STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O’RIELLY
Re: Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, CG Docket No. 17-59
In this Order, the Commission further seeks to stem the flow of illegal robocalls by allowing 
providers to block calls from invalid, unallocated, or unused numbers, as well as numbers on a Do-Not-
Originate list.  Typically, calls from such numbers are from bad actors attempting to scam consumers, and 
I agree that these types of calls should be blocked under appropriate circumstances.  
At the same time, I have heard concerns that blocking is increasingly capturing what I call “false 
positives.”  That is, certain calls from legitimate businesses offering legal products and services to willing 
and authorized consumers are also being blocked.  Moreover, companies have reported that it can be 
difficult and time consuming to dispute and remove inappropriate blocks.  I’m sure someone will say 
snidely that’s just too bad that awful robocallers will be blocked.  But real people will be hurt, be 
inconvenienced, or lose opportunities from overaggressive call blocking mechanisms.  Consider the cases 
of legal robocalls the Commission has already exempted from our rules, such as pharmacies providing 
prescription notifications, schools contacting parents or guardians when children are missing, or energy 
companies alerting the community that a catastrophe has subsided.  And these don’t include legitimate 
and legal retail commerce that can benefit consumers.      
Additionally, unlike the Do-Not-Call list, where consumers take affirmative steps to avoid certain 
calls, the Order assumes that all consumers want calls to be blocked and allows providers to proceed 
without consent.  I am troubled by such paternalism, whether here or in other cases.  The role of the 
government is not to protect citizens from themselves.  I imagine this decision will need to be revisited at 
some point.  Here, the sanctioning of widespread blocking without consumer approval and without 
adequate means to challenge “false positives” insults our vision of liberty and serves as a potential recipe 
for future problems.  
Therefore, I appreciate the Chairman’s willingness to work with me to add a Notice seeking 
comment on a process for legitimate companies to resolve call blocking disputes.  The item as circulated 
encouraged providers to work with companies to resolve disputes, and I am sure that most providers are 
working in good faith to address any problems that arise.  After all, as the order makes clear, it is a 
violation of federal law to block legitimate calls.  Nonetheless, the record and experiences to date have 
shown that it is already happening so having a clear process in place would strike a better balance of
providing certainty and avoiding the need for businesses to file complaints with the FCC. 
I vote to approve.