FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
July 15,2015
The Honorable Tammy Baldwin
United States Senate
717 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Baldwin:
Thank you for your follow-up letter regarding the petitions for declaratory ruling on the
applicability of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Commission's related
rules. You strongly urged the Commission to maintain the TCPA's privacy protections and to
continue protecting consumers from unwanted calls. At the June Open Meeting, the
Commission voted in favor of maintaining and reinforcing the clear focus on consumer
protection articulated by Congress when the TCPA was enacted in 1991.
We know consumers value their privacy, regardless of whether unwanted efforts to reach
them target their home landlines or wireless phones. Thanks to the TCPA, consumers can
choose which calls they want and do not want. In order to maintain those protections, we will
continue to close loopholes and empower consumers. That is why I led the Commission to crack
down on robocalls, spam texts, and telemarketing calls, which, as you note, are the number one
source of consumer complaints at the FCC.
The declaratory ruling which resolved more than 20 petitions reflects the thoughtful
policy recommendations detailed in your letter. We made 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. Companies have one opportunity (not three, and certainly not
hundreds) to discover that they have contacted the wrong person before liability attaches. 1 We
allowed some very limited and specific exceptions, such as time-sensitive alerts to possible fraud
on consumer bank accounts or reminders to refill important medications. But it is significant 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. We limit these calls to "not more than
three calls over a three-day period."?
I See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278,
Declaratory Ruling and Order, FCC 15-72 (2015 Ruling and Order) (reI. July lO, 2015), ~ 85; see e.g., Jonathan
Stempel, "Time Warner Cable Must Pay $229,500 to Woman It Robocalled 153 Times," Reuters (July 7, 2015),
available at http://reut.rs/IJPaHOZ.
22015 Ruling and Order at ~~ 135, 147.
Page 2-The Honorable Tammy Baldwin
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.
Tom Wheeler
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
July 15,2015
The Honorable Richard Blumenthal
United States Senate
702 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Blumenthal:
Thank you for your follow-up letter regarding the petitions for declaratory ruling on the
applicability of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Commission's related
rules. You strongly urged the Commission to maintain the TCPA's privacy protections and to
continue protecting consumers from unwanted calls. At the June Open Meeting, the
Commission voted in favor of maintaining and reinforcing the clear focus on consumer
protection articulated by Congress when the TCPA was enacted in 1991.
We know consumers value their privacy, regardless of whether unwanted efforts to reach
them target their home landlines or wireless phones. Thanks to the TCPA, consumers can
choose which calls they want and do not want. In order to maintain those protections, we will
continue to close loopholes and empower consumers. That is why I led the Commission to crack
down on robocalls, spam texts, and telemarketing calls, which, as you note, are the number one
source of consumer complaints at the FCC.
The declaratory ruling which resolved more than 20 petitions reflects the thoughtful
policy recommendations detailed in your letter. We made 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. Companies have one opportunity (not three, and certainly not
hundreds) to discover that they have contacted the wrong person before liability attaches." We
allowed some very limited and specific exceptions, such as time-sensitive alerts to possible fraud
on consumer bank accounts or reminders to refill important medications. But it is significant 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. We limit these calls to "not more than
three calls over a three-day period.?"
3 See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278,
Declaratory Ruling and Order, FCC 15-72 (2015 Ruling and Order) (rel, July 10, 2015), ~ 85; see e.g., Jonathan
Stempel, "Time Warner Cable Must Pay $229,500 to Woman It Robocalled 153 Times," Reuters (July 7, 2015),
available at http;!!reut.rsI1JPaHOZ.
42015 Ruling and Order at ~~ 135, 147.
Page 2-The Honorable Richard Blumenthal
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.
:;'~L
Tom Wheeler
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
July 15,2015
The Honorable AI Franken
United States Senate
309 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Franken:
Thank you for your follow-up letter regarding the petitions for declaratory ruling on the
applicability of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Commission's related
rules. You strongly urged the Commission to maintain the TCPA's privacy protections and to
continue protecting consumers from unwanted calls. At the June Open Meeting, the
Commission voted in favor of maintaining and reinforcing the clear focus on consumer
protection articulated by Congress when the TCPA was enacted in 1991.
We know consumers value their privacy, regardless of whether unwanted efforts to reach
them target their home landlines or wireless phones. Thanks to the TCPA, consumers can
choose which calls they want and do not want. In order to maintain those protections, we will
continue to close loopholes and empower consumers. That is why I led the Commission to crack
down on robocalls, spam texts, and telemarketing calis, which, as you note, are the number one
source of consumer complaints at the FCC.
The declaratory ruling which resolved more than 20 petitions reflects the thoughtful
policy recommendations detailed in your letter. We made 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. Companies have one opportunity (not three, and certainly not
hundreds) to discover that they have contacted the wrong person before liability attaches.' We
allowed some very limited and specific exceptions, such as time-sensitive alerts to possible fraud
on consumer bank accounts or reminders to refill important medications. But it is significant 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. We limit these calls to "not more than
three calls over a three-day period.:"
5 See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278,
Declaratory Ruling and Order, FCC \5-72 (2015 Ruling and Order) (reI. July 10, 2015), ~ 85; see e.g., Jonathan
Stempel, "Time Warner Cable Must Pay $229,500 to Woman It Robocalled 153 Times," Reuters (July 7, 2015),
available at http;!!reut.rs!lJPaHOZ.
62015 Ruling and Order at ~~ 135, 147.
Page 2-The Honorable Al Franken
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,//
b~'''{
Tom Wheeler
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
July 15,2015
The Honorable Amy Klobuchar
United States Senate
302 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Klobuchar:
Thank you for your follow-up letter regarding the petitions for declaratory ruling on the
applicability ofthe Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Commission's related
rules. You strongly urged the Commission to maintain the TCPA's privacy protections and to
continue protecting consumers from unwanted calls. At the June Open Meeting, the
Commission voted in favor of maintaining and reinforcing the clear focus on consumer
protection articulated by Congress when the TCPA was enacted in 1991.
We know consumers value their privacy, regardless of whether unwanted efforts to reach
them target their home landlines or wireless phones. Thanks to the TCP A, consumers can
choose which calls they want and do not want. In order to maintain those protections, we will
continue to close loopholes and empower consumers. That is why I led the Commission to crack
down on robocalls, spam texts, and telemarketing calls, which, as you note, are the number one
source of consumer complaints at the FCC.
The declaratory ruling which resolved more than 20 petitions reflects the thoughtful
policy recommendations detailed in your letter. We made 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. Companies have one opportunity (not three, and certainly not
hundreds) to discover that they have contacted the wrong person before liability attaches." We
allowed some very limited and specific exceptions, such as time-sensitive alerts to possible fraud
on consumer bank accounts or reminders to refill important medications. But it is significant 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. We limit these calls to "not more than
three calls over a three-day period.t"
7 See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278,
Declaratory Ruling and Order, FCC 15-72 (2015 Ruling and Order) (rel. July 10, 2015), ~ 85; see e.g., Jonathan
Stempel, "Time Warner Cable Must Pay $229,500 to Woman It Robocalled 153 Times," Reuters (July 7, 2015),
available at http://reut.rs/lJPaHOZ.
82015 Ruling and Order at ~~ 135, 147.
Page 2-The Honorable Amy Klobuchar
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.
Tom Wheeler
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
July 15,2015
The Honorable Edward J. Markey
United States Senate
218 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Markey:
Thank you for your follow-up letter regarding the petitions for declaratory ruling on the
applicability of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Commission's related
rules. You strongly urged the Commission to maintain the TCPA's privacy protections and to
continue protecting consumers from unwanted calls. At the June Open Meeting, the
Commission voted in favor of maintaining and reinforcing the clear focus on consumer
protection articulated by Congress when the TCPA was enacted in 1991.
We know consumers value their privacy, regardless of whether unwanted efforts to reach
them target their home landlines or wireless phones. Thanks to the TCPA, consumers can
choose which calls they want and do not want. In order to maintain those protections, we will
continue to close loopholes and empower consumers. That is why I led the Commission to crack
down on robocalls, spam texts, and telemarketing calls, which, as you note, are the number one
source of consumer complaints at the FCC.
The declaratory ruling which resolved more than 20 petitions reflects the thoughtful
policy recommendations detailed in your letter. We made 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. Companies have one opportunity (not three, and certainly not
hundreds) to discover that they have contacted the wrong person before liability attaches." We
allowed some very limited and specific exceptions, such as time-sensitive alerts to possible fraud
on consumer bank accounts or reminders to refill important medications. But it is significant 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. We limit these calls to "not more than
three calls over a three-day period." 10
9 See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278,
Declaratory Ruling and Order, FCC 15-72 (2015 Ruling and Order) (reI. July 10, 2015), ~ 85; see e.g., Jonathan
Stempel, "Time Warner Cable Must Pay $229,500 to Woman It Robocalled 153 Times," Reuters (July 7,2015),
available at http://reut.rs/IJPaI-lOZ.
102015 Ruling and Order at ~~ 135, 147.
Page 2-The Honorable Edward J. Markey
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.
Tom Wheeler
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
July 15,2015
The Honorable Claire McCaskill
United States Senate
SH-506 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator McCaskill:
Thank you for your follow-up letter regarding the petitions for declaratory ruling on the
applicability ofthe Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Commission's related
rules. You strongly urged the Commission to maintain the TCPA's privacy protections and to
continue protecting consumers from unwanted calls. At the June Open Meeting, the
Commission voted in favor of maintaining and reinforcing the clear focus on consumer
protection articulated by Congress when the TCPA was enacted in 1991.
We know consumers value their privacy, regardless of whether unwanted efforts to reach
them target their home landlines or wireless phones. Thanks to the TCPA, consumers can
choose which calls they want and do not want. In order to maintain those protections, we will
continue to close loopholes and empower consumers. That is why I led the Commission to crack
down on robocalls, spam texts, and telemarketing calls, which, as you note, are the number one
source of consumer complaints at the FCC.
The declaratory ruling which resolved more than 20 petitions reflects the thoughtful
policy recommendations detailed in your letter. We made 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. Companies have one opportunity (not three, and certainly not
hundreds) to discover that they have contacted the wrong person before liability attaches. 11 We
allowed some very limited and specific exceptions, such as time-sensitive alerts to possible fraud
on consumer bank accounts or reminders to refill important medications. But it is significant 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. We limit these calls to "not more than
three calls over a three-day period." 12
11 See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-
278, Declaratory Ruling and Order, FCC 15-72 (2015 Ruling and Order) (rel. July 10, 2015), ~ 85; see e.g., Jonathan
Stempel, "Time Warner Cable Must Pay $229,500 to Woman It Robocalled 153 Times," Reuters (July 7, 2015),
available at http;!!reut.rs!IJPaHOZ.
122015 Ruling and Order at ~~ 135, 147.
Page 2-The Honorable Claire McCaskill
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. -;:-/l4.t-
Tom Wheeler
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
TH E CHAI RMAN
July 15,2015
The Honorable Robert Menendez
United States Senate
528 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Menendez:
Thank you for your follow-up letter regarding the petitions for declaratory ruling on the
applicability of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Commission's related
rules. You strongly urged the Commission to maintain the TCP A's privacy protections and to
continue protecting consumers from unwanted calls. At the June Open Meeting, the
Commission voted in favor of maintaining and reinforcing the clear focus on consumer
protection articulated by Congress when the TCPA was enacted in 1991.
We know consumers value their privacy, regardless of whether unwanted efforts to reach
them target their home landlines or wireless phones. Thanks to the TCPA, consumers can
choose which calls they want and do not want. In order to maintain those protections, we will
continue to close loopholes and empower consumers. That is why I led the Commission to crack
down on robocalls, spam texts, and telemarketing calls, which, as you note, are the number one
source of consumer complaints at the FCC.
The declaratory ruling which resolved more than 20 petitions reflects the thoughtful
policy recommendations detailed in your letter. We made 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. Companies have one opportunity (not three, and certainly not
hundreds) to discover that they have contacted the wrong person before liability attaches.P We
allowed some very limited and specific exceptions, such as time-sensitive alerts to possible fraud
on consumer bank accounts or reminders to refill important medications. But it is significant 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. We limit these calls to "not more than
three calls over a three-day period."!"
13 See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-
278, Declaratory Ruling and Order, FCC 15-72 (2015 Ruling and Order) (rel. July 10, 2015), ~ 85; see e.g., Jonathan
Stempel, "Time Warner Cable Must Pay $229,500 to Woman It Robocal1ed 153 Times," Reuters (July 7, 2015),
available at http;//reut.rs!lJPaHOZ.
142015 Ruling and Order at ~~ l35, 147.
Page 2-The Honorable Robert Menendez
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.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
TH E CHAI R MAN
July 15,2015
The Honorable Jeff Merkley
United States Senate
107 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Merkley:
Thank you for your follow-up letter regarding the petitions for declaratory ruling on the
applicability of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Commission's related
rules. You strongly urged the Commission to maintain the TCPA's privacy protections and to
continue protecting consumers from unwanted calls. At the June Open Meeting, the
Commission voted in favor of maintaining and reinforcing the clear focus on consumer
protection articulated by Congress when the TCPA was enacted in 1991.
We know consumers value their privacy, regardless of whether unwanted efforts to reach
them target their home landlines or wireless phones. Thanks to the TCPA, consumers can
choose which calls they want and do not want. In order to maintain those protections, we will
continue to close loopholes and empower consumers. That is why I led the Commission to crack
down on robocalls, spam texts, and telemarketing calis, which, as you note, are the number one
source of consumer complaints at the FCC.
The declaratory ruling which resolved more than 20 petitions reflects the thoughtful
policy recommendations detailed in your letter. We made 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. Companies have one opportunity (not three, and certainly not
hundreds) to discover that they have contacted the wrong person before liability attaches. IS We
allowed some very limited and specific exceptions, such as time-sensitive alerts to possible fraud
on consumer bank accounts or reminders to refill important medications. But it is significant 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. We limit these calls to "not more than
three calls over a three-day period.t''"
15 See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-
278, Declaratory Ruling and Order, FCC 15-72 (2015 Ruling and Order) (rel, July 10, 2015), ~ 85; see e.g., Jonathan
Stempel, "Time Warner Cable Must Pay $229,500 to Woman It Robocalled 153 Times," Reuters (July 7, 2015),
available at http://reut.rs/IJPaHOZ.
162015 Ruling and Order at ~~ l35, 147.
Page 2-The Honorable Jeff Merkley
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,/tt!..
/!;;;:eler
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
July 15,2015
The Honorable Charles E. Schumer
United States Senate
322 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Schumer:
Thank you for your follow-up letter regarding the petitions for declaratory ruling on the
applicability of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Commission's related
rules. You strongly urged the Commission to maintain the TCPA's privacy protections and to
continue protecting consumers from unwanted calls. At the June Open Meeting, the
Commission voted in favor of maintaining and reinforcing the clear focus on consumer
protection articulated by Congress when the TCPA was enacted in 1991.
We know consumers value their privacy, regardless of whether unwanted efforts to reach
them target their home landlines or wireless phones. Thanks to the TCPA, consumers can
choose which calls they want and do not want. In order to maintain those protections, we will
continue to close loopholes and empower consumers. That is why I led the Commission to crack
down on robocalls, spam texts, and telemarketing calls, which, as you note, are the number one
source of consumer complaints at the FCC.
The declaratory ruling which resolved more than 20 petitions reflects the thoughtful
policy recommendations detailed in your letter. We made 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. Companies have one opportunity (not three, and certainly not
hundreds) to discover that they have contacted the wrong person before liability attaches. 17 We
allowed some very limited and specific exceptions, such as time-sensitive alerts to possible fraud
on consumer bank accounts or reminders to refill important medications. But it is significant 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. We limit these calls to "not more than
three calls over a three-day period."] 8
17 See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-
278, Declaratory Ruling and Order, FCC 15-72 (2015 Ruling and Order) (reI. July 10, 2015), ~ 85; see e.g., Jonathan
Stempel, "Time Warner Cable Must Pay $229,500 to Woman It Robocalled 153 Times," Reuters (July 7, 2015),
available at http;//reut,rsIlJPaHOZ.
]82015 Ruling and Order at ~~ 135, 147.
Page 2-The Honorable Charles E. Schumer
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.
Tom Wheeler
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
TH E CHAI RMAN July 15,2015
The Honorable Elizabeth Warren
United States Senate
C2 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Warren:
Thank you for your follow-up letter regarding the petitions for declaratory ruling on the
applicability ofthe Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Commission's related
rules. You strongly urged the Commission to maintain the TCPA's privacy protections and to
continue protecting consumers from unwanted calls. At the June Open Meeting, the
Commission voted in favor of maintaining and reinforcing the clear focus on consumer
protection articulated by Congress when the TCPA was enacted in 1991.
We know consumers value their privacy, regardless of whether unwanted efforts to reach
them target their home landlines or wireless phones. Thanks to the TCPA, consumers can
choose which calls they want and do not want. In order to maintain those protections, we will
continue to close loopholes and empower consumers. That is why I led the Commission to crack
down on robocalls, spam texts, and telemarketing calls, which, as you note, are the number one
source of consumer complaints at the FCC.
The declaratory ruling which resolved more than 20 petitions reflects the thoughtful
policy recommendations detailed in your letter. We made 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. Companies have one opportunity (not three, and certainly not
hundreds) to discover that they have contacted the wrong person before liability attaches.'? We
allowed some very limited and specific exceptions, such as time-sensitive alerts to possible fraud
on consumer bank accounts or reminders to refill important medications. But it is significant 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. We limit these calls to "not more than
three calls over a three-day period. ,,20
19 See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-
278, Declaratory Ruling and Order, FCC 15-72 (2015 Ruling and Order) (rel, July 10, 2015), ~ 85; see e.g., Jonathan
Stempel, "Time Warner Cable Must Pay $229,500 to Woman It Robocalled 153 Times," Reuters (July 7,2015),
available at http://reut.rsIlJPaHOZ.
202015 Ruling and Order at ~~ 135, 147.
Page 2-The Honorable Elizabeth Warren
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,
Tom Wheeler
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN July 15,2015
The Honorable Ron Wyden
United States Senate
223 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Wyden:
Thank you for your follow-up letter regarding the petitions for declaratory ruling on the
applicability of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCP A) and the Commission's related
rules. You strongly urged the Commission to maintain the TCPA's privacy protections and to
continue protecting consumers from unwanted calls. At the June Open Meeting, the
Commission voted in favor of maintaining and reinforcing the clear focus on consumer
protection articulated by Congress when the TCPA was enacted in 1991.
We know consumers value their privacy, regardless of whether unwanted efforts to reach
them target their home landlines or wireless phones. Thanks to the TCPA, consumers can
choose which calls they want and do not want. In order to maintain those protections, we will
continue to close loopholes and empower consumers. That is why I led the Commission to crack
down on robocalls, spam texts, and telemarketing calls, which, as you note, are the number one
source of consumer complaints at the FCC.
The declaratory ruling which resolved more than 20 petitions reflects the thoughtful
policy recommendations detailed in your letter. We made 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. Companies have one opportunity (not three, and certainly not
hundreds) to discover that they have contacted the wrong person before liability attaches." We
allowed some very limited and specific exceptions, such as time-sensitive alerts to possible fraud
on consumer bank accounts or reminders to refill important medications. But it is significant 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. We limit these calls to "not more than
three calls over a three-day period. ,,22
21 See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-
278, Declaratory Ruling and Order, FCC 15-72 (2015 Ruling and Order) (rel, July 10, 2015), ~ 85; see e.g., Jonathan
Stempel, "Time Warner Cable Must Pay $229,500 to Woman It Robocalled 153 Times," Reuters (July 7,2015),
available at http://retlt.rs/lJPaHOZ.
22 2015 Ruling and Order at ~~ l35, 147.
Page 2-The Honorable Ron Wyden
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.
Tom Wheeler