.
With this decision, the Commission empowered consumers in a number of ways. For the
first time, the Commission clarified that there is no legal reason carriers should not offer their
customers popular robocall-blocking solutions so that consumers can use market-based
Page 2-The Honorable Leonard Lance
approaches to stop unwanted calls. We also make it clear that it should be easy for consumers to
say "no more" even when they've given their consent in the past.
We also closed a number of loopholes. For example, we clarified the definition of
"autodialers" to include any technology with the potential to dial random or sequential numbers.
Our action is true to Congress's intent when passing the law and would ensure that robocallers
cannot skirt consent requirements through changes in technology design. We also closed the
"reassigned number" loophole, making clear that consumers who inherit a phone number will not
be subject to a barrage of unwanted robocalls consented to by the previous subscriber to the
number.
You also expressed concern that some new exceptions could weaken the effectiveness of
the current prohibitions on unwanted calls. As noted above, while we will allow some very
limited and specific exceptions, such as time-sensitive alerts to customers regarding possible
fraud and suspicious activity involving consumer bank accounts, it is important to note that these
narrow exemptions do not include practices like debt collection and marketing, and consumers
will have the right to opt-out of such calls.
The Commission's decisions on these issues were based on an extensive record in
response to the petitions, including numerous informative meetings with trade associations, small
business owners, state attorneys general, consumer groups, and other interested parties. Please
be assured that we have carefully considered the input of all stakeholders, including callers and
consumers alike.
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know in can be of any further
assistance.
Sincerely,
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
July 15,2015
The Honorable Jerry McNerney
U.S. House of Representatives
1210 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman McNerney:
Thank you for your letter regarding pending petitions for declaratory ruling on the
applicability of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Commission's related
rules. In your letter, you state that some protections created by TCP A need to be modernized to
reconcile the law with the modem communications landscape and urge the Commission to
implement reforms that provide greater clarity and guidance for callers. In addition, you raise
concerns that some new exceptions under consideration could weaken the effectiveness of the
current prohibitions on unwanted calls. I agree with both sets of observations, and the item
adopted at the Commission's June Open Meeting reflects the careful balance that you detail in
your letter.
Let me assure you that the Commission is committed to the TCPA's goal of protecting
consumers from unwanted calls and texts. We know consumers value their privacy, regardless
of whether unwanted efforts to reach them target their home landlines or wireless phones. The
TCPA makes clear that consumers can choose which calls they want and do not want. That is
why I led the Commission to crack down on robocalls, spam texts, and telemarketing calls,
which are the number one source of consumer complaints at the FCC. We took action to resolve
more than 20 petitions by providing, as you suggest, much needed clarity on number of TCPA
issues to business and other callers. Our actions send one clear message: consumers have the
right to control the calls and texts they receive.
In your letter, you raise concerns businesses and other callers are adversely affected
because we have not updated the TCPA to reflect modem calling and consumer expectations. To
the contrary, our actions provide the clarifications that responsible businesses need to maintain
lawful use of robocalling equipment. Indeed, we interpret the TCP A in a common-sense way that
benefits both callers and consumers. This includes providing limited exceptions that clear the
way for time-sensitive calls about consumer healthcare and bank accounts so that consumers can
get the information as quickly as possible. With important conditions on the number of calls and
opt -out ability, we prove that both consumers and businesses can win under the TCP A.
With this decision, the Commission empowered consumers in a number of ways. For the
first time, the Commission clarified that there is no legal reason carriers should not offer their
customers popular robocall-blocking solutions so that consumers can use market-based
Page 2-The Honorable Jerry McNerney
approaches to stop unwanted calls. We also make it clear that it should be easy for consumers to
say "no more" even when they've given their consent in the past.
We also closed a number of loopholes. For example, we clarified the definition of
"autodialers" to include any technology with the potential to dial random or sequential numbers.
Our action is true to Congress's intent when passing the law and would ensure that robocallers
cannot skirt consent requirements through changes in technology design. We also closed the
"reassigned number" loophole, making clear that consumers who inherit a phone number will not
be subject to a barrage of unwanted robocalls consented to by the previous subscriber to the
number.
You also expressed concern that some new exceptions could weaken the effectiveness of
the current prohibitions on unwanted calls. As noted above, while we will allow some very
limited and specific exceptions, such as time-sensitive alerts to customers regarding possible
fraud and suspicious activity involving consumer bank accounts, it is important to note that these
narrow exemptions do not include practices like debt collection and marketing, and consumers
will have the right to opt-out of such calls.
The Commission's decisions on these issues were based on an extensive record in
response to the petitions, including numerous informative meetings with trade associations, small
business owners, state attorneys general, consumer groups, and other interested parties. Please
be assured that we have carefully considered the input of all stakeholders, including callers and
consumers alike.
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if! can be of any further
assistance. S;;/l4l_
Tom Wheeler