Prepared Statement of the Federal Trade Commission

Prepared Statement of

The Federal Trade Commission

Before the

United States Senate

Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation

Abusive Robocalls and How We Can Stop Them

Washington, DC

April 18, 2018

Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and members of the Committee, I am Lois

Greisman, Associate Director of the Division of Marketing Practices, Bureau of Consumer

Protection at the Federal Trade Commission (“Commission” or “FTC”).

I appreciate the

opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Commission’s initiatives to fight illegal

robocalls.

In 2003, the FTC responded to enormous public frustration with unsolicited sales calls

and amended the Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”) to create a national Do Not Call Registry.

The Registry, which includes more than 229 million active telephone numbers,

has been

tremendously successful in protecting consumers’ privacy from unwanted calls by the thousands

of legitimate telemarketers who subscribe to the Registry each year.

Subsequently, changes in

technology led to a new source of immense frustration—the blasting of prerecorded messages

that primarily rely on Voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) technology.

In 2008, the

The views expressed in this statement represent the views of the Commission.

My oral presentation and responses to questions are my own and do not necessarily reflect the

views of the Commission or any individual Commissioner.

68 Fed. Reg. 4580 (Jan. 29, 2003); 16 C.F.R. Part 310. The FTC issued the TSR

pursuant to the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, 15 U.S.C.

§§ 6101-6108. See generally The Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 310.

See Do Not Call Registry Data Book 2017: Who is using the Do Not Call

Registry available at https://www.ftc.gov/policy/reports/policy-reports/commission-staff-

reports/national-do-not-call-registry-data-book-fy-3.

For example, in fiscal year 2017, more than 17,000 telemarketers accessed the Do

Not Call Registry. See id.

See Section II(A), infra.

Commission responded by amending the TSR to prohibit the vast majority of prerecorded sales

calls.

Illegal robocalls remain a significant consumer protection problem because they

repeatedly disturb consumers’ privacy and frequently use fraud and deception to pitch goods and

services, leading to significant economic harm. Illegal robocalls are also frequently used by

criminal impostors posing as trusted officials or companies. Consumers are justifiably

frustrated—in fiscal year 2017 the FTC received more than 4.5 million robocall complaints.

The FTC is using every tool at its disposal to fight these illegal calls.

This testimony describes

the Commission’s efforts to stop telemarketer violations, including our aggressive law

enforcement, initiatives to spur technological solutions, and robust consumer and business

outreach.

I. Law Enforcement

Since establishing the Do Not Call Registry in 2003,

the Commission has fought

vigorously to protect consumers’ privacy from unwanted calls. Indeed, since the Commission

73 Fed. Reg. 51164 (Aug. 29, 2008); 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(v).

The FTC’s fiscal year 2017 began October 1, 2016 and ended September 30,

2017. Total unwanted-call complaints for FY 2017 including both robocall complaints and

complaints about live calls from consumers whose phone numbers are registered on the Do Not

Call Registry, exceed 7million. Note, however, that the FTC identified a technical problem with

complaint submissions that resulted in artificially high complaint counts in July and August. See

Do Not Call Registry Data Book 2017: Complaint Figures for FY 2017 available at

https://www.ftc.gov/policy/reports/policy-reports/commission-staff-reports/national-do-not-call-

registry-data-book-fy-1.

See FTC Robocall Initiatives,https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/features/feature-

0025-robocalls.

In 2003, two different district courts issued rulings enjoining the Do Not Call

Registry. See Press Release, FTC Files Motion to Stay Pending Appeal in Oklahoma DNC

Ruling (Mar. 24, 2003), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-

began enforcing the Do Not Call provisions of the TSR in 2004, the Commission has brought

135 enforcement actions seeking civil penalties,

restitution for victims of telemarketing scams,

and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains against 439 corporations and 356 individuals. From the 125

cases that have been resolved thus far, the Commission has collected over $121 million in

equitable monetary relief and civil penalties.

A. Robocall Law Enforcement

On September 1, 2009, TSR provisions went into effect prohibiting the vast majority of

robocalls selling a good or service.

The robocall provisions cover prerecorded calls to all

consumers, including those who have not registered their phone number on the Do Not Call

releases/2003/09/ftc-files-motion-stay-pending-appeal-oklahoma-dnc-ruling; Press Release,

Statement of FTC Chairman Timothy J. Muris (Sept. 26, 2003), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2003/09/statement-ftc-chairman-timothy-j-

muris. Congress addressed the first decision in summary fashion by enacting HR 3161 in one

day. See “HR 3161 (108

) Do-Not-Call-Registry bill,”

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hr3161; Press Release, Statement of FTC Chairman

Timothy J. Muris (Sept. 25, 2003), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-

releases/2003/09/statement-ftc-chairman-timothy-j-muris-0. The 10

Circuit reversed the

second district court decision on February 17, 2004. See Press Release, Appeals Court Upholds

Constitutionality of National Do Not Call Registry (Feb. 17, 2004), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2004/02/appeals-court-upholds-constitutionality-

national-do-not-call.

As is true of all TSR violations, telemarketers who violate the Do Not Call

provisions are subject to civil penalties of up to $40,000 per violation. 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A);

16 C.F.R. § 1.98(d).

Like the other provisions of the TSR, the robocall provisions do not apply to non-

sales calls, such as calls placed calls that are purely political, informational, or survey calls.

Also, the provisions allow robocalls to members or prior donors of charities. See generally

“Complying with the Telemarketing Sales Rule” (June 2016), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/complying-telemarketing-sales-rule.

Limited exceptions exist for calls that deliver a healthcare message made by an entity covered by

the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(v)(D), and for

certain calls placed by telemarketers who solicit charitable contributions, 16 C.F.R. §

310.4(b)(1)(v)(B).

Registry. The Commission has been aggressive in enforcing prohibitions against robocalls,

filing 45 cases against 163 companies and 121 individuals responsible for billions of illegal

robocalls.

From the 42 cases that have concluded thus far, the Commission has collected more

than $29 million in civil penalties, redress, or disgorgement. Set forth below are details

regarding several of our recent robocall enforcement actions.

1. Recent Enforcement Activities

i. Alliance Security

Just a few weeks ago, the FTC filed a complaint and motion for preliminary injunction in

federal district court alleging that Alliance Security Inc. (“Alliance”) and its founder, Jasjit “Jay”

Gotra, directly and through its authorized telemarketers, called more than a million consumers

whose numbers are on the Do Not Call Registry.

Alliance installs home security systems, and

makes outbound calls to solicit the sale of the systems and associated security monitoring

services.

The FTC’s complaint alleges that since 2014, Alliance and Gotra made or helped others

make at least two million calls to consumers that violate the TSR, including more than a million

The FTC filed 12 of the 45 cases before the rule change went into effect on

September 1, 2009.

Alliance and Gotra are recidivist violators of the Telemarketing Sales Rule that

were under a 2014 FTC order for prior illegal calling practices. See U.S. v. Versatile Marketing

Solutions, Inc., 1:14-cv-10612-PBS (D. Mass. Mar. 10, 2014) available at

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/122-3162/versatile-marketing-solutions-inc-

also-dba-vms-alarms-et-al. Based on this pattern of behavior, the FTC’s most recent enforcement

action seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction that bans Alliance and Gotra from

telemarketing. FTC v. Jasjit Gotra, 1:18-cv-10548 (D. Mass. Mar. 23, 2018) available at

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/x140022/jasjit-gotra-alliance-security.

calls to numbers on the DNC Registry.

Many of these calls began as illegal robocalls using

“spoofed” Caller ID numbers and information.

Defendants then transferred the calls to a live

agent, but continued to hide the identity of the caller—even taking pains to prohibit agents from

naming Alliance.

In some cases, Alliance’s agents deceptively held themselves out as a

competitor, such as ADT, when calling consumers.

Some consumers were so frustrated by the

barrage of unwanted calls from Alliance that they scheduled an alarm installation just to plead in

person for an end to the calls.

The FTC’s complaint alleges that Alliance’s disregard for consumers’ privacy went

beyond the telephone and reached into their personal data.

Alliance also performed

undisclosed, unauthorized credit checks on consumers who received unsolicited telemarketing

calls from Alliance or its telemarketers, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15

U.S.C. § 1681 et seq

Alliance typically ran a credit check on every consumer who “pressed 1”

FTC v. Jasjit Gotra, 1:18-cv-10548 (D. Mass. Mar. 23, 2018) available at

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/x140022/jasjit-gotra-alliance-security.

Id.

To protect consumers’ privacy and safeguard their financial information, the

FCRA prohibits unauthorized access to credit reports and credit scores. Under the FCRA, 15

U.S.C. § 1681b(f), it is unlawful for any “person to use or obtain a consumer report for any

purpose unless,” that person has a specific permissible purpose enumerated in 15 U.S.C. §

1681b(a).

in response to a call placed by Alliance or one of its telemarketers and expressed interest in

obtaining an alarm system—without informing the consumer.

Two of Alliance’s authorized telemarketers and their principals agreed to settle charges

that they made illegal calls on Alliance’s behalf.

One telemarketer and its principal will be

permanently barred from telemarketing and is subject to a civil penalty of $2,296,500, that is

suspended based on inability to pay.

The second telemarketer and its principal will be

permanently banned from selling home security and medical alert devices, making robocalls or

helping anyone else make them, using spoofed caller ID numbers, and calling phone numbers on

the Do Not Call Registry, unless a consumer directly contacts the principal to request a call.

The second telemarketer is also subject to a civil penalty of $3,293,512, which will be partially

suspended due to their inability to pay, upon payment of $300,000 to the Commission.

The

FTC is seeking strong injunctive relief and civil penalties against the remaining defendants,

Alliance and Gotra, in federal district court.

FTC v. Jasjit Gotra, 1:18-cv-10548 (D. Mass. Mar. 23, 2018) available at

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/x140022/jasjit-gotra-alliance-security.

Indeed, the complaint further alleges that defendants attempted to pull credit reports or scores on

President Trump and former President Obama, and Vice President Pence and former Vice

President Biden, among others.

Id.

ii. Higher Goals Marketing

In December 2017, the FTC filed an action in federal district court against Higher Goals

Marketing LLC to halt an alleged debt-relief scam that defrauded numerous consumers

struggling with credit card debt.

The complaint alleges that the Higher Goals Marketing

defendants used illegal robocalls to contact consumers, pitching their fake debt-relief services

and charging hefty up-front fees, causing millions of dollars in injury.

Defendants guaranteed

that consumers would substantially and permanently lower their credit card interest rates, and

would save thousands of dollars in interest payments.

In reality, the complaint alleges, the

scheme was unable to deliver the promised results to most consumers.

Since the FTC filed this

action, all defendants stipulated to a Preliminary Injunction, which the Court entered on

December 28, 2017.

Thanks to the filing of the FTC’s enforcement action, the defendants’

operation is shut down, and the Court has appointed a receiver to oversee the two corporate

defendants.

See FTC v. Higher Goals Marketing LLC, 6:17-cv-02048-GAP-KRS (M.D. Fla.

Dec. 4, 2017) available at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/172-3045/higher-

goals-marketing-llc.

Id.

Id. The Commission also alleges that several defendants previously worked for a

nearly identical telemarketing operation shut down in 2016 by court order at the request of the

FTC. These defendants set up a new operation selling similar bogus credit-card interest-rate-

reduction services within weeks of the court order shuttering the earlier operation. Id.

Id.

See id.

iii. Jones and Ramsey Cases

Also in 2017, the Commission filed two lawsuits, FTC v. Justin Ramsey and FTC v.

Aaron Michael Jones, that shut down operations responsible for billions of illegal robocalls. The

Ramsey and Jones defendants bombarded consumers with robocalls pitching home security

systems and extended auto warranties.

The FTC obtained a settlement order in the Ramsey

action that bans Ramsey and his company from placing robocalls to individuals to sell goods or

services, initiating sales calls to numbers listed on the DNC Registry, and selling data lists

containing phone numbers listed on the Registry.

Ramsey and his company also agreed to a

$2.2 million civil penalty, suspended upon payment of $65,000.

In the Jones action, the court

entered final orders permanently banning Jones and his companies from all telemarketing

activities, including initiating robocalls, calling numbers on the DNC Registry, and selling data

lists containing consumers’ phone numbers and other information.

The default judgment order

against Jones also imposes a $2.7 million civil penalty against him, payable to the Commission.

FTC v. Justin Ramsey, 9:17-cv-80032-KAM (S.D. Fla. Jan. 13, 2017), available

at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/132-3254/justin-ramsey; FTC v. Michael

Aaron Jones, 8:17-cv-00058 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 13, 2017), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/152-3152/allorey-inc. Evidence reviewed

by FTC staff in connection with the Ramsey case indicated that a portion of the unlawful

telemarketing calls targeted “distressed seniors.”

FTC v. Justin Ramsey, 9:17-cv-80032-KAM (S.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2017), available

at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/132-3254/justin-ramsey.

Id.

FTC v. Michael Aaron Jones, 8:17-cv-00058 (M.D. Fla. May 31, 2017), available

at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/152-3152/allorey-inc.

Id.

Over the past three years the FTC, often in conjunction with its law enforcement partners,

initiated eleven new actions targeting defendants we alleged are responsible for billions of illegal

robocalls hawking home security systems, free vacations, medical alert devices, energy savings,

and credit card interest rate reductions.

Many of the defendants in these cases are now banned

from robocalling or telemarketing.

FTC v. Jasjit Gotra, 1:18-cv-10548 (D. Mass. Mar. 23, 2018) available at

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/x140022/jasjit-gotra-alliance-security; FTC

v. Higher Goals Marketing LLC, 6:17-cv-02048-GAP-KRS (M.D. Fla. Dec. 4, 2017) available

at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/172-3045/higher-goals-marketing-llc;

FTC v. Justin Ramsey, 9:17-cv-80032-KAM (S.D. Fla. Jan. 13, 2017), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/132-3254/justin-ramsey; FTC v. Michael

Aaron Jones, 8:17-cv-00058 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 13, 2017), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/152-3152/allorey-inc; U.S. v. Consumer

Education.info, Inc., 1:16-cv-02692 (D. Col. Nov. 1, 2016), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/152-3081/consumer-educationinfo-inc; FTC

et al. v. Life Management Services of Orange County, LLC, 6:16-CV-982-Orl (M.D. Fla. June 8,

2016), available at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/152-3216/life-

management; U.S. v. Lilly Management and Marketing, LLC, 6:16-cv-485-Orl (M.D. Fla. Mar.

17, 2016), available at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/152-3115/usa-

vacation-station; U.S. v. KFJ Marketing Inc., 2:16-cv-01643 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2016), available

at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/152-3166/kfj-marketing-llc; FTC v.

Lifewatch Inc., 1:15-cv-05781 (N.D. Ill. June 20, 2015), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/142-3123/lifewatch-inc; FTC v. All Us

Marketing LLC, 6:15CV1016-0RL-28GJK (M.D. Fla. June 29, 2015), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/142-3256/all-us-marketing-llc-formerly-

known-payless-solutions-llc; FTC et al. v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., 0:15-cv-60423 (S.D. Fla.

Mar. 4, 2015), available at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/122-3196-

x150028/caribbean-cruise-line-inc.

See, e.g., U.S. v. KFJ Marketing Inc., 2:16-cv-01643 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2017),

available at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/152-3166/kfj-marketing-llc

(final order permanently banning corporate defendants and individual ringleader from all

telemarketing); FTC v. Michael Aaron Jones, 8:17-cv-00058 (M.D. Fla. May 31, 2017),

available at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/152-3152/allorey-inc (final

orders permanently banning Jones and related companies from all telemarketing activities,

including initiating robocalls, calling numbers on the Do Not Call Registry, and selling data lists

containing consumers’ phone numbers and other information); FTC v. All Us Marketing LLC,

6:15CV1016-0RL-28GJK (M.D. Fla. May 22, 2017, June 8, 2016 and Nov. 1, 2016), available

at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/142-3256/all-us-marketing-llc-formerly-

iv. Historic Victory in Dish Network

In addition to initiating new enforcement actions, the FTC and our law enforcement

partners also achieved an historic win in a long-running fight against unwanted calls and

robocalls. On June 5, 2017, a federal district court in Illinois issued an order imposing the

largest penalty ever issued in a Do Not Call case: $280 million against Dish Network.

The

Dish litigation began in 2009 when the Department of Justice brought an action on behalf of the

FTC with the states of California, Illinois, North Carolina, and Ohio alleging millions of

violations of the Telemarketing Sales Rule, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”)

and various state Do Not Call laws.

The litigation centered on allegations that Dish and its

telemarketers made tens of millions of calls—often robocalls

—to telephone numbers on the Do

known-payless-solutions-llc (multiple final orders permanently banning most defendants from

robocalling, telemarketing, and providing debt relief services); FTC v. Justin Ramsey, 9:17-cv-

80032-KAM (S.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2017), available at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-

proceedings/132-3254/justin-ramsey (stipulated order banning Ramsey and his company from

placing robocalls to individuals to sell goods or services, initiating sales calls to numbers listed

on the Do Not Call Registry, and selling data lists containing phone numbers listed on the

Registry); FTC v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., 0:15-cv-60423 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 17, 2017),

available at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/122-3196-x150028/caribbean-

cruise-line-inc (final stipulated order banning the Pacific Telecom defendants from robocalling

and illegal telemarketing, as well as helping anyone else make such calls).

See U.S. v. Dish Network, LLC, No. 3:09-cv-03073 (C.D. Ill. June 6, 2017)

available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/06/ftc-doj-case-results-

historic-decision-awarding-280-million-civil.

U.S. v. Dish Network, LLC, No. 3:09-cv-03073 (C.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2009),

available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2009/03/ftc-charges-dish-network-

formerly-known-echostar-multiple-do-not.

When the Dish case was filed in March of 2009, the robocall provision of the TSR

was not yet in effect, thus the complaint reached Dish’s unlawful use of robocalls through a

count alleging violations of the TSR’s abandoned call provisions. Since October 1, 2003,

telemarketers have been prohibited from abandoning an outbound telephone call, and sellers are

prohibited from causing a telemarketer to do so in violation of the TSR. 16 C.F.R. §

Not Call Registry and called consumers who previously asked Dish and its telemarketers to stop

calling.

In January 2015, the Court found that Dish and its telemarketers had engaged in more

than 66 million violations of the TSR and that Dish was responsible for calls made by its

retailers.

The $280 million penalty against Dish includes $168 million to the United States for

violations of the TSR and $112 million to the states for violations of the TCPA and various state

laws. The order also imposed strong injunctive relief that, among other provisions, requires Dish

to hire a monitor to ensure that Dish and its retailers comply with telemarketing laws.

The

tireless efforts of DOJ and our state co-plaintiffs were invaluable in securing an outcome that

takes a strong stand against companies who invade a consumer’s privacy through unwanted calls

and robocalls.

2. Reaching Violators Attempting to Avoid Detection

Increasingly, the perpetrators behind these abusive and often fraudulent calls take steps to

avoid detection, either by operating through a web of related entities, “spoofing” their Caller ID

310.4(b)(1)(iv). An outbound telephone call is abandoned if a person answers it and the

telemarketer does not connect the call to a sales representative within two (2) seconds of the

person’s completed greeting. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(iv). The use of robocalls, where a sales

pitch to a live consumer begins with or is made entirely by a pre-recorded message, violates the

TSR’s abandoned call prohibition because the telemarketer is not connecting the call to a sales

representative within two (2) seconds of the person’s completed greeting.

U.S. v. Dish Network, LLC, No. 3:09-cv-03073 (C.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2009),

available at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/052-3167/dish-network-llc-

united-states-america-federal-trade.

U.S. v. Dish Network, LLC, No. 3:09-cv-03073 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 21, 2015), available

at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/01/court-grants-partial-summary-

judgment-ftc-case-against-dish.

See U.S. v. Dish Network, LLC, No. 3:09-cv-03073 (C.D. Ill. June 6, 2017)

available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/06/ftc-doj-case-results-

historic-decision-awarding-280-million-civil.

information, or hiding overseas. The FTC uses every investigative and litigation tool at its

disposal to cut through these deceptions. For example, the defendants in the Jones and Ramsey

cases operated through a tangle of related individuals and entities to avoid detection by law

enforcement. In addition, defendants in many of our robocall cases routinely hid their true name

or phone number to deceive consumers and evade detection by law enforcement and the

Commission included counts in its suits targeting this unlawful Caller ID spoofing.

The perpetrators behind many unlawful calls also seek to evade law enforcement by

operating overseas. When consumers are victimized by fraudulent calls from international call

centers, the Commission finds ways to stymie the scammers by cracking down on their U.S.

enablers. In one recent case, the Commission filed suit against individuals and entities in the

U.S. who were collecting money on behalf of telemarketers at India-based call centers operating

government impostor scams that conned consumers into paying hundreds or thousands of dollars

for taxes they did not owe, or fees for services they did not receive.

In another recent case, the

See FTC v. Jasjit Gotra, 1:18-cv-10548 (D. Mass. Mar. 23, 2018) available at

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/x140022/jasjit-gotra-alliance-security; U.S.

v. KFJ Marketing Inc., 2:16-cv-01643 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2016), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/152-3166/kfj-marketing-llc; FTC v.

Lifewatch Inc., 1:15-cv-05781 (N.D. Ill. June 20, 2015), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/142-3123/lifewatch-inc; FTC v. All Us

Marketing LLC, 6:15CV1016-0RL-28GJK (M.D. Fla. June 29, 2015), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/142-3256/all-us-marketing-llc-formerly-

known-payless-solutions-llc; FTC v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., 0:15-cv-60423 (S.D. Fla. Mar.

4, 2015), available at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/122-3196-

x150028/caribbean-cruise-line-inc. In each case, the FTC alleged that defendants failed to

transmit complete and accurate Caller ID information in violation of 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(8) or

assisted others in doing the same.

FTC v. PHLG Enterprises LLC, 8:17-cv-00220-RAL-AEP (M.D. Fla. Jan. 27,

2017), available at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/152-3245-x170019/phlg-

enterprises-llc.

Commission brought suit against the U.S. operators of a scam that relied on Peruvian call centers

and sophisticated Caller ID spoofing to pressure Spanish speaking U.S. consumers into

purchasing English-language learning materials of little value—and then posing as government

officials to threaten and harass uninterested consumers into “purchasing” their products.

B. Coordination with Law Enforcement Partners

As the law enforcement challenges associated with illegal telemarketing have increased,

the FTC’s relationships with other agencies have become increasingly important. The

Commission has robust, collaborative relationships with state law enforcers, including through

the National Association of Attorneys General Do Not Call working group. The Commission

coordinates with various partners to bring law enforcement actions. Many of the recent robocall

enforcement actions the FTC has led involved collaboration with the Department of Justice or

our state partners.

The FTC also leads robocall law enforcement “sweeps”—coordinated,

simultaneous law enforcement actions—in conjunction with state and federal partners.

FTC v. ABC Hispana Inc., 5:17-cv-00252-JGB-DTB (C.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2017),

available at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/152-3108/abc-hispana-inc-et-al.

See supra n. 38.

For example, the FTC led a multinational robocall sweep announced in June 2016

that took action against operations estimated to be responsible for billions of illegal robocalls.

The June 2016 sweep included thirty-nine actions taken by the FTC, the Canadian Radio-

television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), the United Kingdom’s Information

Commissioner’s Office (ICO), as well as DOJ, the FCC and the attorney generals’ offices of

Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and

Washington State, and the Tennessee Regulatory Authority. See Press Release, FTC, Florida

Attorney General Take Action Against Illegal Robocall Operation (June 14, 2016), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/06/ftc-florida-attorney-general-take-action-

against-illegal-robocall and https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-

florida-attorney-general-take-action-against-illegal-robocall-

operation/160614robocallenforcementactions.pdf (listing actions comprising the coordinated

enforcement crackdown).

In addition, the FTC regularly works with the Federal Communications Commission

(“FCC”), the Department of Justice, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), the U.S. Treasury

Inspector General for Tax Administration (“TIGTA”), the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and

U.S. Attorneys’ Offices across the country. The Commission also coordinates with its

counterparts in other countries on particular cases and broader strategic matters such as Caller ID

spoofing. The FTC’s collaboration with its partners takes many forms, including sharing

information and targets, assisting with investigations, and working collaboratively on long-term

policy initiatives. Also, on May 17, for the third year in a row, the FTC is coordinating a

meeting among stakeholders specifically to tackle Indian call-center fraud.

Just last month,the FTC and FCC co-hosted a Joint Policy Forum on Illegal Robocalls on

March 23, 2018.

The purpose of the forum was to discuss the regulatory and enforcement

challenges posed by illegal robocalls and what the FCC and FTC are doing to protect consumers

and encourage the development of private-sector solutions.

Discussion topics included the

factors driving the volume of illegal robocalls; Caller ID spoofing; new threats to consumers,

such as “neighbor spoofing”; protections for callers placing legal calls; FCC rulemakings;

enforcement challenges; third-party solutions and other resources available to empower

consumers; and industry efforts to develop Caller ID authentication.

The forum included

See Press Release, FTC and FCC to Host Joint Policy Forum on Illegal Robocalls

(Mar. 22, 2018) available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/03/ftc-fcc-

host-joint-policy-forum-illegal-robocalls.

Id.

See Press Release, Agenda Announced for the March 23, 2018 FTC-FCC Joint

Policy Forum on Fighting the Scourge of Illegal Robocalls (Mar. 19, 208) available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/03/ftc-fcc-host-joint-policy-forum-illegal-

robocalls.

policy and regulatory experts from both agencies, enforcement leaders from both agencies and

the Florida Office of Attorney General, representatives from voice service providers,

representatives from companies providing call-blocking solutions, as well as representatives

from the call originators.

II. Policy and Market Stimulation Initiatives

A. Understanding the Landscape of the Robocall Problem

Despite the 2009 prohibition of unauthorized robocalls and the Commission’s vigorous

enforcement efforts, technological advances have permitted law-breakers to make more robocalls

for less money with a greater ability to hide their identity. For example, at the end of 2009, the

FTC received approximately 63,000 complaints about illegal robocalls each month.

That

number has now more than quadrupled—in fiscal year 2017, the FTC received an average of

nearly 400,000 robocall complaints per month.

Recognizing that law enforcement, while critical, is not enough to solve the problem,

FTC staff has aggressively sought new strategies in ongoing discussions with academic experts,

telecommunications carriers, industry coordinating bodies, technology and security companies,

consumers, and counterparts at federal, state, and foreign government agencies. The

Commission ramped up these efforts in October 2012, when the FTC hosted a public summit on

Id. A video recording of the event is available on the FCC’s website at

https://www.fcc.gov/fcc-ftc-robocalls-forum.

National Do Not Call Registry Data Book FY 2010 at 5 (Nov. 2010), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/reports/national-do-not-call-registry-data-book-fiscal-year-2010. Since that

time, the FTC began separately tracking Do Not Call complaints and robocall complaints based

on information provided by the consumer.

See supra n. 8.

robocalls to explore these issues (the “Robocall Summit”).

Since then, as discussed below, the

Commission has spurred the creation of specific groups of experts and industry members to work

together and with international law enforcers to tackle this vexing consumer protection issue.

Speakers at the Robocall Summit made clear that convergence between the legacy

telephone system and the Internet has allowed robocallers to engage, at very little cost, in

massive, unlawful robocall campaigns that cross international borders and hide behind spoofed

Caller ID information. As a result, it is not only much cheaper to blast out robocalls; it is also

easier to hide one’s identity when doing so.

1. Technological Developments Have Made Robocalls Extremely

Inexpensive

Until relatively recently, telemarketing required significant capital investment in

specialized hardware and labor.

Now, robocallers benefit from automated dialing technology,

inexpensive international and long distance calling rates, and the ability to move internationally

and employ cheap labor.

The only necessary equipment is a computer connected to the

Internet.

The result: law-breaking telemarketers can place robocalls for a fraction of one cent

per minute. In addition, the cheap, widely available technology has resulted in a proliferation of

entities available to perform any portion of the telemarketing process, including generating leads,

See generally FTC Workshop, Robocalls: All the Rage (Oct. 18, 2012), available

at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2012/10/robocalls-all-rage-ftc-summit. A

transcript of the workshop (hereinafter “Tr.”) is available at

https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_events/robocalls-all-rage-ftc-

summit/robocallsummittranscript.pdf.

Herrmann, Tr. at 58-59; Schulzrinne, Tr. at 24.

Schulzrinne, Tr. at 24.

Herrmann, Tr. at 59-61.

placing automated calls, gathering consumers’ personal information, or selling products.

Because of the dramatic decrease in upfront capital investment and marginal cost, robocallers—

like email spammers—can make a profit even if their contact rate is very low.

Technology enables a cheap and scalable model for robocalls.

2. Technological Developments Have Made It Easier for Robocallers to

Hide

Technological changes have also affected the marketplace by enabling telemarketers to

conceal their identities when they place calls. First, direct connections do not exist between

every pair of carriers, so intermediate carriers are necessary to connect many calls. Thus, the

typical call now takes a complex path, traversing the networks of multiple VoIP and legacy

carriers before reaching the end user.

These circuitous paths make it cumbersome to trace a

Schulzrinne, Tr. at 20-21; Maxson, Tr. at 95-98.

Schulzrinne, Tr. at 21; Bellovin, Tr. at 16-17.

Panagia, Tr. at 130-32; Bellovin, Tr. at 17.

call to its inception.

All too often, this process to trace the call fails because one of the carriers

in the chain has not retained the records necessary for a law enforcement investigation.

Second, callers can easily manipulate the Caller ID information that appears with an

incoming phone call.

While “Caller ID spoofing” has some beneficial uses,

it also allows

telemarketers to deceive consumers by pretending to be an entity with a local phone number or a

trusted institution such as a bank or government agency.

In addition, telemarketers can change

their phone numbers frequently in an attempt to avoid detection.

Today, many illegal callers

rely on “neighbor spoofing”, the practice of using a Caller ID number that appears to be from a

number local to the call recipient.

Schulzrinne, Tr. at 24-25; Maxson, Tr. at 100; Bash, Tr. at 104. Recently,

USTelecom’s Industry Traceback Group has been able to assist law enforcement to traceback a

call more quickly through the network.

Panagia, Tr. at 160-61; see also id. at 132-133; Schulzrinne, Tr. at 21.

Schulzrinne, Tr. at 24-26.

See, e.g., Panagia, Tr. at 129 (AT&T allows the third party that performs AT&T’s

customer service to “spoof” AT&T’s customer service line).

Schulzrinne, Tr. at 21-22.

Id. at 24-26; Maxson, Tr. at 97; Bash, Tr. at 103. Under the Truth in Caller ID

Act, it is generally illegal to transmit misleading or inaccurate Caller ID information with intent

to defraud. See Truth in Caller ID Act, 47 U.S.C.§ 227(e); cf. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(8) (the

Telemarketing Sales Rule requires that sellers and telemarketers transmit or cause to be

transmitted the telephone number and, when made available by the telemarketer’s carrier, the

name of the telemarketer, to any caller identification service in use by a recipient of a

telemarketing call, or transmit the customer service number of the seller on whose behalf the call

is made and, when made available by the telemarketer’s seller, the name of the seller. Under this

provision, it is not necessary to prove intent to defraud.).

See FTC Consumer Information Blog, That’s Not Your Neighbor Calling

https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/2018/01/thats-not-your-neighbor-calling.

Finally, new technologies allow robocallers to operate outside of jurisdictions where they

are most likely to face prosecution.

Indeed, the entities involved in the path of a robocall can

be located in different countries, making investigations even more challenging.

The path of a robocall can span the entire globe.

B. Efforts to Stimulate Technological Solutions

1. Robocall Contests

Recognizing the need to spur the marketplace into developing technical solutions that

protect American consumers from illegal robocalls, the FTC lead four public challenges to help

tackle the unlawful robocalls that plague consumers. In 2012-2013, the FTC conducted its first

Schulzrinne, Tr. at 21; Bellovin, Tr. at 16-17.

Robocall Challenge

, and called upon the public to develop a consumer-facing solution that

blocks illegal robocalls, applies to landlines and mobile phones, and operates on proprietary and

non-proprietary platforms. In response, we received 798 submissions and partnered with experts

in the field to judge the entries. One of the winners, “NomoRobo,” was on the market and

available to consumers by October 2013—just 6 months after being named one of the winners.

To date, “NomoRobo,” which reports blocking over 600 million calls, is being offered directly to

consumers by a number of telecommunications providers and is now available as an app on

iPhones.

The following year, the FTC launched its second challenge—Zapping Rachel

—which

called upon information security experts to help create a robust robocall honeypot. Sixty teams

and individuals signed up for one or more phase, and FTC staff obtained new insights that

improved current robocall honeypot designs and connected new partners and stakeholders.

In June 2015, the FTC sponsored its third challenge, DectectaRobo

, in which it called

upon the public to analyze call data to create algorithms that could predict which calls were

likely robocalls. Nineteen teams from all over the U.S. participated. Later in 2015, the FTC

For more information on the first FTC Robocall Challenge, see

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2013/04/ftc-announces-robocall-challenge-

winners.

See https://www.nomorobo.com/ (last visited April 4, 2018) and Robocall Strike

Force, Robocall Strike Force Report at 17-18 (April 28, 2017),

https://www.fcc.gov/file/12311/download (“Strike Force Report II”) at 17-18.

A robocall honeypot is an information system designed to attract robocallers and

help investigators and academics understand and combat illegal calls. For more information on

the Zapping Rachel challenge see https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/contests/zapping-rachel.

For more information on the Detectarobo challenge see

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/contests/detectarobo.

challenged information security experts to create tools people could use to block and forward

robocalls automatically to a honeypot as part of the Robocalls: Humanity Strikes Back

challenge.

Contestants built and submitted robocall solutions to the judges and finalists, then

competed to “seed” their solutions and collect the highest number of robocalls. One of the

winners of the Humanity Strikes Back challenge developed Robokiller, a call-blocking app

available for iOS phones.

Each of the four challenges provided the Commission with an opportunity to promote

industry dialogue and innovation in combatting illegal robocalls, develop industry partnerships,

and refine its understanding of the robocall problem and potential solutions. More importantly,

the challenges contributed to a shift in the development and availability of technological

solutions in this area, particularly call-blocking and call-filtering products. A number of voice

service providers now offer call-blocking or call-filtering products to some or all of their

customers.

In addition, there are a growing number of free or low-cost apps available for

download on wireless devices that offer call-blocking and call-filtering solutions.

For more information on the Robocalls: Humanity Strikes Back challenge, see

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/contests/robocalls-humanity-strikes-back.

See https://www.robokiller.com/ (last visited April 4, 2018).

For example, in late 2016 AT&T launched “Call Protect”, which is a product

available to many AT&T wireless customers that blocks fraud calls and flags others as potential

“spam.” See http://about.att.com/story/att_call_protect.html. T-Mobile offers its wireless

customers two free products, “Scam ID” and “Scam Block”, that flag and block unwanted calls.

See http://explore.t-mobile.com/callprotection (last visited April 4, 2018). Verizon offers a

product called “Caller Name ID” to its wireless customers that also attempts to flag and block

unwanted calls. See https://www.verizonwireless.com/solutions-and-services/caller-name-id/

(last visited April 4, 2018). In addition, a number of carriers make Nomorobo available to their

VoIP or cable line customers. See, e.g., https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/stop-unwanted-

calls-texts-and-faxes (listing available call blocking resources from a number of wireline

providers) (last visitedApril 4, 2018).

2. Coordinating with Technical Experts, Industry, and Other Stakeholders

The FTC provided input to support the industry-led Robocall Strike Force, which is also

working to deliver comprehensive solutions to prevent, detect, and filter unwanted robocalls.

In tandem with this effort, the FTC worked with a major carrier and federal law enforcement

partners to help block IRS scam calls that were spoofing well-known IRS telephone numbers.

The Strike Force expanded this effort and it contributed to a drop in IRS scam calls at the end of

2016.

The Strike Force also found that, while several providers and third parties offered call-

blocking products, there was no widespread call-blocking solution spanning the networks. In

order to provide proactive call-blocking services to customers, the Strike Force sought

clarification from the FCC that “blocking presumptively illegal calls is one of the tools carriers

The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) maintains a list of

hundreds of available call blocking apps (including a list of the top 15 apps as determined by

CTIA), both for iOS devices: https://www.ctia.org/consumer-tips/robocalls/ios-robocall-blocking

and for Android devices: https://www.ctia.org/consumer-tips/robocalls/android-robocall-

blocking (last visited April 4, 2018).

The Robocall Strike Force developed in response to a call from the FCC to make

better call blocking solutions available to consumers, quickly, and free of charge. See Robocall

Strike Force, Robocall Strike Force Report at 1 (2016), https://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/Robocall-

Strike-Force-Final-Report.pdf. The FTC has long been a proponent of call blocking services as a

critical tool to reduce unwanted calls and robocalls and strongly supports the Strike Force’s

efforts. See e.g., FTC Staff, Comments Before the Federal Communications Commission on

Public Notice DA 14-1700 Regarding Call Blocking, CG Docket No. 02-278; WC Docket No.

07-135 (Jan. 23, 2015), available at https://www.ftc.gov/policy/policy-actions/advocacy-

filings/2015/01/ftc-staff-comment-federal-communications-commission.

See Robocall Strike Force, Robocall Strike Force Report at 32-33 (2016),

https://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/Robocall-Strike-Force-Final-Report.pdf.

are permitted to use to provide consumers additional relief.”

In response, in March 2017, the

FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Notice of Inquiry that sought to expand the

categories of calls that voice service providers are authorized to block and invited comment on

what types of standards should govern providers engaged in call blocking.

The FTC filed a

comment in response, supporting the NPRM’s efforts to expand the categories of calls that voice

service providers are authorized to block and encouraging the FCC to allow for some provider

flexibility when considering standards to govern provider-based blocking of presumptively-

illegal calls.

In November 2017, the FCC issued a Report and Order that enabled voice service

See id. at 40.

Specifically, the FCC’s NPRM sought input on rulemaking proposals that would

authorize two categories of provider-based call blocking: 1) when the subscriber to a particular

telephone number requests that telecommunications providers block calls originating from that

number; and 2) when the originating number is invalid, unallocated, or unassigned. See

Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry, CG Docket No. 17-59, FCC 17-23 (released Mar. 23, 2017),

published in 82 Fed. Reg. 22625 (May 17, 2017).

See Comment of the FTC to the Federal Communications Commission, Advanced

Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and

Notice of Inquiry, CG Docket No. 17-59, FCC 17-23 (July 3, 2017), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/advocacy_documents/ftc-staff-comment-federal-

communications-commission-supporting-fccs-proposed-expansion-

provider/ftc_comment_to_fcc_re_nprm_noi_call_blocking_07032017.pdf. As call-blocking

technology gains momentum, the FTC is mindful about concerns that bad actors may place

telemarketing calls while spoofing an innocent consumer’s telephone number as the outbound

caller ID number in an effort to evade detection or that the inadvertent blocking of legitimate

calls may occur. These concerns were also raised by the FCC and addressed in the FTC’s

Comment.

providers to block certain categories of calls before they reach consumers’ phones as proposed

by the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

Increased call-blocking and call-labeling tools for consumers has presented new

challenges for call originators, some of which contend that their calls are being erroneously

blocked or labeled. The FTC participates in several forums that seek to improve the

communication between call originators and service providers. The FCC also recently sought

input on how best to address the question of potential errors in call blocking and call labeling.

In response, the FTC filed a comment encouraging providers of call-blocking services to

consider engaging in practices that could reduce the potential for inadvertently blocking wanted

calls, such as communicating clearly to subscribers the types of calls that are being blocked,

using plain and specific terms to label calls, and providing designated points of contact to handle

questions about calls blocked in error.

The FTC also has engaged with technical experts, academics, and others through industry

groups, such as the Messaging, Malware and Mobile Anti-Abuse Working Group (“M

AAWG”).

AAWG is a consortium of industry, regulators, and academics focused on developing

solutions to mitigate various forms of messaging abuse such as email spam.

After discussions

See Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, Report and

Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CG Docket No. 17-59, FCC 17-151 (released

Nov. 17, 2017).

See id.

See Comment of the FTC to the Federal Communications Commission, Advanced

Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, CG Docket No. 17-59, FCC 17-151 (Jan

23, 2018), available at https://www.ftc.gov/policy/advocacy/advocacy-filings/2018/01/ftc-staff-

comment-federal-communications-commission.

See M

AAWG, Activities, https://www.m3aawg.org/ (last visited April 5, 2018).

with the FTC and others, M

AAWG leadership formed the Voice and Telephony Abuse Special

Interest Group (“VTA SIG”) in 2014, a subgroup formed to apply M

AAWG’s expertise on

messaging abuse to voice spam, such as robocalls.

Through the VTA SIG, the FTC coordinates with experts working on industry standards

that will combat Caller ID spoofing by enabling the authentication of VoIP calls, such as the

Internet Engineering Task Force’s working group called “STIR”—Secure Telephone Identity

Revisited.

The FTC further promotes technical advancements by collaborating with its

counterparts in other countries, through its leadership in the Unsolicited Communications

Enforcement Network (“UCENet”) an international syndicate of government agencies and

private sector representatives focused on international spam enforcement cooperation.

3. Data Initiatives

The Commission also engages in information sharing to help facilitate technological

solutions such as call blocking and has taken steps to increase the quality and quantity of shared

information. To that end, on September 28, 2016, the FTC updated its Do Not Call complaint

intake process to provide a drop-down list of possible call categories for consumers to choose

from to make it easier for consumers to report the subject of the call and to help the Commission

identify trends.

See M

AAWG, Voice and Telephony Abuse Special Interest Group,

https://www.m3aawg.org/voice-and-telephony-abuse-sig (last visited April 5, 2018).

See Internet Eng’g Task Force, Secure Telephone Identity Revisited (STIR),

https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/stir/charter/ (last visited April 5, 2018).

See https://www.ucenet.org/ (last visited April 5, 2018).

Next, in fiscal year 2017, the FTC redesigned its annual National Do Not Call Registry

Data Book.

The Data Book now provides more information on robocall complaints, new

information about the types of calls consumers reported to the FTC, and includes a complete

state-by-state analysis.

In addition, this year the FTC has developed a “mini site” on its

website to make the information in the FY 2017 Data Book more accessible for the public, such

as providing a webpage for each state.

For the first time, the data behind the report is also

available in data files on the new website.

One of the features of the new Data Book is a breakdown of the topics of calls reported to

the FTC that it gathered from the FTC’s revised online complaint form:

Press Release, FTC Releases FY 2017 National Do Not Call Registry Data Book

and DNC Mini Site (Dec. 18, 2017) available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-

releases/2017/12/ftc-releases-fy-2017-national-do-not-call-registry-data-book-dnc. Excerpts

from the Data Book are attached at Exhibit A.

Id.

FY 2017 COMPLAINTS BY TOPIC

The state-by-state analysis also includes the top 10 topics of consumer complaints per state.

In addition to refining our complaint intake process and upgrading our Data Book, the

FTC recently began a new initiative to help improve industry call-blocking solutions by

increasing the amount and frequency of consumer complaint data that we make publicly

available.

Beginning in August 2017, when consumers report Do Not Call or robocall

See Do Not Call Registry Data Book 2017: Complaint Figures for FY 2017

available at https://www.ftc.gov/reports/national-do-not-call-registry-data-book-fiscal-year-

2017. Not everyone who files a complaint reports a topic.

See, e.g., Do Not Call Registry Data Book 2017: Alabama available at

https://www.ftc.gov/reports/national-do-not-call-registry-data-book-fiscal-year-2017/alabama.

See https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/08/ftc-escalates-fight-

against-illegal-robocalls-using-consumer. The complaint data is available at:

https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/open-government/data-sets/do-not-call-data.

violations to the FTC, the phone numbers consumers report are released each business day. The

FTC is also releasing the following consumer-reported data: the date and time the unwanted call

was received, the general subject matter of the call (such as debt reduction, energy, warranties,

home security, etc.), and whether the call was a robocall.

By making our available data more

up-to-date and more robust, the FTC seeks to improve the functionality of call-blocking solutions

for consumers that choose to use a call-blocking service or feature.

The Commission is committed to continuing to work with industry and government

partners to improve information sharing to combat illegal calls.

III. Consumer Education

Public education is also an essential tool in the FTC’s consumer protection and fraud

prevention work. The Commission’s education and outreach program reaches tens of millions of

people a year through our website, the media, and partner organizations that disseminate

consumer information on the FTC’s behalf.

The FTC delivers practical, plain language information on numerous issues in English

and in Spanish. The Commission also uses law enforcement announcements as opportunities to

remind consumers how to recognize a similar situation and report it to the FTC. In the case of

robocalls, the FTC’s message to consumers is simple: if you answer a call and hear an unwanted

recorded sales message—hang up. Period. Other key messages to consumers include how to

place a phone number on the Do Not Call Registry, how and where to report illegal robocalls,

100

In the past, the Commission released a bi-weekly report that published only the

telephone numbers that consumers complained about in their Do Not Call and robocall

complaints.

100

See, e.g., National Do Not Call Registry,

http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0108-national-do-not-call-registry.

available call blocking solutions,

101

and how to identify common scams.

102

The FTC

disseminates these tips through articles,

103

blog posts,

104

social media,

105

infographics,

106

videos,

107

audio,

108

and campaigns such as “Pass It On”—an innovative means of arming older

consumers with information about scams that they can “pass on” to their friends and family

members.

109

The FTC is taking additional steps to communicate information to consumers about the

available call-blocking solutions that might reduce the amount of unwanted calls they receive.

101

See, e.g., FTC Consumer Information Blocking Unwanted Calls

https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0548-blocking-unwanted-calls.

102

See, e.g., FTC Consumer Information Scam Alerts,

https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/scam-alerts.

103

See, e.g., FTC Robocall Microsite, http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/features/feature-

0025-robocalls.

104

See, e.g., FTC Consumer Information Blog, Looking to Block Unwanted Calls?

https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/looking-block-unwanted-calls; FTC Consumer Information

Blog, That’s Not Your Neighbor Calling https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/2018/01/thats-not-

your-neighbor-calling; FTC Consumer Information Blog,Apps to Stop Robocalls

https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/2017/10/apps-stop-robocalls.

105

See, e.g., FTC Robocalls Facebook Q&A Transcript (Oct. 25, 2012),

https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/ftc-facebook-chats/1210robocallschallenge-

fb.pdf.

106

See, e.g., FTC Robocalls Infographic,

https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_events/robocalls-all-rage-ftc-

summit/pdf-0113-robocalls-infographic.pdf.

107

See, e.g., FTC Video and Media, http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/media.

108

See, e.g., FTC Consumer Information Audio, “Hang Up on Robocalls,”

http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/media/audio-0045-hang-robocalls.

109

See Pass It On, http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/features/feature-0030-pass-it-

on#identity-theft.

On April 23, 2018, the FTC is co-hosting with the FCC a “Stop Illegal Robocalls Expo.”

110

The

Expo will feature innovative technologies, devices, and applications to minimize or eliminate the

number of illegal robocalls consumers receive.

111

The Expo is free and open to the public.

112

late March, the FTC also put out additional information on its websites regarding how to stop

unwanted calls for different types of phone services: mobile, landline or VOIP.

113

IV. Next Steps and Conclusion

The Do Not Call Registry continues to help protect consumers against unsolicited calls

from legitimate telemarketers. However, as technology continues to develop and fraudsters

exploit those developments, we must remain agile and creative. The Commission will continue

its multifaceted efforts to fight illegal robocalls, including the following actions:

 Continue Aggressive Law Enforcement

o We will maintain our enforcement efforts, in coordination with state, federal, and

international partners, to target high-volume offenders and pursue robocall

gatekeepers in order to stop the largest number of illegal calls.

o We will work with the telecommunications industry, encouraging carriers to be

proactive in monitoring for illegal robocalls, blocking illegal calls, and securing

the information necessary for prosecutions.

 Spur Innovation

110

See Press Release, FTC and FCC Seek Exhibitors for an Expo Featuring

Technologies to Block Illegal Robocalls (Mar. 7, 2018) available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-

events/press-releases/2018/03/ftc-fcc-seek-exhibitors-expo-featuring-technologies-block-illegal.

111

Id.

112

Id.

113

See FTC Consumer Information How to Stop Unwanted Calls available at

https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/features/how-stop-unwanted-calls. A copy of this guidance is

attached at Exhibit B.

o We will work with industry leaders and other experts to further stimulate the

development of technological solutions to protect consumers from illegal

robocalls.

o We will continue to encourage industry-wide coordination to create and deploy

VoIP standards that incorporate robust authentication capabilities. Such

coordination is the only way to ensure a future phone system with accurate and

truthful calling information.

 Engage in Ongoing Consumer Education

o We will continue our broad outreach to consumers regarding the Do Not Call

Registry as well as illegal robocalls and how best to fight them.

Thank you for the opportunity to share some of the highlights regarding the FTC’s battle against

illegal robocalls. We look forward to working with you on this important issue.

EXHIBIT A

Federal Trade Commission

December 2017

National

Do Not Call

Registry

Data Book

FY 2017

TheNationalDoNotCallRegistryDataBook

TheDataBook

TheNationalDoNotCallRegistryDataBookcontainsstatisticaldataaboutphonenumbersonthe

Registry,telemarketersandsellersaccessingphonenumbersontheRegistry,andcomplaints

consumerssubmittotheFTCabouttelemarketersallegedlyviolatingtheDoNotCallrules.Statistical

dataonDoNotCall(DNC)complaintsisbasedonunverifiedcomplaintsreportedbyconsumers,noton

aconsumersurvey.

NewinFY2017

x WhenreportingthetotalnumberofDNCcomplaints,theDataBooknowbreaksthe

numberdowntoshowhowmanycomplaintswereaboutrobocallsandhowmanywere

fromlivecallers.Withafewexceptions,telemarketingrobocallsareillegal,whetherornot

anumberisontheDoNotCallRegistry.Asalways,whenit’salivecaller,weverifythatthe

consumer’stelephonenumberwasontheDoNotCallRegistrybeforewetakethe

complaint.

x Theonlinecomplaintformnowasksforthetopicofthecall,sothisnewinformationis

includedintheDataBook.

o Consumerscanchoosetoreportspecifictopics,suchasreducingdebt,vacation&

timeshares,andseveralothercategories.Noteveryonewhofilesacomplaint

reportsatopic.

o TheDataBookdoesnotincludestatisticswhereaconsumerchose“Other,”ortopics

lesslikelytoviolatetheDoNotCallRules,suchasdebtcollection,political,or

charitablecalls.

x TheDataBooknowincludesastateͲbyͲstateanalysisofDNCcomplaints,andithasanew,

moreaccuratewayofreportingaconsumer’sstate:

o Ifconsumersreporttheirstate,theDataBookalwaysusesthestatetheyreport.

o Ifconsumersdonotreporttheirstate,theDataBookusestheirareacode.

o ThestateͲbyͲstateanalysisalsoincludesthetop10topicsofconsumercomplaints.

x Theunderlyingdatainthereportisavailableonouropengovernmentsiteat:

www.ftc.gov/ĚŽŶŽƚĐĂůůͲĚĂƚĂďŽŽŬϮϬϭϳ.

Insidethenumbers

x Statesarerankedbasedonthenumberofregistrationsorcomplaintsper100,000population.

ComplaintfiguresincludethetotalnumberofFY2017complaintssubmittedtotheFTC.

Populationestimatesarebasedon2016U.S.Censuspopulationestimates(TableNSTͲEST2016Ͳ

01–AnnualEstimatesofthePopulationfortheUnitedStates,Regions,States,andPuertoRico:

April1,2010toJuly1,2016).

x Forthepurposesofthisreport,“activeregistrations”arethoseregistrationsconsumershave

placedontheRegistrythathavenotbeensubsequentlydeletedbytheconsumerorremoved

bytheFTC.TheFTCremovesnumbersthathavebeendisconnectedandreassigned.

FY 2017

NaƟonal Do Not Call Registry

Who is using the Do Not Call Registry

AcƟve RegistraƟons by Fiscal Year

210M

212M

214M

216M

218M

220M

222M

224M

226M

228M

230M

229,816,164

226,001,288

222,841,544

217,855,796

213,400,641

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

"AcƟve RegistraƟons" reﬂect the total number of phone numbers registered on the NaƟonal Do Not Call Registry for each ﬁscal year as of September 30, 2017.

OrganizaƟons Accessing the Registry by Fiscal Year

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

5 or Fewer Area Codes

OrganizaƟons Who Paid

Exempt OrganizaƟons

Total

24,182

23,049

20,075

17,634

15,536

2,877

2,582

2,502

2,353

2,259

598

585

521

503

543

27,657

26,216

23,098

20,490

18,338

Telemarketers and sellers can access up to ﬁve area codes on the Registry for free. To access more than ﬁve area codes, they must pay a fee. OrganizaƟons that are not selling goods

or services are "exempt" and can access numbers on the Registry for free. This includes organizaƟons asking for charitable contribuƟons, raising money for poliƟcal purposes, or

conducƟng surveys. It also includes organizaƟons calling only people they have an established business relaƟonship with or who have given the organizaƟon wriƩen permission to call.

FY 2017

NaƟonal Do Not Call Registry

Complaint Figures by Year

Complaints by Call Type and Fiscal Year

Live Caller

Robocall

7,157,370

2,563,081

5,340,234

3,748,646

4,501,967

1,854,718

3,578,710

3,241,086

1,510,485

1,388,470

1,448,382

3,401,614

2,182,158

2,125,968

1,734,603

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

The total includes complaints about robocalls, complaints about live callers, and complaints where the call type was not reported. The number of calls where a call type was not

reported is relaƟvely small every year. The data is available at www.Ōc.gov/donotcall-databook2017.

FY 2017

NaƟonal Do Not Call Registry

Complaint Figures for the Year

Live Caller

Robocall

FY 2017 Complaints by Topic*

Reducing debt

VacaƟon & Ɵmeshares

WarranƟes & protecƟon plans

Imposters

Medical & prescripƟons

Energy, solar & uƟliƟes

Computer & technical support

Home security & alarms

LoƩeries, prizes & sweepstakes

Home improvement & cleaning

Work from home

*Not everyone who ﬁles a complaint reports a topic.

5,43939,159

40,663

22,061

21,225

24,796

67,678

80,543

51,616

85,142

71,672

116,234

179,925

81,849

223,119

235,678

51,403

771,158

60,928

77,999

66,993

90,100

Live Caller

2,563,081

Call Type Not Reported

92,322

Robocall

4,501,967

FY 2017 Complaints by Call Type

FY 2017 Complaints by Month

939,002

926,308

900K

800K

700K

600K

500K

400K

300K

200K

100K

October November December January February March April May June July August September

268,526

622,692

614,951

471,256

418,060

408,031

379,477

368,972

330,264

203,863

196,978

218,897

156,277

293,367

315,625

247,529

232,017

235,288

239,057

225,687

199,792

135,323

139,321

143,798

368,586

341,351

343,969

537,038

602,592

627,649

659,101

652,342

727,562

431,870

The total includes complaints about robocalls, complaints about live callers, and complaints where the call type was not reported. The number of calls where a call type was not

reported is relaƟvely small every month. The full data, as well as complaints reporƟng that the consumer asked the enƟty to stop calling, is available at

www.Ōc.gov/donotcall-databook2017. The FTC idenƟ

ﬁed a technical problem with complaint submissions that resulted in arƟﬁcially high complaint counts in July and August. The FTC

addressed the issue, and September’s ﬁgures reﬂect the adjustment.

FY 2017

NaƟonal Do Not Call Registry

RegistraƟons by State

State Rankings for NaƟonal Do Not Call Registry RegistraƟons per 100K PopulaƟon

Rank

AcƟve RegistraƟons

Consumer State

AcƟve RegistraƟons

per 100K PopulaƟon

New Hampshire

ConnecƟcut

MassachuseƩs

Maine

New Jersey

Kansas

Colorado

Vermont

Michigan

Wisconsin

Pennsylvania

Iowa

Nebraska

Delaware

Ohio

Wyoming

Minnesota

Illinois

Maryland

Rhode Island

Montana

Kentucky

New Mexico

Virginia

South Dakota

Oregon

1,222,035

91,552

3,183,068

89,001

5,794,655

85,068

1,092,143

82,025

7,306,538

81,688

2,359,523

81,159

4,444,187

80,212

500,495

80,131

7,942,407

79,998

4,621,662

79,977

10,209,190

79,858

2,490,336

79,444

1,496,889

78,490

746,072

78,364

9,085,945

78,230

457,902

78,207

4,316,316

78,195

9,960,663

77,808

4,654,404

77,361

813,061

76,963

794,053

76,167

3,329,393

75,037

1,548,728

74,422

6,189,394

73,580

634,341

73,296

2,971,402

72,589

Rank

AcƟve RegistraƟons

Consumer State

AcƟve RegistraƟons

per 100K PopulaƟon

New York

Washington

Florida

Tennessee

Alabama

Idaho

North Dakota

Georgia

Oklahoma

Arkansas

West Virginia

North Carolina

Nevada

Arizona

Missouri

California

Utah

Indiana

South Carolina

Louisiana

Texas

Mississippi

Hawaii

Alaska

District of Columbia

Puerto Rico

14,052,247

71,168

5,166,189

70,886

14,605,866

70,859

4,703,989

70,724

3,393,619

69,780

1,171,358

69,594

524,414

69,188

7,095,159

68,816

2,675,174

68,182

2,031,921

67,997

1,240,873

67,766

6,810,043

67,115

1,955,039

66,497

4,596,446

66,317

4,040,559

66,315

25,926,903

66,056

1,938,175

63,521

4,169,999

62,867

3,063,994

61,760

2,824,750

60,336

15,469,941

55,522

1,636,395

54,752

781,815

54,728

366,837

49,446

620,154

91,042

399,156

11,701

The District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are included in the table but are not ranked. States are ranked based on the number of acƟve registraƟons per 100,000 populaƟon. AcƟve

registraƟons include all phone numbers on the NaƟonal Do Not Call Registry as of September 30, 2017. PopulaƟon esƟmates are based on 2016 U.S. Census populaƟon esƟmates.

FY 2017

NaƟonal Do Not Call Registry

Complaints by State

State Rankings for NaƟonal Do Not Call Registry Complaints per 100K PopulaƟon

Rank

Complaints per 100K

Consumer State

Complaints

PopulaƟon

New Jersey

Delaware

Florida

Virginia

New Hampshire

Michigan

ConnecƟcut

Rhode Island

Maryland

Arizona

Tennessee

Vermont

Ohio

Nevada

Georgia

Colorado

Illinois

New York

MassachuseƩs

Oregon

Nebraska

Alabama

Maine

Utah

Pennsylvania

California

321,393

3,593

27,691

2,909

588,021

2,853

232,818

2,768

36,401

2,727

265,465

2,674

94,440

2,641

26,590

2,517

150,346

2,499

169,702

2,448

158,896

2,389

14,896

2,385

276,667

2,382

69,639

2,369

242,242

2,349

129,609

2,339

295,218

2,306

454,100

2,300

156,006

2,290

93,121

2,275

43,255

2,268

108,003

2,221

29,495

2,215

66,229

2,171

271,832

2,126

824,692

2,101

Rank

Complaints per 100K

Consumer State

Complaints

PopulaƟon

Arkansas

Montana

Iowa

Wyoming

Texas

South Carolina

Idaho

North Carolina

Kansas

Louisiana

New Mexico

Washington

Indiana

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Kentucky

Oklahoma

West Virginia

South Dakota

Mississippi

North Dakota

Missouri

Hawaii

Alaska

District of Columbia

Puerto Rico

61,697

2,065

21,211

2,035

63,502

2,026

11,808

2,017

559,563

2,008

99,620

2,008

33,157

1,970

199,407

1,965

55,207

1,899

86,267

1,843

37,653

1,809

125,689

1,725

114,241

1,722

98,352

1,702

91,166

1,652

72,110

1,625

61,962

1,579

28,738

1,569

13,316

1,539

39,969

1,337

9,881

1,304

74,102

1,216

16,055

1,124

3,041

410

24,303

3,568

1,638

The District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are included in the table but are not ranked. States are ranked based on the number of complaints per 100,000 populaƟon. Complaints

include the total number of FY 2017 complaints submiƩed to the FTC. PopulaƟon esƟmates are based on 2016 U.S. Census populaƟon esƟmates.

FY 2017

NaƟonal Do Not Call Registry

Alabama

RegistraƟon and Complaint Figures by State

Complaints by County

Reducing debt

WarranƟes & protecƟon plans

Home security & alarms

Imposters

Medical & prescripƟons

VacaƟon & Ɵmeshares

Computer & technical support

LoƩeries, prizes & sweepstakes

Work from home

Home improvement & cleaning

13,673

5,036

3,973

3,390

3,305

1,783

1,386

1,110

584

253

Complaints by Topics*

*Not everyone who ﬁles a complaint reports a topic.

State Totals

Complaints:

108,003 (#22 naƟonally, per 100K populaƟon)

AcƟve RegistraƟons:

3,393,619 (#31 naƟonally, per 100K populaƟon)

Complaints by Fiscal Year

100K

108,003

81,834

50K

66,812

49,227

46,251

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

AcƟve RegistraƟons by Fiscal Year

3.39M

3.13M

3.20M

3.28M

3.33M

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Complaints by Call Type

Call Type Not Reported

1,480

Live Caller

34,896

Robocall

71,627

EXHIBIT B

How to stop unwanted calls

ON A MOBILE PHONE

See what

built-in features

your phone has.

Download a call-blocking app.

• Some apps are free, but

others charge a monthly fee.

• Some apps will access

your contacts.

• Calls might be stopped,

ring silently, or go straight

to voicemail.

See what services

Report unwanted calls at

your carrier oers.

ftc.gov/complaint

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION  ftc.FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION  ftc.gov/callsgov/calls

How to stop unwanted calls

IF YOU USE VOIP

Look into

internet-based

services. Your carrier

might be able to help.

Some services

are free, but

others charge

a monthly fee.

Not sure if your home phone

uses the internet (VOIP)?

Check with your carrier.

With blocking services,

calls might be stopped, ring silently,

or go straight to voicemail.

Report unwanted calls at

ftc.gov/complaint

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION • ftc.gov/calls

How to stop unwanted calls

ON A LANDLINE

See what services

your carrier oers.

Install a call-blocking device.

Some use blacklists to

Some services

are free, but

others charge

a monthly fee.

• stop unwanted calls

• divert calls to voicemail

Some use whitelists of

approved numbers.

Report unwanted calls at

ftc.gov/complaint

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION  ftc. gov/calls