Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-57
1
DISSENTING STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI
Re: Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG 
Docket No. 02-278
If there is one thing Americans can agree on, it’s that nobody wants to get robocalls.  Whether 
you are sitting down for dinner or trying to unwind at the end of a long day, the last thing you want is to 
hear “Rachel from Cardholder Services” on the other end of the line.
This is the main reason why Congress passed the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) in 
1991—to crack down on the illegal telemarketing calls and robocalls that consumers hate.  But last 
summer, the FCC twisted the law’s words to target entirely legitimate, live, non-telemarketing calls 
between businesses and their customers.
It turns out that the FCC’s decision created a problem for the federal government.  The federal 
government relies on a host of private businesses to communicate with the American public, including by 
placing calls to collect on debts owed to or guaranteed by the United States.  The FCC’s new approach 
rendered those calls unlawful.
Rather than asking Congress to overturn the agency’s order on this point, the Obama 
Administration took a different tack—one hostile to consumers.  It snuck into last year’s budget deal a 
special exemption for federal debt collectors.1
Just think about what that means:  The federal government has deliberately allowed federal debt 
collectors to robocall consumers at their homes and on their cellphones without their prior express 
consent.  As it is, Americans hate picking up the phone to hear the tinny sound of a robotic voice.  I tend 
to doubt their irritation will lessen when they learn that voice is calling to collect cash on behalf of the 
government.
Just think about what else that means:  Yet again, the government is using the law to benefit 
politically favored constituencies.  “The law” in this area used to mean one set of rules that applied 
equally to all.  Now, the game has changed; “the law” nominally restricts everyone but singles out the 
few, the happy few, that band of robocallers, for special treatment.
The FCC itself accommodated this kind of rent-seeking in the TCPA Transformation Order.  It 
nominally prohibited any business from using any technology other than a “rotary-dial phone” to call 
consumers.2 But it then exempted prison payphone providers,3 banks,4 and healthcare companies5 from 
this prohibition.  Now we can add federal debt collectors to the list of companies with special privileges.
  
1 Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-74, § 301, 129 Stat. 584.
2 Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278, 
Declaratory Ruling and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 7961, 7975, para. 18 (2015).
3 Id. at 7884–89, paras. 38–46.
4 Id. at 8023–28, paras. 127–39.
5 Id. at 8028–32, paras. 140–48.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-57
2
Perhaps the Administration thinks that bestowing largesse upon favored industries is just the way 
business is done in Washington.  Perhaps it thinks that subjecting Americans to intrusive robocalls is 
worth it on the off-chance that it yields a return, however slight, for the U.S. Treasury.
Whatever the reason, I don’t think it’s right.  And I don’t think it’s what the American people 
want.  We should be exercising our discretion to mitigate the law’s impact as much as possible, and yet 
we are not.  I respectfully dissent.