STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER JESSICA ROSENWORCEL APPROVING IN PART, DISSENTING IN PART Re: Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, CG Docket No. 17-59. I used to think it was Rachel from Cardmember Services I disliked most. But then it was the agent from the Internal Revenue Service with his final notice of an imminent lawsuit. Now it’s the calls with spoofed numbers that look like family and friends but when I answer the line I get an automated voice offering me a cruise or debt relief or something else I did not ask for, do not want, and do not need. I shouldn’t have to choose which of these robocalls I detest most. No one should. But it’s come to this. The sheer volume of robocalls we receive is insane. Year-in and year-out they represent the largest single category of complaints at the Federal Communications Commission. Our colleagues at the Federal Trade Commission report that they are the number one reason they hear from consumers, too. Let’s put a number on just how ridiculous this situation is. Since I started speaking a little over a minute ago—5000 robocalls have been made. That’s crazy. So it’s a good thing this agency has set its sights on fixing this problem. To this end, here we initiate a rulemaking that proposes a database for reassigned numbers. This kind of database would make it possible for calling parties to identify numbers that have been changed. That means if someone moves and their number winds up with someone else, it would be listed here. Then, if all goes according to plan, parties would be able to check this database before making calls. I support developing this database, so I will offer my approval in part. But let’s get real. This is an effort to provide a legal green light for robocallers. As long as they consult this list before dialing, they will be free from liability under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. So this protects robocallers. The real question is what are we doing to protect consumers? The answer: Not enough. It has been six months since this agency initiated an enforcement action against any robocaller. It has been nine months since this agency proposed call authentication standards to help stop fraudulent calls. It has been nearly a year and a half since the Robocall Strike Force identified SHAKEN/STIR as a technology to reduce robocalls that our neighbors to the north in Canada are already putting in place. In the meantime, the courts have just handed down a big decision when it comes to our robocall rules. We need to respond. That will mean defining autodialers and how they can be used to call millions of consumers. It could also mean revisiting just how consumers can revoke consent they may have given previously to companies to make calls. Add all this up and we have a lot of work to do. And we have been too slow to do it. Because this rulemaking takes only the smallest stab at a massive problem, I dissent in part. When it comes to robocalls, we can and should be doing so much more.