Federal Communications Commission Enforcement Bureau 45 L Street NE Washington, DC 20554 August 1, 2023 VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY AND CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED To: One Owl Telecom Inc. Aashay Khandelwal CEO 1519 York Road Lutherville, MD 21093 aashay.khandelwal@oneowltelecom.com Re: Notification of Suspected Illegal Robocall Traffic Dear Mr. Khandelwal, One Owl Telecom Inc. (One Owl or Company) is a gateway provider1 and originator, and in that capacity is apparently transmitting and originating illegal robocall traffic. As explained more fully below, this letter provides notice of important legal obligations and steps One Owl must take to address this apparent illegal traffic. The Company should investigate the identified traffic and take the steps described below, including blocking the traffic if necessary, and take action to prevent its network from continuing to be a source of apparently illegal robocalls. Failure to comply with the steps outlined in this letter may result in downstream voice service providers blocking all of One Owl’s traffic, permanently. Why One Owl Is Receiving This Letter. The Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) works closely with the USTelecom’s Industry Traceback Group (Traceback Consortium), which is the registered industry consortium selected pursuant to the TRACED Act to conduct tracebacks.2 Between February 3, 2023 and May 31, 2023, the Traceback Consortium investigated prerecorded voice message calls placed to Verizon and YouMail3 customer numbers without requisite consent under the Communications Act and our rules.4 The calls included 1 A company is a gateway provider if it is a U.S.-based intermediate provider that receives a call directly from a foreign originating provider or foreign intermediate provider at its U.S.-based facilities before transmitting the call downstream to another U.S.-based provider. See 47 CFR § 64.1200(f)(19). “U.S.-based” means that the provider has facilities located in the United States, including a point of presence capable of processing the call. “Receives a call directly” from a provider means the foreign provider directly upstream of the gateway provider in the call path sent the call to the gateway provider, with no providers in-between. Id. 2 Implementing Section 13(d) of the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act (TRACED Act), EB Docket No. 20-22, Report and Order, DA 22-870, para. 40 (EB 2022); see also Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act, Pub. L. No. 116-105, 133 Stat. 3274, Sec. 13(d) (2019). 3 YouMail is a third-party robocall identification and blocking service. See YouMail, About Us, https://www.youmail.com/ (last visited July 28, 2023) (“YouMail protects consumers, enterprises, and carriers from harmful phone calls. Our apps, YouMail, Another Number, and HulloMail, protect US and UK consumers by answering over a billion live calls per year.”). 4 See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b) (requiring callers obtain consent before placing certain types of pre-recorded calls); 47 CFR § 64.1200(a) (same). messages concerning a fictious purchase order purportedly associated with the called party.5 Some calls purported to be from “AMC Trading LLC” and stated that “your product is ready to ship.”6 The calls asked consumers to confirm the order.7 Other calls stated that a “pre-authorized order” had been “placed on your name.”8 The call did not state what the order was for or where the order was placed.9 The Traceback Consortium conducted tracebacks and determined that One Owl acted as the gateway or originating provider for the calls.10 The Traceback Consortium notified One Owl of these calls, including supporting data identifying each call, as shown in Attachment A.11 One Owl claimed to have warned its clients about transmitting illegal traffic and terminated some originators.12 However, the illegal traffic persisted.13 One Owl is no stranger to the rules cited in this letter because it is closely connected to two companies that have been recipients of similar Bureau enforcement letters, Illum Telecommunication LLC (Illum) and One Eye LLC (One Eye).14 In response to the FCC’s enforcement action against Illum in October 2021, the CEO and Director of Illum, Prince Anand (Anand), who sometimes uses the alias “Frank Murphy,”15 created One Eye.16 To deflect the FCC’s scrutiny, Anand intended to keep his name off One Eye’s corporate documents.17 Kaushal Bhavsar, a director of Illum, became One Eye’s CEO.18 Aashay Khandelwal, the Human Resource Representative for Illum, subsequently formed One Owl and 5 See ITG Subpoena Response on file at EB-TCD-20-00031678 (Mar. 3, 2023) (March ITG Subpoena Response); see also ITG Subpoena Response on file at EB-TCD-20-00031678 (Apr. 17, 2023 (April ITG Subpoena Response); see also ITG Subpoena Response on file at EB-TCD-20-00031678 (June 22, 2023) (June ITG Subpoena Response). 6 See March ITG Subpoena Response. 7 See id.; April ITG Subpoena Response; June ITG Subpoena Response. 8 See March ITG Subpoena Response; April ITG Subpoena Response; June ITG Subpoena Response. 9 See March ITG Subpoena Response; April ITG Subpoena Response; June ITG Subpoena Response. 10 See March ITG Subpoena Response; April ITG Subpoena Response; June ITG Subpoena Response. 11 See March ITG Subpoena Response, supra note 5; April ITG Subpoena Response, supra note 5; June ITG Subpoena Response, supra note 5. 12 See March ITG Subpoena Response, supra note 5. 13 See April ITG Subpoena Response, supra note 5; June ITG Subpoena Response, supra note 5. 14 See Letter from Rosemary C. Harold, Chief, Enforcement Bureau, to Prince Anand, CEO, PZ/Illum Telecommunication LLC (Oct. 21, 2021); Letter from Loyaan A. Egal, Chief, Enforcement Bureau, to Kaushal Bhavsar, CEO, One Eye LLC (Feb. 15, 2023) (One Eye Letter). These letters are available on the Commission’s website at https://www.fcc.gov/robocall-facilitators-must-cease-and-desist. 15 Prince Anand Skype Chat, June 10, 2021 at 8:18:53 AM (“Frank Murphy” introduces himself as Prince Anand) (on file at EB-TCD-20-00030805) (Anand Skype Chat). 16 Id. at October 24, 2021 at 8:16:14 AM and 8:16:21 AM (Anand telling Great Choice Telecom to expect a new sign up under the name “One Eye” that day). 17 Id. at 7:40:25 AM, 8:11:13 AM, 8:13:20 AM, 8:14:48 AM, 8:14:55 AM, 8:15:04 AM, 8:16:14 AM, 8:55:50 AM, 9:01:49 AM, 9:02:21 AM, and 9:02:26 AM (Anand explains that due to the Commission’s cease and desist letter he will “not be included in any companies” but will work “on the backend [sic]”). 18 One Eye LLC Listing, Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, Robocall Mitigation Database (Oct. 26, 2021), https://fccprod.servicenowservices.com/rmd?id=rmd form&table=x g fmc rmd robocall mitigation database&sy s id=9e1373b31b53b0107ccf20ecac4bcb3b&view=sp (showing Bhavsar as CEO of One Eye); Illum Telecommunication, https://www.illumtelecommunication.com/ (last visited July 14, 2023) (showing Bhavsar as Director of Illum). 2 proceedings to remove its certification from the database, thereby requiring providers to cease accepting calls directly from One Owl. Fourth, sections 64.1200(n) and 64.6305 prescribe various additional obligations for mitigating and preventing illegal robocalls. We remind One Owl that failure to comply with any of these obligations may result in additional enforcement action pursuant to the Communications Act and our rules.42 Notification of Suspected Illegal Traffic Under Section 64.1200(n)(5). This letter serves as the “Notification of Suspected Illegal Traffic” required by the Commission’s mandatory blocking rules applicable to gateway providers.43 One Owl must take the following actions in response to this notice: 1. Promptly investigate the transmissions identified in Attachment A for which One Owl served as the gateway provider (denoted with the term “GP” in the first column of the chart).44 2. If the Company’s investigation determines that One Owl served as the gateway provider for the identified transmissions, block all of the identified traffic within 14 days of the date of transmission of this letter and continue to block the identified gateway traffic as well as substantially similar traffic on an ongoing basis.45 3. Within 14 days of the date of transmission of this letter, report the results of the Company’s investigation to the Bureau.46 Depending on the outcome of the investigation, the report must contain certain details, which are set forth below. a. If One Owl determines it is the gateway provider for the identified traffic, the report should include a certification that One Owl is blocking the traffic and will continue to do so and a description of the Company’s plan to identify and block substantially similar traffic on an ongoing basis.47 b. If One Owl determines that the identified gateway traffic is not illegal, the report must provide an explanation as to why One Owl reasonably concluded that the identified traffic is not illegal and what steps it took to reach that conclusion.48 c. If One Owl determines that it did not serve as the gateway provider for the identified traffic, the report must provide an explanation as to how it reached that conclusion and identify the upstream provider(s) from which the Company received the identified traffic.49 One Owl should also take lawful steps to effectively mitigate this traffic.50 42 47 U.S.C. § 503; 47 CFR §§ 64.1200(n), 64.6305. 43 47 CFR § 64.1200(n)(5); Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, Call Authentication Trust Anchor, CG Docket No. 17-59, WC Docket No. 17-97, Sixth Report and Order in CG Docket No. 17-59, Fifth Report and Order in WC Docket No. 17-97, Order on Reconsideration in WC Docket No. 17-97, Order, Seventh Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CG Docket No. 17-59, and Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 17-97, FCC 22-37, para. 80 (2022) (Gateway Provider Order). 44 47 CFR § 64.1200(n)(5)(i)(A). 45 Id. 46 Id. 47 Id. § 64.1200(n)(5)(i)(A)(1-2). 48 Id. § 64.1200(n)(5)(i)(B). 49 Id. 50 Id. 5 d. If One Owl determines that it is the originating provider, or if the traffic otherwise comes from a source that does not have direct access to the Public Switched Telephone Network, the Company must promptly comply with section 64.1200(n)(2) of the Commission’s rules by effectively mitigating the identified traffic and reporting to the Bureau any steps One Owl has taken to effectively mitigate the identified traffic.51 If One Owl fails to respond to this letter, provides an insufficient response, or continues to act as the gateway provider for the traffic identified in Attachment A or substantially similar traffic, we may ultimately direct all downstream providers to block the Company’s traffic.52 We will publish and release an Initial Determination Order stating that One Owl is not in compliance with section 64.1200(n)(5) of the Commission’s rules and provide One Owl with an opportunity to respond.53 If we determine that the Company’s response was inadequate or it continues to transmit the traffic identified in Attachment A, or substantially similar traffic, we will publish a Final Determination Order in EB Docket No. 22-174 directing all downstream providers to both block and cease accepting all traffic that they receive from One Owl beginning 30 days from release of the Final Determination Order.54 Other Mitigation Requirements Under Section 64.1200(k)(4) and (n). This letter also serves as notice that One Owl must immediately take certain actions to address the identified apparently illegal traffic in order to avoid downstream providers blocking all of the Company’s traffic.55 Specifically, One Owl should: 1. Promptly investigate each transmission identified in Attachment A;56 2. If necessary, “effectively mitigate” the identified unlawful traffic by determining the source of the traffic and preventing that source from continuing to originate such traffic;57 3. Implement effective safeguards to prevent customers from using One Owl’s network as a platform to originate illegal calls;58 4. Within 48 hours of the time stamp on the email transmitting this letter, inform the Commission and the Traceback Consortium of steps taken to mitigate the identified apparent illegal traffic.59 If One Owl has evidence that the transmissions identified in Attachment A were legal calls, it should present that evidence to the Commission and the Traceback Consortium;60 and 51 Id. 52 Id. § 64.1200(n)(5)-(6). 53 Id. § 64.1200(n)(5)(ii). 54 Id. § 64.1200(n)(5)-(6); see also id. § 64.1200(n)(5)(iii) (“A Final Determination Order may be issued up to one year after the release date of the Initial Determination Order.”). 55 Id. § 64.1200(k)(4). 56 Id. § 64.1200(n)(2). 57 Id.; see also id. § 64.1200(f)(18) (“The term effectively mitigate means identifying the source of the traffic and preventing that source from continuing to originate traffic of the same or similar nature.”); id. § 64.1200(k)(4). 58 Id. § 64.1200(n)(3); see also id. § 64.1200(k)(4); see also Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, CG Docket No. 17-59, Fourth Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 15221, 15232-33, paras. 32-36 (2020). 59 47 CFR §§ 64.1200(k)(4), 64.1200(n)(2); see also Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, CG Docket No. 17-59, Third Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 7614, 7630, para. 42 (2020) (Call Blocking Safe Harbor Report and Order). 60 See 47 CFR § 64.1200(n)(2). 6 5. Within 14 days of the email transmitting this letter, inform the Commission and the Traceback Consortium of the steps One Owl is taking to prevent new or renewing customers from using its network to transmit illegal robocalls.61 The Company must also include a declaration attesting to the truthfulness and accuracy of its response.62 Failure to provide this information within 14 days shall be equivalent to having failed to put effective measures in place.63 If after 48 hours One Owl fails to effectively mitigate illegal traffic, or after 14 days fails to implement effective measures to prevent new and renewing customers from using its network to originate calls, downstream U.S.-based voice service providers may begin blocking all calls from One Owl after notifying the Commission of their decision and providing a brief summary of their basis for making such a determination.64 U.S.-based voice service providers may block ALL call traffic transmitting from One Owl’s network if it fails to act within either deadline. Finally, One Owl may also be subject to additional enforcement penalties, including monetary penalties, for failing to take steps to address illegal robocall traffic on its network as required by the Commission’s rules.65 Additional Consequences Under Section 64.6305(e) and Other Robocalling Rules. If One Owl fails to take the actions listed above, or knowingly or negligently continues to carry or process illegal robocalls after responding to this letter, it may be subject to additional consequences. Continued origination or transmission of illegal robocalls following this notice may be used as evidence that One Owl’s certification in the Robocall Mitigation Database is deficient, and the Bureau may initiate proceedings to remove its certification from the database.66 If One Owl’s certification is removed from the Robocall Mitigation Database, all intermediate providers and terminating voice service providers must immediately cease accepting all of the Company’s calls.67 If the Bureau initiates a proceeding to remove the Company’s certification from the Robocall Mitigation Database, One Owl will have an opportunity to respond.68 Please direct any inquiries regarding this letter to Daniel Stepanicich, Assistant Division Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, at daniel.stepanicich@fcc.gov or (202) 418-7451; and cc: to Kristi Thompson, Division Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, 61 See id. §§ 64.1200(k)(4), (n)(3); see also Call Blocking Safe Harbor Report and Order at 7630, para. 43. 62 See 47 CFR § 1.16; see also id. § 1.17. 63 See Call Blocking Safe Harbor Report and Order at 7630, para. 43. One Owl is encouraged to reach out to the Commission before the deadline if it anticipates needing more time to execute this step. 64 47 CFR § 64.1200(k)(4). 65 See id. § 64.1200(n)(1)-(4), (o) (prescribing steps voice service providers must take to address and prevent illegal robocalls); Gateway Provider Order, supra note 43, para. 40 (citing Call Authentication Trust Anchor, WC Docket No. 17-97, Second Report and Order, 36 FCC Rcd 1859, 1902, para. 83 (2020)); see also 47 U.S.C. § 503 (providing that a forfeiture penalty may be imposed on any person who willfully or repeatedly violates the Commission’s rules). 66 See Gateway Provider Order, supra note 43, at para. 40; see also 47 CFR § 64.6305(d) (prescribing Robocall Mitigation Database certification requirements for gateway providers); see also Call Authentication Trust Anchor, WC Docket No. 17-97, Second Report and Order, 36 FCC Rcd 1859, 1903, para. 83 (2020); 47 CFR § 64.6305(c) (prescribing Robocall Mitigation Database certification requirements for voice service providers). 67 47 CFR § 64.6305(e); see Gateway Provider Order, supra note 43, at para. 44; see also Call Authentication Trust Anchor, 36 FCC Rcd at 1903-04, paras. 83, 86 (shifting the obligations previously codified in 64.6305(c) to 64.6305(e)). 68 Gateway Provider Order, supra note 43, at para. 40. 7 Enforcement Bureau, FCC, at kristi.thompson@fcc.gov. A copy of this letter has been sent to the Traceback Consortium. Sincerely, Loyaan A. Egal Bureau Chief Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission 8