Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-153 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of RMG Communications Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-06-TC-250 NAL/Acct. No. 200732170075 FRN: 0016773590 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 28, 2007 Released: September 10, 2007 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”)1, we find that RMG Communications (“RMG”)2 apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“Act”), and the Commission’s related rules and orders, by delivering at least 11 unsolicited advertisements to the telephone facsimile machines of at least 4 consumers.3 Based on the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent violations, we find that RMG is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $71,500. II. BACKGROUND 2. Section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Act makes it “unlawful for any person within the United 1 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1). The Commission has the authority under this section of the Act to assess a forfeiture against any person who has “willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under this Act ....” See also 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(5) (stating that the Commission has the authority under this section of the Act to assess a forfeiture penalty against any person who does not hold a license, permit, certificate or other authorization issued by the Commission or an applicant for any of those listed instrumentalities so long as such person (A) is first issued a citation of the violation charged; (B) is given a reasonable opportunity for a personal interview with an official of the Commission, at the field office of the Commission nearest to the person’s place of residence; and (C) subsequently engages in conduct of the type described in the citation). 2 RMG Communications has offices at 3401 Norman Berry Drive, Suite 114, East Point, GA 30344, and 6009 W. Parker Road, Suite 149-114, Plano, TX 75093. Greg Horne is listed as the contact person for RMG. Accordingly, all references in this NAL to RMG also encompass the foregoing individual and all other principals and officers of this entity, as well as the corporate entity itself. 3 See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(3); see also Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order and Third Order on Reconsideration, 21 FCC Rcd 3787 (2006). Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-153 2 States, or any person outside the United States if the recipient is within the United States . . . to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send, to a telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited advertisement.”4 The term “unsolicited advertisement” is defined in the Act and the Commission’s rules as “any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person’s prior express invitation or permission in writing or otherwise.”5 Under the Commission’s Rules, there is an “established business relationship”6 exception that permits a party to deliver a message to a consumer if the sender has an established business relationship with the recipient and the sender obtained the number of the facsimile machine through the voluntary communication by the recipient, directly to the sender, within the context of the established business relationship, or through a directory, advertisement, or a site on the Internet to which the recipient voluntarily agreed to make available its facsimile number for public distribution.7 3. On September 9, 2006, in response to one or more consumer complaints alleging that RMG had faxed unsolicited advertisements, the Commission staff issued a citation8 to RMG, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Act.9 The staff cited RMG Communications for using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device, to send unsolicited advertisements for various services to a telephone facsimile machine, in violation of section 227 of the Act and the Commission’s related rules and orders. The citation, which the staff served by certified mail, return receipt requested, warned RMG that subsequent violations could result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures of up to $11,000 per violation, and included a copy of the consumer complaints that formed the basis of the citation.10 The citation informed RMG that within 30 days of the date of the citation, it could either request an interview with Commission staff, or could provide a written statement responding to the citation. RMG did not request an interview or otherwise respond to the citation. 4. Despite the citation’s warning that subsequent violations could result in the imposition of monetary forfeitures, we have received additional consumer complaints indicating that RMG continued to engage in such conduct after receiving the citation.11 We base our action here specifically on complaints filed by 4 consumers establishing that RMG continued to send 11 unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines after the date of the citation.12 4 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(3). 5 47 U.S.C. §227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. §64.1200 (f)(13). 6 An “established business relationship” is defined as a prior or existing relationship formed by a voluntary two-way communication “with or without an exchange of consideration, on the basis of an inquiry, application, purchase or transaction by the business or residential subscriber regarding products or services offered by such person or entity, which relationship has not been previously terminated by either party.” 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(5). 7 See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C); 47 C.F.R. § 64 (a)(3)(i), (ii). 8 Citation from Kurt A. Schroeder, Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, File No. EB-06-TC-250, issued to RMG Communications on September 9, 2006. 9 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(5) (authorizing the Commission to issue citations to persons who do not hold a license, permit, certificate or other authorization issued by the Commission or an applicant for any of those listed instrumentalities for violations of the Act or of the Commission’s rules and orders). 10 Commission staff mailed the citation to 3401 Norman Berry Drive, Suite 114, East Point, GA 30344, and 6009 W. Parker Road, Suite 149-114, Plano, TX 75093. See n.2, supra. 11 See Appendix for a listing of the consumer complaints against RMG requesting Commission action. 12 We note that evidence of additional instances of unlawful conduct by RMG may form the basis of subsequent enforcement action. Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-153 3 5. Section 503(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $11,000 for each violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act by a non-common carrier or other entity not specifically designated in section 503 of the Act.13 In exercising such authority, we are to take into account “the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.”14 III. DISCUSSION A. Violations of the Commission’s Rules Restricting Unsolicited Facsimile Advertisements 6. We find that RMG apparently violated section 227 of the Act and the Commission’s related rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 11 unsolicited advertisements to the 4 consumers identified in the Appendix. This NAL is based on evidence that the consumers received unsolicited fax advertisements from RMG after the Bureau’s citation. The facsimile transmissions advertise various services, including health insurance. Further, according to the complaints, the consumers neither had an established business relationship with RMG, nor gave RMG permission to send the facsimile transmissions.15 The faxes at issue here therefore fall within the definition of an “unsolicited advertisement.”16 Based on the entire record, including the consumer complaints, we conclude that RMG apparently violated section 227 of the Act and the Commission’s related rules and orders by sending 11 unsolicited advertisements to 4 consumers’ facsimile machines. B. Proposed Forfeiture 7. We find that RMG is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $71,500. Although the Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the prohibition against using a telephone facsimile machine to send unsolicited advertisements, the Commission has previously considered $4,500 per unsolicited fax advertisement to be an appropriate base amount.17 We apply that base amount to each of 7 of the apparent violations. In addition, where the 13 Section 503(b)(2)(C) provides for forfeitures up to $10,000 for each violation in cases not covered by subparagraph (A) or (B), which address forfeitures for violations by licensees and common carriers, among others. See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b). In accordance with the inflation adjustment requirements contained in the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-134, Sec. 31001, 110 Stat. 1321, the Commission implemented an increase of the maximum statutory forfeiture under section 503(b)(2)(C) to $11,000. See 47 C.F.R. §1.80(b)(3); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission’s Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000); see also Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission’s Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 19 FCC Rcd 10945 (2004) (this recent amendment of section 1.80(b) to reflect inflation left the forfeiture maximum for this type of violator at $11,000). 14 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D); The Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17100-01 para. 27 (1997) (Forfeiture Policy Statement), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). 15 See, e.g., complaint dated Feb. 18, 2007, from James Friedman (stating that the fax was an advertisement for health insurance, that the fax was unsolicited, and that the complainant has no business relationship with the fax sender). The complainants involved in this action are listed in the Appendix below. 16 See 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(13) (definition previously at § 64.1200(f)(10)). 17 See Get-Aways, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 1805 (1999); Get-Aways, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 4843 (2000); see also US Notary, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 15 Rcd 16999 (2000); US Notary, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 16 FCC Rcd 18398 (2001); Tri-Star Marketing, Inc., Notice (continued....) Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-153 4 consumer requests the company to stop sending facsimile messages, and the company continues to send them, the Commission has previously considered $10,000 per unsolicited fax advertisement the appropriate forfeiture for such egregious violations.18 Here, 1 consumer specifically requested that RMG cease sending facsimiles. Notwithstanding these requests, an additional 4 facsimiles were sent to that consumer. Thus, we apply the $10,000 amount to each of 4 of the apparent violations. Thus, a total forfeiture of $71,500 is proposed. RMG will have the opportunity to submit evidence and arguments in response to this NAL to show that no forfeiture should be imposed or that some lesser amount should be assessed.19 IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES 8. We have determined that RMG Communications apparently violated section 227 of the Act and the Commission’s related rules and orders by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send at least 11 unsolicited advertisements to the 4 consumers identified in the Appendix. We have further determined that RMG Communications is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $71,500. 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and section 1.80 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.80, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b), that RMG Communications is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $71,500 (seventy-one thousand five hundred dollars) for willful or repeated violations of section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C), sections 64.1200(a)(3) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(3), and the related orders described in the paragraphs above. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules,20 within thirty (30) days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, RMG Communications SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. 11. Payment by check or money order, payable to the order of the “Federal Communications Commission,” may be mailed to Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 358340, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to Mellon Client Service Center, 500 Ross Street, Room 670, Pittsburgh, PA 15262-0001, Attn: FCC Module Supervisor. Payment by wire transfer may be made to: ABA Number 043000261, receiving bank Mellon Bank, and account number 911-6229. The payment should note NAL/Acct. No. 200732170075. 12. The response, if any, must be mailed both to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, ATTN: Enforcement Bureau – Telecommunications Consumers Division, and to Colleen Heitkamp, Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption. (...continued from previous page) of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 11295 (2000); Tri-Star Marketing, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 23198 (2000). 18 See Carolina Liquidators, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 15 FCC 16,837, 16,842 (2000); 21st Century Fax(es) Ltd., AKA 20th Century Fax(es), 15 FCC Rcd 24,406, 24,411 (2000). 19 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(4)(C); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f)(3). 20 47 C.F.R. § 1.80. Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-153 5 13. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response to a claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits: (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three- year period; (2) financial statements prepared according to generally accepted accounting practices; or (3) some other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner’s current financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the financial documentation submitted. 14. Requests for payment of the full amount of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture under an installment plan should be sent to: Chief, Revenue and Receivables Operations Group, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554.21 15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to RMG Communications, Attention: Greg Horne, 3401 Norman Berry Drive, Suite 114, East Point, GA 30344, and 6009 W. Parker Road, Suite 149-114, Plano, TX 75093. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary 21 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914. Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-153 6 APPENDIX Complainant sent facsimile solicitations Violation Date(s) Pankaj Parikh 4/4/2007; 4/5/2007; 4/10/2007; 2/10/2007; 4/24/2007 Garry Jaffe 2/15/2007 James Friedman 2/18/2007 Complainant was sent facsimile solicitations after requesting no more be sent Violation Date(s) Robert Josefek 10/16/06; 12/13/06/; 12/26/06/; 1/10/07