OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
May 8,2018
The Honorable Amy Klobuchar
United States Senate
302 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Kiobuchar:
Thank you for your letter regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Unwanted robocalls are consumers' top complaint to the FCC, and we have accordingly made
combating illegal robocalls our top consumer protection priority. We have aggressively enforced
the TCPA as well as the Truth in Caller ID-leveling over $200 million in proposed fines against
illegal robocallers. In November we authorized carriers to stop certain robocalls at the source,
while we pursue the creation of a reassigned numbers database and a robust call-authentication
framework. And we have been working with our colleagues at the Federal Trade Commission as
well-hosting a policy forum in March and a tech expo of robocall-fighting apps in April.
In your letter, you note the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia in ACA International v. FCC, which struck down much of the agency's 2015 TCPA
Declaratory Ruling and Order-including "an expansive interpretation of 'capacity' having the
apparent effect of embracing any and all smartphones." Thankfully, the court upheld a
consumer's right to revoke consent should they no longer wish to receive robocalls and
robotexts-and the ruling does not impact the Commission's current efforts to address illegal
robocalls and spoofing.
I expect the court will issue its mandate soon. Once it does, I agree that the Commission
must address the definition of an "automatic telephone dialing system," reassigned number
protections, and the scope of a consumer's right to revocation-along with other pending
questions such as whether federal contractors are "persons" and the long-stalled Budget Act
rules. I look forward to working with my colleagues on addressing these issues while continuing
our many other efforts to combat illegal robocalls.
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
Ajit V. Pai
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
May 8,2018
The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto
United States Senate
B4OA Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Cortez Masto:
Thank you for your letter regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Unwanted robocalls are consumers' top complaint to the FCC, and we have accordingly made
combating illegal robocalls our top consumer protection priority. We have aggressively enforced
the TCPA as well as the Truth in Caller ID-leveling over $200 million in proposed fines against
illegal robocallers. In November we authorized carriers to stop certain robocalls at the source,
while we pursue the creation of a reassigned numbers database and a robust call-authentication
framework. And we have been working with our colleagues at the Federal Trade Commission as
well-hosting a policy forum in March and a tech expo of robocall-fighting apps in April.
In your letter, you note the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia in A CA International v. FCC, which struck down much of the agency's 2015 TCPA
Declaratory Ruling and Order-including "an expansive interpretation of 'capacity' having the
apparent effect of embracing any and all smartphones." Thankfully, the court upheld a
consumer's right to revoke consent should they no longer wish to receive robocalls and
robotexts-and the ruling does not impact the Commission's current efforts to address illegal
robocalls and spoofing.
I expect the court will issue its mandate soon. Once it does, I agree that the Commission
must address the definition of an "automatic telephone dialing system," reassigned number
protections, and the scope of a consumer's right to revocation-along with other pending
questions such as whether federal contractors are "persons" and the long-stalled Budget Act
rules. I look forward to working with my colleagues on addressing these issues while continuing
our many other efforts to combat illegal robocalls.
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
Ajit V. Pai
iMiis'5
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
May 8,2018
The Honorable Chris Van Hollen
United States Senate
B4OC Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Van Hollen:
Thank you for your letter regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Unwanted robocalls are consumers' top complaint to the FCC, and we have accordingly made
combating illegal robocalls our top consumer protection priority. We have aggressively enforced
the TCPA as well as the Truth in Caller ID-leveling over $200 million in proposed fines against
illegal robocallers. In November we authorized carriers to stop certain robocalls at the source,
while we pursue the creation of a reassigned numbers database and a robust call-authentication
framework, And we have been working with our colleagues at the Federal Trade Commission as
well-hosting a policy forum in March and a tech expo of robocall-fighting apps in April.
In your letter, you note the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia in A CA International v. FCC, which struck down much of the agency's 2015 TCPA
Declaratory Ruling and Order-including "an expansive interpretation of 'capacity' having the
apparent effect of embracing any and all smartphones." Thankfully, the court upheld a
consumer's right to revoke consent should they no longer wish to receive robocalls and
robotexts-and the ruling does not impact the Commission's current efforts to address illegal
robocalls and spoofing.
I expect the court will issue its mandate soon. Once it does, I agree that the Commission
must address the definition of an "automatic telephone dialing system," reassigned number
protections, and the scope of a consumer's right to revocation-along with other pending
questions such as whether federal contractors are "persons" and the long-stalled Budget Act
rules. I look forward to working with my colleagues on addressing these issues while continuing
our many other efforts to combat illegal robocalls.
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
vi
jit V. Pai
n
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
May 8,2018
The Honorable Cory Booker
United States Senate
359 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Booker:
Thank you for your letter regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Unwanted robocalls are consumers' top complaint to the FCC, and we have accordingly made
combating illegal robocalls our top consumer protection priority. We have aggressively enforced
the TCPA as well as the Truth in Caller ID-leveling over $200 million in proposed fines against
illegal robocallers. In November we authorized carriers to stop certain robocalls at the source,
while we pursue the creation of a reassigned numbers database and a robust call-authentication
framework. And we have been working with our colleagues at the Federal Trade Commission as
well-hosting a policy forum in March and a tech expo of robocall-fighting apps in April.
In your letter, you note the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia in A CA International v. FCC, which struck down much of the agency's 2015 TCPA
Declaratory Ruling and Order-including "an expansive interpretation of 'capacity' having the
apparent effect of embracing any and all smartphones." Thankfully, the court upheld a
consumer's right to revoke consent should they no longer wish to receive robocalls and
robotexts-and the ruling does not impact the Commission's current efforts to address illegal
robocalls and spoofing.
I expect the court will issue its mandate soon. Once it does, I agree that the Commission
must address the definition of an "automatic telephone dialing system," reassigned number
protections, and the scope of a consumer's right to revocation-along with other pending
questions such as whether federal contractors are "persons" and the long-stalled Budget Act
rules. I look forward to working with my colleagues on addressing these issues while continuing
our many other efforts to combat illegal robocalls.
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
Ajit V. Pai
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
May 8,2018
The Honorable Edward J. Markey
United States Senate
255 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Markey:
Thank you for your letter regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Unwanted robocalls are consumers' top complaint to the FCC, and we have accordingly made
combating illegal robocalls our top consumer protection priority. We have aggressively enforced
the TCPA as well as the Truth in Caller ID-leveling over $200 million in proposed fines against
illegal robocallers. In November we authorized carriers to stop certain robocalls at the source,
while we pursue the creation of a reassigned numbers database and a robust call-authentication
framework. And we have been working with our colleagues at the Federal Trade Commission as
welL-hosting a policy forum in March and a tech expo of robocall-fighting apps in April.
In your letter, you note the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia in ACA International v. FCC, which struck down much of the agency's 2015 TCPA
Declaratory Ruling and Order-including "an expansive interpretation of 'capacity' having the
apparent effect of embracing any and all smartphones." Thankfully, the court upheld a
consumer's right to revoke consent should they no longer wish to receive robocalls and
robotexts-and the ruling does not impact the Commission's current efforts to address illegal
robocalls and spoofing.
I expect the court will issue its mandate soon. Once it does, I agree that the Commission
must address the definition of an "automatic telephone dialing system," reassigned number
protections, and the scope of a consumer's right to revocation-along with other pending
questions such as whether federal contractors are "persons" and the long-stalled Budget Act
rules. I look forward to working with my colleagues on addressing these issues while continuing
our many other efforts to combat illegal robocalls.
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
	
(1
LJ>
U
(1
N
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
May 8,2018
The Honorable Elizabeth Warren
United States Senate
317 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Warren:
Thank you for your letter regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Unwanted robocalls are consumers' top complaint to the FCC, and we have accordingly made
combating illegal robocalls our top consumer protection priority. We have aggressively enforced
the TCPA as well as the Truth in Caller ID-leveling over $200 million in proposed fines against
illegal robocallers. In November we authorized carriers to stop certain robocalls at the source,
while we pursue the creation of a reassigned numbers database and a robust call-authentication
framework. And we have been working with our colleagues at the Federal Trade Commission as
well-hosting a policy forum in March and a tech expo of robocall-fighting apps in April.
In your letter, you note the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia in ACA International v. FCC, which struck down much of the agency's 2015 TCPA
Declaratory Ruling and Order-including "an expansive interpretation of 'capacity' having the
apparent effect of embracing any and all smartphones." Thankfully, the court upheld a
consumer's right to revoke consent should they no longer wish to receive robocalls and
robotexts-and the ruling does not impact the Commission's current efforts to address illegal
robocalls and spoofing.
I expect the court will issue its mandate soon. Once it does, I agree that the Commission
must address the definition of an "automatic telephone dialing system," reassigned number
protections, and the scope of a consumer's right to revocation-along with other pending
questions such as whether federal contractors are "persons" and the long-stalled Budget Act
rules. I look forward to working with my colleagues on addressing these issues while continuing
our many other efforts to combat illegal robocalls.
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
AjitV.Pai
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
May 8,2018
The Honorable Gary Peters
United States Senate
724 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Peters:
Thank you for your letter regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Unwanted robocalls are consumers' top complaint to the FCC, and we have accordingly made
combating illegal robocalls our top consumer protection priority. We have aggressively enforced
the TCPA as well as the Truth in Caller ID-leveling over $200 million in proposed fines against
illegal robocallers. In November we authorized carriers to stop certain robocalls at the source,
while we pursue the creation of a reassigned numbers database and a robust call-authentication
framework. And we have been working with our colleagues at the Federal Trade Commission as
well-hosting a policy forum in March and a tech expo of robocall-fighting apps in April.
In your letter, you note the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia in A CA International v. FCC, which struck down much of the agency's 2015 TCPA
Declaratory Ruling and Order-including "an expansive interpretation of 'capacity' having the
apparent effect of embracing any and all smartphones." Thankfully, the court upheld a
consumer's right to revoke consent should they no longer wish to receive robocalls and
robotexts-and the ruling does not impact the Commission's current efforts to address illegal
robocalls and spoofing.
I expect the court will issue its mandate soon. Once it does, I agree that the Commission
must address the definition of an "automatic telephone dialing system," reassigned number
protections, and the scope of a consumer's right to revocation-along with other pending
questions such as whether federal contractors are "persons" and the long-stalled Budget Act
rules. I look forward to working with my colleagues on addressing these issues while continuing
our many other efforts to combat illegal robocalls.
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
May 8,2018
The Honorable Jack Reed
United States Senate
728 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Reed:
Thank you for your letter regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Unwanted robocalls are consumers' top complaint to the FCC, and we have accordingly made
combating illegal robocalls our top consumer protection priority. We have aggressively enforced
the TCPA as well as the Truth in Caller ID-leveling over $200 million in proposed fines against
illegal robocallers, In November we authorized carriers to stop certain robocalls at the source,
while we pursue the creation of a reassigned numbers database and a robust call-authentication
framework. And we have been working with our colleagues at the Federal Trade Commission as
well-hosting a policy forum in March and a tech expo of robocall-fighting apps in April.
In your letter, you note the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia in ACA International v. FCC, which struck down much of the agency's 2015 TCPA
Declaratory Ruling and Order-including "an expansive interpretation of 'capacity' having the
apparent effect of embracing any and all smartphones." Thankfully, the court upheld a
consumer's right to revoke consent should they no longer wish to receive robocalls and
robotexts-and the ruling does not impact the Commission's current efforts to address illegal
robocalls and spoofing.
I expect the court will issue its mandate soon. Once it does, I agree that the Commission
must address the definition of an "automatic telephone dialing system," reassigned number
protections, and the scope of a consumer's right to revocation-along with other pending
questions such as whether federal contractors are "persons" and the long-stalled Budget Act
rules. I look forward to working with my colleagues on addressing these issues while continuing
our many other efforts to combat illegal robocalls.
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
May 8,2018
The Honorable Kirsten Gillibrand
United States Senate
478 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Gilhbrand:
Thank you for your letter regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Unwanted robocalls are consumers' top complaint to the FCC, and we have accordingly made
combating illegal robocalls our top consumer protection priority. We have aggressively enforced
the TCPA as well as the Truth in Caller ID-leveling over $200 million in proposed fines against
illegal robocallers. In November we authorized carriers to stop certain robocalls at the source,
while we pursue the creation of a reassigned numbers database and a robust call-authentication
framework. And we have been working with our colleagues at the Federal Trade Commission as
well-hosting a policy forum in March and a tech expo of robocall-fighting apps in April.
In your letter, you note the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia in A CA International v. FCC, which struck down much of the agency's 2015 TCPA
Declaratory Ruling and Order-including "an expansive interpretation of capacity' having the
apparent effect of embracing any and all smartphones." Thankfully, the court upheld a
consumer's right to revoke consent should they no longer wish to receive robocalls and
robotexts-and the ruling does not impact the Commission's current efforts to address illegal
robocalls and spoofing.
I expect the court will issue its mandate soon. Once it does, I agree that the Commission
must address the definition of an "automatic telephone dialing system," reassigned number
protections, and the scope of a consumer's right to revocation-along with other pending
questions such as whether federal contractors are "persons" and the long-stalled Budget Act
rules. I look forward to working with my colleagues on addressing these issues while continuing
our many other efforts to combat illegal robocalls.
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
Ajit V. Paio.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN May 8,2018
The Honorable Maggie Hassan
United States Senate
B85 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Hassan:
Thank you for your letter regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Unwanted robocalls are consumers' top complaint to the FCC, and we have accordingly made
combating illegal robocalls our top consumer protection priority. We have aggressively enforced
the TCPA as well as the Truth in Caller ID-leveling over $200 million in proposed fines against
illegal robocallers. In November we authorized carriers to stop certain robocalls at the source,
while we pursue the creation of a reassigned numbers database and a robust call-authentication
framework. And we have been working with our colleagues at the Federal Trade Commission as
well-hosting a policy forum in March and a tech expo of robocall-fighting apps in April.
In your letter, you note the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia in ACA International v. FCC, which struck down much of the agency's 2015 TCPA
Declaratory Ruling and Order-including "an expansive interpretation of 'capacity' having the
apparent effect of embracing any and all smartphones." Thankfully, the court upheld a
consumer's right to revoke consent should they no longer wish to receive robocalls and
robotexts-and the ruling does not impact the Commission's current efforts to address illegal
robocalls and spoofing.
I expect the court will issue its mandate soon. Once it does, I agree that the Commission
must address the definition of an "automatic telephone dialing system," reassigned number
protections, and the scope of a consumer's right to revocation-along with other pending
questions such as whether federal contractors are "persons" and the long-stalled Budget Act
rules. I look forward to working with my colleagues on addressing these issues while continuing
our many other efforts to combat illegal robocalls.
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
/1
Sincerely,
I,Lk
0
	
Ajit V. Pai
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
May 8,2018
The Honorable Richard Blumenthal
United States Senate
706 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Blumenthal:
Thank you for your letter regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Unwanted robocalls are consumers' top complaint to the FCC, and we have accordingly made
combating illegal robocalls our top consumer protection priority. We have aggressively enforced
the TCPA as well as the Truth in Caller ID-leveling over $200 million in proposed fines against
illegal robocallers. In November we authorized carriers to stop certain robocalls at the source,
while we pursue the creation of a reassigned numbers database and a robust call-authentication
framework. And we have been working with our colleagues at the Federal Trade Commission as
well-hosting a policy forum in March and a tech expo of robocall-fighting apps in April.
In your letter, you note the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia mACA International v. FCC, which struck down much of the agency's 2015 TCPA
Declaratory Ruling and Order-including "an expansive interpretation of 'capacity' having the
apparent effect of embracing any and all smartphones." Thankfully, the court upheld a
consumer's right to revoke consent should they no longer wish to receive robocalls and
robotexts-and the ruling does not impact the Commission's current efforts to address illegal
robocalls and spoofing.
I expect the court will issue its mandate soon. Once it does, I agree that the Commission
must address the definition of an "automatic telephone dialing system," reassigned number
protections, and the scope of a consumer's right to revocation-along with other pending
questions such as whether federal contractors are "persons" and the long-stalled Budget Act
rules. I look forward to working with my colleagues on addressing these issues while continuing
our many other efforts to combat illegal robocalls.
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
Ajit V. Pai
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
May 8,2018
The Honorable Robert Menendez
United States Senate
528 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Menendez:
Thank you for your letter regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Unwanted robocalls are consumers' top complaint to the FCC, and we have accordingly made
combating illegal robocalls our top consumer protection priority. We have aggressively enforced
the TCPA as well as the Truth in Caller ID-leveling over $200 million in proposed fines against
illegal robocallers. In November we authorized carriers to stop certain robocalls at the source,
while we pursue the creation of a reassigned numbers database and a robust call-authentication
framework. And we have been working with our colleagues at the Federal Trade Commission as
well-hosting a policy forum in March and a tech expo of robocall-fighting apps in April.
In your letter, you note the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia inAC4 International v. FCC, which struck down much of the agency's 2015 TCPA
Declaratory Ruling and Order-including "an expansive interpretation of 'capacity' having the
apparent effect of embracing any and all smartphones." Thankfully, the court upheld a
consumer's right to revoke consent should they no longer wish to receive robocalls and
robotexts-and the ruling does not impact the Commission's current efforts to address illegal
robocalls and spoofing.
I expect the court will issue its mandate soon. Once it does, I agree that the Commission
must address the definition of an "automatic telephone dialing system," reassigned number
protections, and the scope of a consumer's right to revocation-along with other pending
questions such as whether federal contractors are "persons" and the long-stalled Budget Act
rules. I look forward to working with my colleagues on addressing these issues while continuing
our many other efforts to combat illegal robocalls.
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
'I
1A-' V'
Ajit V. Pai
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
May 8,2018
The Honorable Ron Wyden
United States Senate
221 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Wyden:
Thank you for your letter regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Unwanted robocalls are consumers' top complaint to the FCC, and we have accordingly made
combating illegal robocalls our top consumer protection priority. We have aggressively enforced
the TCPA as well as the Truth in Caller ID-leveling over $200 million in proposed fines against
illegal robocallers. In November we authorized carriers to stop certain robocalls at the source,
while we pursue the creation of a reassigned numbers database and a robust call-authentication
framework. And we have been working with our colleagues at the Federal Trade Commission as
well-hosting a policy forum in March and a tech expo of robocall-fighting apps in April.
In your letter, you note the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia in A CA International v. FCC, which struck down much of the agency's 2015 TCPA
Declaratory Ruling and Order-including "an expansive interpretation of 'capacity' having the
apparent effect of embracing any and all srnartphones." Thankfully, the court upheld a
consumer's right to revoke consent should they no longer wish to receive robocalls and
robotexts-and the ruling does not impact the Commission's current efforts to address illegal
robocalls and spoofing.
I expect the court will issue its mandate'soon. Once it does, I agree that the Commission
must address the definition of an "automatic telephone dialing system," reassigned number
protections, and the scope of a consumer's right to revocation-along with other pending
questions such as whether federal contractors are "persons" and the long-stalled Budget Act
rules. I look forward to working with my colleagues on addressing these issues while continuing
our many other efforts to combat illegal robocalls.
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
vi
AjitV.Pai
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
May 8,2018
The Honorable Tammy Baldwin
United States Senate
717 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Baldwin:
Thank you for your letter regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Unwanted robocalls are consumers' top complaint to the FCC, and we have accordingly made
combating illegal robocalls our top consumer protection priority. We have aggressively enforced
the TCPA as well as the Truth in Caller ID-leveling over $200 million in proposed fines against
illegal robocallers. In November we authorized carriers to stop certain robocalls at the source,
while we pursue the creation of a reassigned numbers database and a robust call-authentication
framework. And we have been working with our colleagues at the Federal Trade Commission as
well-hosting a policy forum in March and a tech expo of robocall-fighting apps in April.
In your letter, you note the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia mACA Internationalv. FCC, which struck down much of the agency's 2015 TPA
Declaratory Ruling and Order-including "an expansive interpretation of 'capacity' having the
apparent effect of embracing any and all smartphones." Thankfully, the court upheld a
consumer's right to revoke consent should they no longer wish to receive robocalls and
robotexts-and the ruling does not impact the Commission's current efforts to address illegal
robocalls and spoofing.
I expect the court will issue its mandate soon. Once it does, I agree that the Commission
must address the definition of an "automatic telephone dialing system," reassigned number
protections, and the scope of a consumer's right to revocation-along with other pending
questions such as whether federal contractors are "persons" and the long-stalled Budget Act
rules. I look forward to working with my colleagues on addressing these issues while continuing
our many other efforts to combat illegal robocalls.
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
ii
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
May 8,2018
The Honorable Tina Smith
United States Senate
309 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Smith:
Thank you for your letter regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Unwanted robocalls are consumers' top complaint to the FCC, and we have accordingly made
combating illegal robocalls our top consumer protection priority. We have aggressively enforced
the TCPA as well as the Truth in Caller ID-leveling over $200 million in proposed fines against
illegal robocallers. In November we authorized carriers to stop certain robocalls at the source,
while we pursue the creation of a reassigned numbers database and a robust call-authentication
framework. And we have been working with our colleagues at the Federal Trade Commission as
well-hosting a policy forum in March and a tech expo of robocall-fighting apps in April.
In your letter, you note the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia in ACA International v. FCC, which struck down much of the agency's 2015 TCPA
Declaratory Ruling and Order-including "an expansive interpretation of capacity' having the
apparent effect of embracing any and all smartphones." Thankfully, the court upheld a
consumer's right to revoke consent should they no longer wish to receive robocalls and
robotexts-and the ruling does not impact the Commission's current efforts to address illegal
robocalls and spoofing.
I expect the court will issue its mandate soon. Once it does, I agree that the Commission
must address the definition of an "automatic telephone dialing system," reassigned number
protections, and the scope of a consumer's right to revocation-along with other pending
questions such as whether federal contractors are "persons" and the long-stalled Budget Act
rules. I look forward to working with my colleagues on addressing these issues while continuing
our many other efforts to combat illegal robocalls.
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
Ajit V. Pal