- TXT
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Tip
?
116th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 116-173
======================================================================
STOPPING BAD ROBOCALLS ACT
_______
July 23, 2019.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Pallone, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 3375]
The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 3375) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to
clarify the prohibitions on making robocalls, and for other
purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon
with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do
pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Purpose and Summary.............................................10
II. Background and Need for Legislation.............................11
III. Committee Hearings..............................................12
IV. Committee Consideration.........................................12
V. Committee Votes.................................................13
VI. Oversight Findings..............................................15
VII. New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax
Expenditures....................................................15
VIII.Federal Mandates Statement......................................15
IX. Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives...........15
X. Duplication of Federal Programs.................................15
XI. Committee Cost Estimate.........................................15
XII. Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits.....15
XIII.Advisory Committee Statement....................................15
XIV. Applicability to Legislative Branch.............................16
XV. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation..................16
XVI. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported...........20
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Stopping Bad Robocalls Act''.
SEC. 2. CONSUMER PROTECTION REGULATIONS RELATING TO MAKING ROBOCALLS.
Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act,
and as appropriate thereafter to ensure that the consumer protection
and privacy purposes of section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934
(47 U.S.C. 227) remain effective, the Commission shall prescribe such
regulations, or amend such existing regulations, regarding calls made
or text messages sent using automatic telephone dialing systems and
calls made using an artificial or prerecorded voice as will, in the
judgment of the Commission, clarify descriptions of automatic telephone
dialing systems and ensure that--
(1) the consumer protection and privacy purposes of such
section are effectuated;
(2) calls made and text messages sent using automatic
telephone dialing systems and calls made using an artificial or
prerecorded voice are made or sent (as the case may be) with
consent, unless consent is not required under or the call or
text message is exempted by paragraph (1), (2)(B), or (2)(C) of
subsection (b) of such section;
(3) consumers can withdraw consent for such calls and text
messages;
(4) circumvention or evasion of such section is prevented;
(5) callers maintain records to demonstrate that such callers
have obtained consent, unless consent is not required under or
the call or text message is exempted by paragraph (1), (2)(B),
or (2)(C) of subsection (b) of such section, for such calls and
text messages, for a period of time that will permit the
Commission to effectuate the consumer protection and privacy
purposes of such section; and
(6) compliance with such section is facilitated.
SEC. 3. CONSUMER PROTECTIONS FOR EXEMPTIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 227(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934
(47 U.S.C. 227(b)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (G)(ii), by striking ``; and'' and
inserting a semicolon;
(2) in subparagraph (H), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(I) shall ensure that any exemption under
subparagraph (B) or (C) contains requirements for calls
made in reliance on the exemption with respect to--
``(i) the classes of parties that may make
such calls;
``(ii) the classes of parties that may be
called; and
``(iii) the number of such calls that a
calling party may make to a particular called
party.''.
(b) Deadline for Regulations.--In the case of any exemption issued
under subparagraph (B) or (C) of section 227(b)(2) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)(2)) before the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commission, shall, not later than 1 year
after such date of enactment, prescribe such regulations, or amend such
existing regulations, as necessary to ensure that such exemption
contains each requirement described in subparagraph (I) of such
section, as added by subsection (a). To the extent such an exemption
contains such a requirement before such date of enactment, nothing in
this section or the amendments made by this section shall be construed
to require the Commission to prescribe or amend regulations relating to
such requirement.
SEC. 4. REPORT ON REASSIGNED NUMBER DATABASE.
(a) Report to Congress.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to Congress,
and make publicly available on the website of the Commission, a
report on the status of the efforts of the Commission pursuant
to the Second Report and Order in the matter of Advanced
Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls (CG Docket
No. 17-59; FCC 18-177; adopted on December 12, 2018).
(2) Contents.--The report required by paragraph (1) shall
describe the efforts of the Commission, as described in such
Second Report and Order, to ensure--
(A) the establishment of a database of telephone
numbers that have been disconnected, in order to
provide a person making calls subject to section 227(b)
of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b))
with comprehensive and timely information to enable
such person to avoid making calls without the prior
express consent of the called party because the number
called has been reassigned;
(B) that a person who wishes to use any safe harbor
provided pursuant to such Second Report and Order with
respect to making calls must demonstrate that, before
making the call, the person appropriately checked the
most recent update of the database and the database
reported that the number had not been disconnected; and
(C) that if the person makes the demonstration
described in subparagraph (B), the person will be
shielded from liability under section 227(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)) should
the database return an inaccurate result.
(b) Clarification of Definition of Called Party.--
(1) In general.--Section 227(a) of the Communications Act of
1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(6) The term `called party' means, with respect to a call,
the current subscriber or customary user of the telephone
number to which the call is made, determined at the time when
the call is made.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Section 227(d)(3)(B) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(d)(3)(B)) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``called party's line'' each place it
appears and inserting ``telephone line called''; and
(B) by striking ``called party has hung up'' and
inserting ``answering party has hung up''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply beginning on the date on which the database
described in the Second Report and Order in the matter of
Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls (CG
Docket No. 17-59; FCC 18-177; adopted on December 12, 2018)
becomes fully operational, such that a person may check the
database to determine the last date of permanent disconnection
associated with a phone number. Nothing in the amendments made
by this subsection shall affect the construction of the law as
it applies before the effective date.
SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT.
(a) No Citation Required to Seek Forfeiture Penalty.--
(1) For robocall violations.--Section 227(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(4) No citation required to seek forfeiture penalty.--
Paragraph (5) of section 503(b) shall not apply in the case of
a violation made with the intent to cause such violation of
this subsection.''.
(2) For caller identification information violations.--
Section 227(e)(5)(A)(iii) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 227(e)(5)(A)(iii)) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``Paragraph (5) of section 503(b) shall not apply in
the case of a violation of this subsection.''.
(b) 4-year Statute of Limitations.--
(1) For robocall violations.--Section 227(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)), as amended by
subsection (a), is further amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(5) 4-year statute of limitations.--Notwithstanding
paragraph (6) of section 503(b), no forfeiture penalty for
violation of this subsection shall be determined or imposed
against any person if the violation charged occurred more
than--
``(A) 3 years prior to the date of issuance of the
notice required by paragraph (3) of such section or the
notice of apparent liability required by paragraph (4)
of such section (as the case may be); or
``(B) if the violation was made with the intent to
cause such violation, 4 years prior to the date of
issuance of the notice required by paragraph (3) of
such section or the notice of apparent liability
required by paragraph (4) of such section (as the case
may be).''.
(2) For caller identification information violations.--
Section 227(e)(5)(A)(iv) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 227(e)(5)(A)(iv)) is amended--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``2-year'' and
inserting ``4-year''; and
(B) by striking ``2 years'' and inserting ``4
years''.
(c) Increased Penalty for Robocall Violations With Intent.--Section
227(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)), as amended
by subsections (a) and (b), is further amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(6) Increased penalty for violations with intent.--In the
case of a forfeiture penalty for violation of this subsection
that is determined or imposed under section 503(b), if such
violation was made with the intent to cause such violation, the
amount of such penalty shall be equal to an amount determined
in accordance with subparagraphs (A) through (F) of section
503(b)(2) plus an additional penalty not to exceed $10,000.''.
SEC. 6. ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS.
Section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Annual Report to Congress on Robocalls and Transmission of
Misleading or Inaccurate Caller Identification Information.--
``(1) Report required.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of the enactment of this subsection, and annually thereafter,
the Commission, after consultation with the Federal Trade
Commission, shall submit to Congress a report regarding
enforcement by the Commission of subsections (b), (c), (d), and
(e) during the preceding calendar year.
``(2) Matters for inclusion.--Each report required by
paragraph (1) shall include the following:
``(A) The number of complaints received by the
Commission during each of the preceding five calendar
years, for each of the following categories:
``(i) Complaints alleging that a consumer
received a call in violation of subsection (b)
or (c).
``(ii) Complaints alleging that a consumer
received a call in violation of the standards
prescribed under subsection (d).
``(iii) Complaints alleging that a consumer
received a call in connection with which
misleading or inaccurate caller identification
information was transmitted in violation of
subsection (e).
``(B) The number of citations issued by the
Commission pursuant to section 503(b) during the
preceding calendar year to enforce subsection (d), and
details of each such citation.
``(C) The number of notices of apparent liability
issued by the Commission pursuant to section 503(b)
during the preceding calendar year to enforce
subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e), and details of each
such notice including any proposed forfeiture amount.
``(D) The number of final orders imposing forfeiture
penalties issued pursuant to section 503(b) during the
preceding calendar year to enforce such subsections,
and details of each such order including the forfeiture
imposed.
``(E) The amount of forfeiture penalties or criminal
fines collected, during the preceding calendar year, by
the Commission or the Attorney General for violations
of such subsections, and details of each case in which
such a forfeiture penalty or criminal fine was
collected.
``(F) Proposals for reducing the number of calls made
in violation of such subsections.
``(G) An analysis of the contribution by providers of
interconnected VoIP service and non-interconnected VoIP
service that discount high-volume, unlawful, short-
duration calls to the total number of calls made in
violation of such subsections, and recommendations on
how to address such contribution in order to decrease
the total number of calls made in violation of such
subsections.
``(3) No additional reporting required.--The Commission shall
prepare the report required by paragraph (1) without requiring
the provision of additional information from providers of
telecommunications service or voice service (as defined in
section 7(d) of the Stopping Bad Robocalls Act).''.
SEC. 7. REGULATIONS RELATING TO EFFECTIVE CALL AUTHENTICATION
TECHNOLOGY.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Commission shall prescribe regulations in WC Docket No.
17-97.
(b) Requirements for Effective Call Authentication Technology.--
(1) In general.--The regulations required by subsection (a)
shall--
(A) require providers of voice service to implement,
within six months after the date on which such
regulations are prescribed, an effective call
authentication technology; and
(B) ensure that voice service providers that have
implemented the effective authentication technology
attest that such provider has determined, when
originating calls on behalf of a calling party, that
the calling party number transmitted with such calls
has been appropriately authenticated.
(2) Reassessment of regulations.--The Commission shall
reassess such regulations, at least once every two years, to
ensure the regulations remain effective and up to date with
technological capabilities.
(3) Exemption.--
(A) Burdens and barriers to implementation.--The
Commission--
(i) shall include findings on any burdens or
barriers to the implementation required in
paragraph (1), including--
(I) for providers of voice service to
the extent the networks of such
providers use time-division
multiplexing; and
(II) for small providers of voice
service and those in rural areas; and
(ii) in connection with such findings, may
exempt from the 6-month time period described
in paragraph (1)(A), for a reasonable period of
time a class of providers of voice service, or
type of voice calls, as necessary for that
class of providers or type of calls to
participate in the implementation in order to
address the identified burdens and barriers.
(B) Full participation.--The Commission shall take
all steps necessary to address any issues in the
findings and enable as promptly as possible full
participation of all classes of providers of voice
service and types of voice calls to receive the highest
level of attestation.
(C) Alternative methodologies.--The Commission shall
identify or develop, in consultation with small
providers of service and those in rural areas,
alternative effective methodologies to protect
customers from unauthenticated calls during any
exemption given under subparagraph (A)(ii). Such
methodologies shall be provided with no additional line
item charge to customers.
(D) Revision of exemption.--Not less frequently than
annually after the first exemption is issued under this
paragraph, the Commission shall consider revising or
extending any exemption made, may revise such
exemption, and shall issue a public notice with regard
to whether such exemption remains necessary.
(4) Accurate identification.--The regulations required by
subsection (a) shall include guidelines that providers of voice
service may use as part of the implementation of effective call
authentication technology under paragraph (1) to take steps to
ensure the calling party is accurately identified.
(5) No additional cost to consumers or small business
customers.--The regulations required by subsection (a) shall
prohibit providers of voice service from making any additional
line item charges to consumer or small business customer
subscribers for the effective call authentication technology
required under paragraph (1).
(6) Evaluation.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, and consistent with the regulations
prescribed under subsection (a), the Commission shall initiate
an evaluation of the success of the effective call
authentication technology required under paragraph (1).
(7) Unauthenticated calls.--The Commission shall--
(A) in the regulations required by subsection (a),
consistent with the regulations prescribed under
subsection (k) of section 227 of the Communications Act
of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227), as added by section 8, help
protect subscribers from receiving unwanted calls from
a caller using an unauthenticated number, through
effective means of enabling the subscriber or provider
to block such calls, with no additional line item
charge to the subscriber; and
(B) take appropriate steps to ensure that calls
originating from a provider of service in an area where
the provider is exempt from the 6-month time period
described in paragraph (1)(A) are not wrongly blocked
because the calls are not able to be authenticated.
(c) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date on which the
regulations under subsection (a) are prescribed, the Commission shall
submit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate, and make publicly available on its
website, a report on the implementation of subsection (b), which shall
include--
(1) an analysis of the extent to which providers of a voice
service have implemented the effective call authentication
technology, including whether the availability of necessary
equipment and equipment upgrades has impacted such
implementation; and
(2) an assessment of the effective call authentication
technology, as being implemented under subsection (b), in
addressing all aspects of call authentication.
(d) Voice Service Defined.--In this section, the term ``voice
service''--
(1) means any service that is interconnected with the public
switched telephone network and that furnishes voice
communications to an end user using resources from the North
American Numbering Plan or any successor to the North American
Numbering Plan adopted by the Commission under section
251(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
251(e)(1)); and
(2) includes--
(A) transmissions from a telephone facsimile machine,
computer, or other device to a telephone facsimile
machine; and
(B) without limitation, any service that enables
real-time, two-way voice communications, including any
service that requires internet protocol-compatible
customer premises equipment (commonly known as ``CPE'')
and permits out-bound calling, whether or not the
service is one-way or two-way voice over internet
protocol.
SEC. 8. STOP ROBOCALLS.
(a) Information Sharing Regarding Robocall and Spoofing Violations.--
Section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227), as
amended by section 6, is further amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(j) Information Sharing.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
the enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall
prescribe regulations to establish a process that streamlines
the ways in which a private entity may voluntarily share with
the Commission information relating to--
``(A) a call made or a text message sent in violation
of subsection (b); or
``(B) a call or text message for which misleading or
inaccurate caller identification information was caused
to be transmitted in violation of subsection (e).
``(2) Text message defined.--In this subsection, the term
`text message' has the meaning given such term in subsection
(e)(8).''.
(b) Robocall Blocking Service.--Section 227 of the Communications Act
of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227), as amended by section 6 and subsection (a) of
this section, is further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(k) Robocall Blocking Service.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall take a
final agency action to ensure the robocall blocking services
provided on an opt-out or opt-in basis pursuant to the
Declaratory Ruling of the Commission in the matter of Advanced
Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls (CG Docket
No. 17-59; FCC 19-51; adopted on June 6, 2019)--
``(A) are provided with transparency and effective
redress options for both--
``(i) consumers; and
``(ii) callers; and
``(B) are provided with no additional line item
charge to consumers and no additional charge to callers
for resolving complaints related to erroneously blocked
calls.
``(2) Text message defined.--In this subsection, the term
`text message' has the meaning given such term in subsection
(e)(8).''.
(c) Study on Information Requirements for Certain Voip Service
Providers.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall conduct a study
regarding whether to require a provider of covered VoIP service
to--
(A) provide to the Commission contact information for
such provider and keep such information current; and
(B) retain records relating to each call transmitted
over the covered VoIP service of such provider that are
sufficient to trace such call back to the source of
such call.
(2) Report to congress.--Not later than 18 months after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit
to Congress a report on the results of the study conducted
under paragraph (1).
(3) Covered voip service defined.--In this subsection, the
term ``covered VoIP service'' means a service that--
(A) is an interconnected VoIP service (as defined in
section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
153)); or
(B) would be an interconnected VoIP service (as so
defined) except that the service permits users to
terminate calls to the public switched telephone
network but does not permit users to receive calls that
originate on the public switched telephone network.
(d) Transitional Rule Regarding Definition of Text Message.--
Paragraph (2) of subsection (j) of section 227 of the Communications
Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227), as added by subsection (a) of this
section, and paragraph (2) of subsection (k) of such section 227, as
added by subsection (b) of this section, shall apply before the
effective date of the amendment made to subsection (e)(8) of such
section 227 by subparagraph (C) of section 503(a)(2) of division P of
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Public Law 115-141) as if
such amendment was already in effect.
SEC. 9. PROVISION OF EVIDENCE OF CERTAIN ROBOCALL VIOLATIONS TO
ATTORNEY GENERAL.
(a) In General.--If the Chief of the Enforcement Bureau of the
Commission obtains evidence that suggests a willful, knowing, and
repeated robocall violation with an intent to defraud, cause harm, or
wrongfully obtain anything of value, the Chief of the Enforcement
Bureau shall provide such evidence to the Attorney General.
(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Commission shall
publish on its website and submit to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report that--
(1) states the number of instances during the preceding year
in which the Chief of the Enforcement Bureau provided the
evidence described in subsection (a) to the Attorney General;
and
(2) contains a general summary of the types of robocall
violations to which such evidence relates.
(c) Rules of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to affect the ability of the Commission or the Chief of the
Enforcement Bureau under other law--
(1) to refer a matter to the Attorney General; or
(2) to pursue or continue pursuit of an enforcement action in
a matter with respect to which the Chief of the Enforcement
Bureau provided the evidence described in subsection (a) to the
Attorney General.
(d) Robocall Violation Defined.--In this section, the term ``robocall
violation'' means a violation of subsection (b) or (e) of section 227
of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227).
SEC. 10. PROTECTION FROM ONE-RING SCAMS.
(a) Initiation of Proceeding.--Not later than 120 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall initiate a
proceeding to protect called parties from one-ring scams.
(b) Matters to Be Considered.--As part of the proceeding required by
subsection (a), the Commission shall consider how the Commission can--
(1) work with Federal and State law enforcement agencies to
address one-ring scams;
(2) work with the governments of foreign countries to address
one-ring scams;
(3) in consultation with the Federal Trade Commission, better
educate consumers about how to avoid one-ring scams;
(4) incentivize voice service providers to stop calls made to
perpetrate one-ring scams from being received by called
parties, including consideration of adding identified one-ring
scam type numbers to the Commission's existing list of
permissible categories for carrier-initiated blocking;
(5) work with entities that provide call-blocking services to
address one-ring scams; and
(6) establish obligations on international gateway providers
that are the first point of entry for these calls into the
United States, including potential requirements that such
providers verify with the foreign originator the nature or
purpose of calls before initiating service.
(c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall publish on its website and
submit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate a report on the status of the proceeding
required by subsection (a).
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) One-ring scam.--The term ``one-ring scam'' means a scam
in which a caller makes a call and allows the call to ring the
called party for a short duration, in order to prompt the
called party to return the call, thereby subjecting the called
party to charges.
(2) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given such
term in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
153).
(3) Voice service.--The term ``voice service'' has the
meaning given such term in section 227(e)(8) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(e)(8)). This
paragraph shall apply before the effective date of the
amendment made to such section by subparagraph (C) of section
503(a)(2) of division P of the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2018 (Public Law 115-141) as if such amendment was already in
effect.
SEC. 11. INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General, in consultation with the
Commission, shall convene an interagency working group to study the
enforcement of section 227(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 227(b)).
(b) Duties.--In carrying out the study under subsection (a), the
interagency working group shall--
(1) determine whether, and if so how, any Federal law,
including regulations, policies, and practices, or budgetary or
jurisdictional constraints inhibit the enforcement of such
section;
(2) identify existing and potential Federal policies and
programs that encourage and improve coordination among Federal
departments and agencies and States, and between States, in the
enforcement and prevention of the violation of such section;
(3) identify existing and potential international policies
and programs that encourage and improve coordination between
countries in the enforcement and prevention of the violation of
such section (and laws of foreign countries prohibiting similar
conduct); and
(4) consider--
(A) the benefit and potential sources of additional
resources for the Federal enforcement and prevention of
the violation of such section;
(B) whether memoranda of understanding regarding the
enforcement and prevention of the violation of such
section should be established between--
(i) the States;
(ii) the States and the Federal Government;
and
(iii) the Federal Government and foreign
governments;
(C) whether a process should be established to allow
States to request Federal subpoenas from the Commission
with respect to the enforcement of such section;
(D) whether increased criminal penalties for the
violation of such section (including increasing the
amount of fines and increasing the maximum term of
imprisonment that may be imposed to a period greater
than 2 years) are appropriate;
(E) whether regulation of any entity that enters into
a business arrangement with a carrier for the specific
purpose of carrying, routing, or transmitting a call
that constitutes a violation of such section would
assist in the successful enforcement and prevention of
the violation of such section; and
(F) the extent to which the prosecution of certain
violations of such section (which result in economic,
physical, or emotional harm) pursuant to any Department
of Justice policy may inhibit or otherwise interfere
with the prosecution of other violations of such
section.
(c) Members.--The interagency working group shall be composed of such
representatives of Federal departments and agencies as the Attorney
General considers appropriate, which may include--
(1) the Department of Commerce (including the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration);
(2) the Department of State;
(3) the Department of Homeland Security;
(4) the Commission;
(5) the Federal Trade Commission; and
(6) the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
(d) Non-Federal Stakeholders.--In carrying out the study under
subsection (a), the interagency working group shall consult with such
non-Federal stakeholders as the Attorney General determines have
relevant expertise, including the National Association of Attorneys
General.
(e) Report to Congress.--Not later than 9 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the interagency working group shall submit
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the
Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on Energy
and Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives a report on the findings of the study under subsection
(a), including--
(1) any recommendations regarding the enforcement and
prevention of the violation of such section; and
(2) a description of what process, if any, relevant Federal
departments and agencies have made in implementing the
recommendations under paragraph (1).
SEC. 12. COMMISSION DEFINED.
In this Act, the term ``Commission'' means the Federal Communications
Commission.
SEC. 13. ANNUAL ROBOCALL REPORT.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Commission shall
make publicly available on the website of the Commission, and submit to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation of the
Senate, a report on the status of private-led efforts to trace back the
origin of suspected unlawful robocalls by the registered consortium and
the participation of voice service providers in such efforts.
(b) Contents of Report.--The report required under subsection (a)
shall include, at minimum, the following:
(1) A description of private-led efforts to trace back the
origin of suspected unlawful robocalls by the registered
consortium and the actions taken by the registered consortium
to coordinate with the Commission.
(2) A list of voice service providers identified by the
registered consortium that participated in private-led efforts
to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls
through the registered consortium.
(3) A list of each voice service provider that received a
request from the registered consortium to participate in
private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected
unlawful robocalls and refused to participate, as identified by
the registered consortium.
(4) The reason, if any, each voice service provider
identified by the registered consortium provided for not
participating in private-led efforts to trace back the origin
of suspected unlawful robocalls.
(5) A description of how the Commission may use the
information provided to the Commission by voice service
providers or the registered consortium that have participated
in private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected
unlawful robocalls in the enforcement efforts by the
Commission.
(c) Additional Information.--Not later than 210 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Commission
shall issue a notice to the public seeking additional information from
voice service providers and the registered consortium of private-led
efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls
necessary for the report by the Commission required under subsection
(a).
(d) Registration of Consortium of Private-led Efforts to Trace Back
the Origin of Suspected Unlawful Robocalls.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall issue rules to
establish a registration process for the registration of a
single consortium that conducts private-led efforts to trace
back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls. The consortium
shall meet the following requirements:
(A) Be a neutral third-party competent to manage the
private-led effort to trace back the origin of
suspected unlawful robocalls in the judgement of the
Commission.
(B) Maintain a set of written best practices about
the management of such efforts and regarding providers
of voice services' participation in private-led efforts
to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful
robocalls.
(C) Consistent with section 222(d)(2) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 222(d)(2)), any
private-led efforts to trace back the origin of
suspected unlawful robocalls conducted by the third-
party focus on ``fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful''
traffic.
(D) File a notice with the Commission that the
consortium intends to conduct private-led efforts to
trace back in advance of such registration.
(2) Annual notice by the commission seeking registrations.--
Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, and annually thereafter, the Commission shall issue a
notice to the public seeking the registration described in
paragraph (1).
(e) List of Voice Service Providers.--The Commission may publish a
list of voice service providers and take appropriate enforcement action
based on information obtained from the consortium about voice service
providers that refuse to participate in private-led efforts to trace
back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls, and other information
the Commission may collect about service providers that are found to
originate or transmit substantial amounts of illegal calls.
(f) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Private-led effort to trace back.--The term ``private-led
effort to trace back'' means an effort made by the registered
consortium of voice service providers to establish a
methodology for determining the origin of a suspected unlawful
robocall.
(2) Registered consortium.--The term ``registered
consortium'' means the consortium registered under subsection
(d).
(3) Suspected unlawful robocall.--The term ``suspected
unlawful robocall'' means a call that the Commission or a voice
service provider reasonably believes was made in violation of
subsection (b) or (e) of section 227 of the Communications Act
of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227).
(4) Voice service.--The term ``voice service''--
(A) means any service that is interconnected with the
public switched telephone network and that furnishes
voice communications to an end user using resources
from the North American Numbering Plan or any successor
to the North American Numbering Plan adopted by the
Commission under section 251(e)(1) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 251(e)(1)); and
(B) includes--
(i) transmissions from a telephone facsimile
machine, computer, or other device to a
telephone facsimile machine; and
(ii) without limitation, any service that
enables real-time, two-way voice
communications, including any service that
requires internet protocol-compatible customer
premises equipment (commonly known as ``CPE'')
and permits out-bound calling, whether or not
the service is one-way or two-way voice over
internet protocol.
SEC. 14. HOSPITAL ROBOCALL PROTECTION GROUP.
(a) Establishment.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall establish an advisory
committee to be known as the ``Hospital Robocall Protection Group''.
(b) Membership.--The Group shall be composed only of the following
members:
(1) An equal number of representatives from each of the
following:
(A) Voice service providers that serve hospitals.
(B) Companies that focus on mitigating unlawful
robocalls.
(C) Consumer advocacy organizations.
(D) Providers of one-way voice over internet protocol
services described in subsection (e)(4)(B)(ii).
(E) Hospitals.
(F) State government officials focused on combatting
unlawful robocalls.
(2) One representative of the Commission.
(3) One representative of the Federal Trade Commission.
(c) Issuance of Best Practices.--Not later than 180 days after the
date on which the Group is established under subsection (a), the Group
shall issue best practices regarding the following:
(1) How voice service providers can better combat unlawful
robocalls made to hospitals.
(2) How hospitals can better protect themselves from such
calls, including by using unlawful robocall mitigation
techniques.
(3) How the Federal Government and State governments can help
combat such calls.
(d) Proceeding by FCC.--Not later than 180 days after the date on
which the best practices are issued by the Group under subsection (c),
the Commission shall conclude a proceeding to assess the extent to
which the voluntary adoption of such best practices can be facilitated
to protect hospitals and other institutions.
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Group.--The term ``Group'' means the Hospital Robocall
Protection Group established under subsection (a).
(2) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given such
term in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
153).
(3) Voice service.--The term ``voice service''--
(A) means any service that is interconnected with the
public switched telephone network and that furnishes
voice communications to an end user using resources
from the North American Numbering Plan or any successor
to the North American Numbering Plan adopted by the
Commission under section 251(e)(1) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 251(e)(1)); and
(B) includes--
(i) transmissions from a telephone facsimile
machine, computer, or other device to a
telephone facsimile machine; and
(ii) without limitation, any service that
enables real-time, two-way voice
communications, including any service that
requires internet protocol-compatible customer
premises equipment (commonly known as ``CPE'')
and permits out-bound calling, whether or not
the service is one-way or two-way voice over
internet protocol.
I. Purpose and Summary
H.R. 3375, the ``Stopping Bad Robocalls Act'', was
introduced on June 25, 2019, by Reps. Pallone (D-NJ), Walden
(R-OR), Doyle (D-PA), and Latta (R-OH), and referred to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 3375 would take myriad
actions aimed at relieving consumers from the onslaught of
robocalls. Among other things, H.R. 3375 would require the
implementation of nationwide call authentication technology so
consumers can again trust the number that appears on their
caller ID. The legislation also provides for carriers to offer
call blocking services and requires it to be offered at no
additional line-item charge, and directs the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) to issue rules to protect
consumers from calls they did not agree to receive and to
ensure consumers can withdraw consent.
II. Background and Need for Legislation
According to many sources, Americans are receiving more
unlawful robocalls than ever before. For example, the FCC
received 232,000 consumer robocall complaints in 2018, a more
than 34 percent increase since 2015.\1\ YouMail estimates that
there were nearly 48 billion robocalls in 2018, up more than 64
percent since 2016.\2\ First Orion predicts that this year,
44.6 percent of all calls to mobile phones will be scam
calls.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\See Federal Communication Commission, Report on Robocalls, at
para. 9 (Feb. 2019).
\2\See YouMail, Historical Robocalls by Time
(www.robocallindex.com/history/time) (accessed Apr. 24, 2019).
\3\First Orion, Nearly 50% of U.S. Mobile Traffic Will Be Scam
Calls by 2019 (www.firstorion.com/nearly-50-of-u-s-mobile-traffic-will-
be-scam-calls-by-2019/) (accessed Apr. 24, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, the problem has become so pervasive, the FCC's
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) noted that
``[c]urrently, the only certain way to determine whether a call
is wanted or unwanted is to answer it or let it go to
voicemail, and hope the caller leaves a message.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\See note 1 at para. 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to CGB, individuals tend to make robocalls for
both legitimate and illegitimate purposes. Examples include
telemarketing, committing fraud, but also to provide useful
information pertaining to school closings or prescription or
medical appointment reminders.\5\ With fraud becoming a growing
concern, government agencies are warning consumers of scam
calls in which callers impersonate the Internal Revenue
Service, a local utility company, or foreign governments.\6\
Other agencies report ``One Ring Phone Scams,'' where scammers
make repeated calls to the same number in an attempt to induce
the consumer to call the number back, potentially resulting in
hefty charges to the consumer.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\See Federal Communications Commission, Report on Robocalls, at
para. 4-6 (Feb. 2019).
\6\See id. at fn. 13.
\7\Morristown Residents Alerted to New Scam, TAP into Morristown
(Apr. 9, 2019) (www.tapinto.net/towns/morristown/articles/morristown-
residents-alerted-to-new-scam).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notably, however, not all robocalls are illegal. The
Congress or the FCC, in relevant instances, have recognized
that some calls provide significant benefits and therefore
treats those differently. For example, some calls are exempted
from the consent requirements of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA). These include alerts regarding
transactions and events that suggest a risk of fraud or
identity theft from banks, news regarding school closings,
calls made by the government, and non-telemarketing healthcare
calls in cases of emergencies requiring healthcare treatment.
H.R. 3375 would not overturn these exemptions.
H.R. 3375 builds on the Committee's progress made in the
RAY BAUM'S Act against fraudulent robocalls and spoofing,
implementation of which was recently supported at the FCC by a
bipartisan group of 42 State Attorneys General.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Reply Comments of Forty-Two (42) State Attorneys General, FCC,
WC Docket Nos. 18-335, 11-39 (filed May 3, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Committee Hearing
For the purposes of section 103(i) of H. Res. 6 of the
116th Congress, the following hearing was used to develop or
consider H.R. 3375:
The Subcommittee on Communications and Technology held a
legislative hearing on April 30, 2019, entitled ``Legislating
to Stop the Onslaught of Annoying Robocalls.'' The Subcommittee
received testimony from:
Aaron Foss, Founder, Nomorobo;
Dave Summitt, Chief Information Security
Officer H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research
Institute, and Fellow for the Institute for Critical
Infrastructure Technology;
Margot Saunders, Senior Counsel, National
Consumer Law Center; and
Patrick Halley, Senior Vice President,
Advocacy and Regulatory Affairs, USTelecom--The
Broadband Association.
IV. Committee Consideration
H.R. 3375, the ``Stopping Bad Robocalls Act'', was
introduced in the House on June 20, 2019, by Reps. Pallone (D-
NJ), Walden (R-OR), Doyle (D-PA), and Latta (R-OH), and
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Subsequently,
the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Communications and
Technology on June 21, 2019. Following a legislative hearing,
the Subcommittee met in open markup session, pursuant to
notice, on June 25, 2019, for consideration of the bill H.R.
3375. During consideration of the bill, Rep. McEachin (D-VA),
Rep. Butterfield (D-NC), Rep. Clarke (D-NY), and Rep. Soto (D-
FL) each offered an amendment to H.R. 3375 and each amendment
was agreed to by a voice vote. Subsequently, the Subcommittee
on Communications and Technology agreed to a motion by Mr.
Doyle, Chairman of the Subcommittee, that H.R. 3375 be
forwarded favorably to the full Committee on Energy and
Commerce, amended, by a voice vote.
On July 17, 2019, the full Committee met in open markup
session, pursuant to notice, to consider the bill H.R. 3375, as
amended. During consideration, three amendments were adopted,
each by a voice vote. The amendments were offered by Reps.
Pallone and Walden, Rep. Burgess (R-TX), and Rep. Flores (R-
TX). At the conclusion of the bill's consideration, the
Committee on Energy and Commerce agreed to a motion offered by
Mr. Pallone, Chairman of the Committee, that the bill, H.R.
3375, be ordered reported favorably to the House, amended, by a
recorded vote of 48 yeas to 0 nays, a quorum being present.
V. Committee Votes
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires the Committee to list each record vote
on the motion to report legislation and amendments thereto. The
Committee advises that there was one record vote taken on H.R.
3375, on a motion by Mr. Pallone ordering H.R. 3375 be reported
favorably to the House, amended. The motion on final passage of
the bill was approved by a record vote of 48 yeas to 0 nays.
The following is the record vote taken during Committee
consideration, including the names of those members voting for
and against the motion:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
VI. Oversight Findings
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 2(b)(1)
of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are
reflected in the descriptive portion of the report.
VII. New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures
Pursuant to 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its own the
estimate of new budget authority, entitlement authority, or tax
expenditures or revenues contained in the cost estimate
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office
pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974.
The Committee has requested but not received from the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office a statement as to
whether this bill contains any new budget authority, spending
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in
revenues or tax expenditures.
VIII. Federal Mandates Statement
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act.
IX. Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general
performance goal or objective of this legislation is to protect
consumers from unlawful robocalls.
X. Duplication of Federal Programs
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII, no provision of
H.R. 3375 is known to be duplicative of another Federal
program, including any program that was included in a report to
Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139 or the
most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.
XI. Committee Cost Estimate
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII, the Committee
adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by the Director of
the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
XII. Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits
Pursuant to clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI, the
Committee finds that H.R. 3375 contains no earmarks, limited
tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits.
XIII. Advisory Committee Statement
The legislation creates one federal advisory committee
within the meaning of section 5(b) of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act.
XIV. Applicability to Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
XV. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation
Section 1. Short title
Section 1 designates that the short title may be cited as
the ``Stopping Bad Robocalls Act''.
Section 2. Consumer protection regulations relating to making robocalls
This section requires the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) to complete a rulemaking within six months to revise its
rules under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) to
protect consumers and their privacy. Section 2, among other
things, requires the FCC to clarify which dialing equipment is
captured by the statutory definition of an automatic telephone
dialing system found in 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(1). These regulations
must ensure that calls made and text messages sent using an
automatic telephone dialing system or using an artificial or
prerecorded voice (as the case may be) are only made and sent
with the consent of the person being called, as required under
the TCPA.
The Committee expects that the FCC will take steps to
protect consumers from calls for which they have not consented
to receive or for which they have revoked consent, as such
calls are unlawful under the TCPA. This section also requires
the FCC to ensure that consumers can always withdraw such
consent, regardless of the means by which consent was granted.
The Committee expects the FCC to make such withdrawal easy and
intuitive for consumers.
This section also requires the FCC to prevent circumvention
or evasion of the TCPA. And the Committee expects, as is
required under the FCC's regulations today, that if the calls
or texts are for telemarketing purposes, consumers must have
provided prior express written consent.
Under this section, the FCC is also required to ensure that
callers making such calls and texts by automatic telephone
dialing systems or using an artificial or prerecorded voice
maintain records that demonstrate callers have the consent of
the people they are calling and texting.
Section 3. Consumer protections for exemptions
This section requires the FCC to implement consumer
protections on the FCC's exempted classes of calls made or text
messages sent using an automatic telephone dialing system or
using an artificial or prerecorded voice. These consumer
protections must specifically include limits on: (1) the
classes of parties that may make such calls, (2) the classes of
parties that may be called, and (3) the number of calls allowed
under the exemption. The section requires the FCC to update its
regulations within one year to implement these consumer
protections.
Section 4. Report on reassigned number database
This section requires the FCC to issue a report to Congress
to ensure the FCC is quickly implementing the reassigned number
database it voted to implement in December 2018. This section
also codifies what many courts have found to be the appropriate
definition of the term ``called party.'' The Committee expects
that the delay of implementation of this clarification will not
affect such definition for calls made before the effective
date, including in jurisdictions that have already interpreted
the meaning of the term ``called party'' consistent with this
section.
Section 5. Enforcement
This section extends the statute of limitations by up to
three years, and four years in cases of violations made ``with
the intent to cause such violation,'' to give relevant
authorities enough time to prosecute illegal robocallers.
This section also permits the FCC to move forward with
issuing a forfeiture against calls made in violation of 47
U.S.C. 227(b) without a citation when the caller acted with the
``intent to cause such violations.'' This section also provides
an additional statutory clarification that no citation is
needed to bring enforcement against a violation of the Truth
and Caller ID Act, as is current FCC practice. Finally, this
section allows the FCC to assess an additional $10,000 penalty
for a robocall violation if the offender acted with intent to
cause the violation.
By limiting the extended enforcement period and the
exemption from the citation requirement only for ``violations
with the intent to cause such violation'' the Stopping Bad
Robocalls Act would allow the FCC additional flexibility and
penalties to pursue the worst of the worst: scammers and lead-
generation mills intentionally violating restrictions on the
use of automatic telephone dialing systems. Merely having
``committed the act [that] violated the TCPA'' would not be
sufficient. For example, making a call using an automatic
telephone dialing system without having updated a calling list
to remove customers that have changed numbers or that revoked
consent to receive otherwise prohibited calls would not reach
the intent standard necessary to trigger the enhanced
penalties. Rather, the calling party must knowingly use an
automatic telephone dialing system to intentionally place calls
to covered numbers without a reasonable basis for believing it
had the necessary consent to call. It must also intend to
violate the other applicable legal requirements, including any
such requirements set forth in the TCPA's statutory exceptions
and the regulatory exemptions and clarifications issued by the
FCC relating to the TCPA.
If a caller intentionally uses an automatic telephone
dialing system to call, without a reasonable basis to conclude
that the intended recipient had consented to receive such
calls, that action would constitute the intent to cause a
violation, as long as the intent requirement was satisfied for
the other elements of the TCPA. Similarly, if a caller uses an
automatic telephone dialing system in violation of the
restrictions in 47 U.S.C. 227(b), and in making those calls
spoofs its number in violation of 47 U.S.C. 227(c), the
spoofing would demonstrate intent to cause violations.
The Committee recognizes that the phrasing of this standard
is not a common phrasing in the U.S. Code, and is written
specifically in light of the need to overcome the FCC's
interpretation of ``willful'', to ensure that this new enhanced
enforcement authority is limited to truly intentional
violations. The Committee intends for the FCC and the courts to
interpret this standard in a straightforward manner consistent
with the guidance expressed here.
H.R. 3375 would not apply the heightened intent standard to
violations other than violations of 47 U.S.C. 227(b).
Section 6. Annual report to Congress
This section requires the FCC to issue an annual report to
Congress on illegal robocallers detailing its enforcement
activities so Congress can make sure the robocalling problem is
being addressed. The report also requires the FCC to provide
Congress with proposals for decreasing the number of robocalls
through additional legislation.
Section 7. Regulations relating to effective call authentication
technology
This section requires all carriers, over time, to implement
effective call authentication technology to make sure that
caller-ID information is appropriately authenticated, and with
no additional line item charge to consumers or small
businesses. The Committee expects the FCC to require
implementation of the STIR/SHAKEN Framework as the primary
method of effective call authentication.
In implementing section 7(b)(3), the Committee expects the
FCC to review all burdens and barriers to implementation of
effective call authentication technology--including the expense
of purchasing and/or installing the equipment and software
necessary to deploy call authentication technology, as well as
any other associated expenses that deployment of the technology
will impose on a particular class of providers or class of
calls. The Committee expects the FCC will delay implementation
of this requirement for those affected classes of providers or
calls for a time that is reasonably necessary to address
identified burdens and barriers. The FCC shall enable as
promptly as possible full participation for all providers and
all types of calls to reach the highest attestation.
Additionally, to the extent that some providers need
additional time to implement effective call authentication
technology, the FCC should seek to identify alternative
effective methodologies for authenticating calls and protecting
consumers from spoofed calls, at no additional line item charge
to consumers or small businesses.
The Committee expects that the FCC's regulations will
effectively help prevent subscribers from receiving calls from
a caller using an unauthenticated number, at no additional line
item charge to the subscriber, while also taking appropriate
steps to ensure that calls are not inappropriately blocked
because a provider is not yet subject to the requirements to
implement the call-authentication technology.
Section 8. STOP robocalls
This section ensures that robocall blocking services
offered on a default basis are provided with no additional line
item charge on consumers' bills and that consumers and callers
have transparency as to when a number has been blocked and
effective redress. The Committee expects the FCC, in
consultation with call originators and voice service providers,
to establish a process by which voice service providers, in as
timely and efficient a manner as reasonable, will:
(1) provide notice of blocked calls to subscribers
and callers; and
(2) provide a method for subscribers and callers to
unblock improperly blocked calls.
New subsection (k)(1)(B) created by this section specifies
that these call blocking services are to be provided with no
additional line item charge imposed by a provider on consumers
receiving the services. It also specifies that there is to be
no additional charge imposed by providers on callers for
resolving complaints regarding calls erroneously blocked. In
this regard, as one approach to reducing the incidence of
erroneous blocking, the FCC may create, or direct development
of, a nationwide database of callers and numbers verified as
authentic, available for providers to consult. Callers who are
concerned that their calls might be erroneously blocked, would
have the opportunity to submit their names and numbers to the
database, and might pay a reasonable charge for the benefits of
doing so. This would not be considered a charge for resolving a
complaint.
Section 9. Provision of evidence of certain robocall violations to
Attorney General
This section requires the FCC to submit evidence of certain
criminal robocall violations to the Department of Justice for
criminal prosecution and requires the FCC to publish a report
annually disclosing how frequently the FCC submitted such
evidence.
Section 10. Protection from one-ring scams
This section requires the FCC to initiate a proceeding to
protect consumers from one-ring-scams, including by working
with foreign governments to address one-ring scams and by
incentivizing carriers to stop calls made to perpetrate one-
ring scams, among other things.
Section 11. Interagency working groups
This section requires the Attorney General, in consultation
with the FCC, to convene an interagency working group to study
the enforcement of the TCPA. Among other things, the task force
shall: (1) determine how federal law and budgetary constraints
inhibit enforcement of the TCPA; (2) identify existing policies
and programs, and recommend policies and programs, to increase
coordination between federal departments and agencies and the
states for enforcing and preventing violations of the TCPA; and
(3) identify existing and potential international policies and
programs to improve coordination between countries in enforcing
the TCPA and similar laws.
Section 12. Commission defined
The section defines the term ``Commission'' to mean the
Federal Communications Commission.
Section 13. Annual robocall report
This section requires the FCC to register a consortium of
companies engaged in private-led efforts to trace back the
origin of suspected unlawful robocalls. The FCC would be
required then to create a certification process to identify
whether carriers have or have not participated in a private-led
effort to traceback the origin of a suspected unlawful
robocall, and requires the FCC to publish a report on carriers
participation in private-led efforts to traceback the origin of
suspected unlawful robocalls. This section further allows the
FCC to publish a list of voice service providers based on
information obtained from the consortium and take appropriate
enforcement action.
Section 14. Hospital robocall protection group
This section requires the FCC to establish a Hospital
Robocall Working Group to, among other things, issue best
practices to help voice service providers combat unlawful
robocalls made to hospitals and to help hospitals protect
themselves from robocalls. It also requires the FCC to initiate
a proceeding to determine whether the voluntary adoption of the
practices can be facilitated.
XVI. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, and existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman):
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--COMMON CARRIERS
PART I--COMMON CARRIER REGULATION
* * * * * * *
SEC. 227. RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT.
(a) Definitions.--As used in this section--
(1) The term ``automatic telephone dialing system''
means equipment which has the capacity--
(A) to store or produce telephone numbers to
be called, using a random or sequential number
generator; and
(B) to dial such numbers.
(2) The term ``established business relationship'',
for purposes only of subsection (b)(1)(C)(i), shall
have the meaning given the term in section 64.1200 of
title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on
January 1, 2003, except that--
(A) such term shall include a relationship
between a person or entity and a business
subscriber subject to the same terms applicable
under such section to a relationship between a
person or entity and a residential subscriber;
and
(B) an established business relationship
shall be subject to any time limitation
established pursuant to paragraph (2)(G)).
(3) The term ``telephone facsimile machine'' means
equipment which has the capacity (A) to transcribe text
or images, or both, from paper into an electronic
signal and to transmit that signal over a regular
telephone line, or (B) to transcribe text or images (or
both) from an electronic signal received over a regular
telephone line onto paper.
(4) The term ``telephone solicitation'' means the
initiation of a telephone call or message for the
purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or
investment in, property, goods, or services, which is
transmitted to any person, but such term does not
include a call or message (A) to any person with that
person's prior express invitation or permission, (B) to
any person with whom the caller has an established
business relationship, or (C) by a tax exempt nonprofit
organization.
(5) The term ``unsolicited advertisement'' means 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.
(6) The term ``called party'' means, with respect to
a call, the current subscriber or customary user of the
telephone number to which the call is made, determined
at the time when the call is made.
(b) Restrictions on the Use of Automated Telephone
Equipment.--
(1) Prohibitions.--It shall be unlawful for any
person within the United States, or any person outside
the United States if the recipient is within the United
States--
(A) to make any call (other than a call made
for emergency purposes or made with the prior
express consent of the called party) using any
automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice--
(i) to any emergency telephone line
(including any ``911'' line and any
emergency line of a hospital, medical
physician or service office, health
care facility, poison control center,
or fire protection or law enforcement
agency);
(ii) to the telephone line of any
guest room or patient room of a
hospital, health care facility, elderly
home, or similar establishment; or
(iii) to any telephone number
assigned to a paging service, cellular
telephone service, specialized mobile
radio service, or other radio common
carrier service, or any service for
which the called party is charged for
the call, unless such call is made
solely to collect a debt owed to or
guaranteed by the United States;
(B) to initiate any telephone call to any
residential telephone line using an artificial
or prerecorded voice to deliver a message
without the prior express consent of the called
party, unless the call is initiated for
emergency purposes, is made solely pursuant to
the collection of a debt owed to or guaranteed
by the United States, or is exempted by rule or
order by the Commission under paragraph (2)(B);
(C) to use any telephone facsimile machine,
computer, or other device to send, to a
telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited
advertisement, unless--
(i) the unsolicited advertisement is
from a sender with an established
business relationship with the
recipient;
(ii) the sender obtained the number
of the telephone facsimile machine
through--
(I) the voluntary
communication of such number,
within the context of such
established business
relationship, from the
recipient of the unsolicited
advertisement, or
(II) a directory,
advertisement, or site on the
Internet to which the recipient
voluntarily agreed to make
available its facsimile number
for public distribution,
except that this clause shall not apply
in the case of an unsolicited
advertisement that is sent based on an
established business relationship with
the recipient that was in existence
before the date of enactment of the
Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 if the
sender possessed the facsimile machine
number of the recipient before such
date of enactment; and
(iii) the unsolicited advertisement
contains a notice meeting the
requirements under paragraph (2)(D),
except that the exception under clauses (i) and
(ii) shall not apply with respect to an
unsolicited advertisement sent to a telephone
facsimile machine by a sender to whom a request
has been made not to send future unsolicited
advertisements to such telephone facsimile
machine that complies with the requirements
under paragraph (2)(E); or
(D) to use an automatic telephone dialing
system in such a way that two or more telephone
lines of a multi-line business are engaged
simultaneously.
(2) Regulations; exemptions and other provisions.--
The Commission shall prescribe regulations to implement
the requirements of this subsection. In implementing
the requirements of this subsection, the Commission--
(A) shall consider prescribing regulations to
allow businesses to avoid receiving calls made
using an artificial or prerecorded voice to
which they have not given their prior express
consent;
(B) may, by rule or order, exempt from the
requirements of paragraph (1)(B) of this
subsection, subject to such conditions as the
Commission may prescribe--
(i) calls that are not made for a
commercial purpose; and
(ii) such classes or categories of
calls made for commercial purposes as
the Commission determines--
(I) will not adversely affect
the privacy rights that this
section is intended to protect;
and
(II) do not include the
transmission of any unsolicited
advertisement;
(C) may, by rule or order, exempt from the
requirements of paragraph (1)(A)(iii) of this
subsection calls to a telephone number assigned
to a cellular telephone service that are not
charged to the called party, subject to such
conditions as the Commission may prescribe as
necessary in the interest of the privacy rights
this section is intended to protect;
(D) shall provide that a notice contained in
an unsolicited advertisement complies with the
requirements under this subparagraph only if--
(i) the notice is clear and
conspicuous and on the first page of
the unsolicited advertisement;
(ii) the notice states that the
recipient may make a request to the
sender of the unsolicited advertisement
not to send any future unsolicited
advertisements to a telephone facsimile
machine or machines and that failure to
comply, within the shortest reasonable
time, as determined by the Commission,
with such a request meeting the
requirements under subparagraph (E) is
unlawful;
(iii) the notice sets forth the
requirements for a request under
subparagraph (E);
(iv) the notice includes--
(I) a domestic contact
telephone and facsimile machine
number for the recipient to
transmit such a request to the
sender; and
(II) a cost-free mechanism
for a recipient to transmit a
request pursuant to such notice
to the sender of the
unsolicited advertisement; the
Commission shall by rule
require the sender to provide
such a mechanism and may, in
the discretion of the
Commission and subject to such
conditions as the Commission
may prescribe, exempt certain
classes of small business
senders, but only if the
Commission determines that the
costs to such class are unduly
burdensome given the revenues
generated by such small
businesses;
(v) the telephone and facsimile
machine numbers and the cost-free
mechanism set forth pursuant to clause
(iv) permit an individual or business
to make such a request at any time on
any day of the week; and
(vi) the notice complies with the
requirements of subsection (d);
(E) shall provide, by rule, that a request
not to send future unsolicited advertisements
to a telephone facsimile machine complies with
the requirements under this subparagraph only
if--
(i) the request identifies the
telephone number or numbers of the
telephone facsimile machine or machines
to which the request relates;
(ii) the request is made to the
telephone or facsimile number of the
sender of such an unsolicited
advertisement provided pursuant to
subparagraph (D)(iv) or by any other
method of communication as determined
by the Commission; and
(iii) the person making the request
has not, subsequent to such request,
provided express invitation or
permission to the sender, in writing or
otherwise, to send such advertisements
to such person at such telephone
facsimile machine;
(F) may, in the discretion of the Commission
and subject to such conditions as the
Commission may prescribe, allow professional or
trade associations that are tax-exempt
nonprofit organizations to send unsolicited
advertisements to their members in furtherance
of the association's tax-exempt purpose that do
not contain the notice required by paragraph
(1)(C)(iii), except that the Commission may
take action under this subparagraph only--
(i) by regulation issued after public
notice and opportunity for public
comment; and
(ii) if the Commission determines
that such notice required by paragraph
(1)(C)(iii) is not necessary to protect
the ability of the members of such
associations to stop such associations
from sending any future unsolicited
advertisements;
(G)(i) may, consistent with clause (ii),
limit the duration of the existence of an
established business relationship, however,
before establishing any such limits, the
Commission shall--
(I) determine whether the existence
of the exception under paragraph (1)(C)
relating to an established business
relationship has resulted in a
significant number of complaints to the
Commission regarding the sending of
unsolicited advertisements to telephone
facsimile machines;
(II) determine whether a significant
number of any such complaints involve
unsolicited advertisements that were
sent on the basis of an established
business relationship that was longer
in duration than the Commission
believes is consistent with the
reasonable expectations of consumers;
(III) evaluate the costs to senders
of demonstrating the existence of an
established business relationship
within a specified period of time and
the benefits to recipients of
establishing a limitation on such
established business relationship; and
(IV) determine whether with respect
to small businesses, the costs would
not be unduly burdensome; and
(ii) may not commence a proceeding to
determine whether to limit the duration of the
existence of an established business
relationship before the expiration of the 3-
month period that begins on the date of the
enactment of the Junk Fax Prevention Act of
2005[; and];
(H) may restrict or limit the number and
duration of calls made to a telephone number
assigned to a cellular telephone service to
collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the
United States[.]; and
(I) shall ensure that any exemption under
subparagraph (B) or (C) contains requirements
for calls made in reliance on the exemption
with respect to--
(i) the classes of parties that may
make such calls;
(ii) the classes of parties that may
be called; and
(iii) the number of such calls that a
calling party may make to a particular
called party.
(3) Private right of action.--A person or entity may,
if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of
a State, bring in an appropriate court of that State--
(A) an action based on a violation of this
subsection or the regulations prescribed under
this subsection to enjoin such violation,
(B) an action to recover for actual monetary
loss from such a violation, or to receive $500
in damages for each such violation, whichever
is greater, or
(C) both such actions.
If the court finds that the defendant willfully or
knowingly violated this subsection or the regulations
prescribed under this subsection, the court may, in its
discretion, increase the amount of the award to an
amount equal to not more than 3 times the amount
available under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.
(4) No citation required to seek forfeiture
penalty.--Paragraph (5) of section 503(b) shall not
apply in the case of a violation made with the intent
to cause such violation of this subsection.
(5) 4-year statute of limitations.--Notwithstanding
paragraph (6) of section 503(b), no forfeiture penalty
for violation of this subsection shall be determined or
imposed against any person if the violation charged
occurred more than--
(A) 3 years prior to the date of issuance of
the notice required by paragraph (3) of such
section or the notice of apparent liability
required by paragraph (4) of such section (as
the case may be); or
(B) if the violation was made with the intent
to cause such violation, 4 years prior to the
date of issuance of the notice required by
paragraph (3) of such section or the notice of
apparent liability required by paragraph (4) of
such section (as the case may be).
(6) Increased penalty for violations with intent.--In
the case of a forfeiture penalty for violation of this
subsection that is determined or imposed under section
503(b), if such violation was made with the intent to
cause such violation, the amount of such penalty shall
be equal to an amount determined in accordance with
subparagraphs (A) through (F) of section 503(b)(2) plus
an additional penalty not to exceed $10,000.
(c) Protection of Subscriber Privacy Rights.--
(1) Rulemaking proceeding required.--Within 120 days
after the date of enactment of this section, the
Commission shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding
concerning the need to protect residential telephone
subscribers' privacy rights to avoid receiving
telephone solicitations to which they object. The
proceeding shall--
(A) compare and evaluate alternative methods
and procedures (including the use of electronic
databases, telephone network technologies,
special directory markings, industry-based or
company-specific ``do not call'' systems, and
any other alternatives, individually or in
combination) for their effectiveness in
protecting such privacy rights, and in terms of
their cost and other advantages and
disadvantages;
(B) evaluate the categories of public and
private entities that would have the capacity
to establish and administer such methods and
procedures;
(C) consider whether different methods and
procedures may apply for local telephone
solicitations, such as local telephone
solicitations of small businesses or holders of
second class mail permits;
(D) consider whether there is a need for
additional Commission authority to further
restrict telephone solicitations, including
those calls exempted under subsection (a)(3) of
this section, and, if such a finding is made
and supported by the record, propose specific
restrictions to the Congress; and
(E) develop proposed regulations to implement
the methods and procedures that the Commission
determines are most effective and efficient to
accomplish the purposes of this section.
(2) Regulations.--Not later than 9 months after the
date of enactment of this section, the Commission shall
conclude the rulemaking proceeding initiated under
paragraph (1) and shall prescribe regulations to
implement methods and procedures for protecting the
privacy rights described in such paragraph in an
efficient, effective, and economic manner and without
the imposition of any additional charge to telephone
subscribers.
(3) Use of database permitted.--The regulations
required by paragraph (2) may require the establishment
and operation of a single national database to compile
a list of telephone numbers of residential subscribers
who object to receiving telephone solicitations, and to
make that compiled list and parts thereof available for
purchase. If the Commission determines to require such
a database, such regulations shall--
(A) specify a method by which the Commission
will select an entity to administer such
database;
(B) require each common carrier providing
telephone exchange service, in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Commission, to
inform subscribers for telephone exchange
service of the opportunity to provide
notification, in accordance with regulations
established under this paragraph, that such
subscriber objects to receiving telephone
solicitations;
(C) specify the methods by which each
telephone subscriber shall be informed, by the
common carrier that provides local exchange
service to that subscriber, of (i) the
subscriber's right to give or revoke a
notification of an objection under subparagraph
(A), and (ii) the methods by which such right
may be exercised by the subscriber;
(D) specify the methods by which such
objections shall be collected and added to the
database;
(E) prohibit any residential subscriber from
being charged for giving or revoking such
notification or for being included in a
database compiled under this section;
(F) prohibit any person from making or
transmitting a telephone solicitation to the
telephone number of any subscriber included in
such database;
(G) specify (i) the methods by which any
person desiring to make or transmit telephone
solicitations will obtain access to the
database, by area code or local exchange
prefix, as required to avoid calling the
telephone numbers of subscribers included in
such database; and (ii) the costs to be
recovered from such persons;
(H) specify the methods for recovering, from
persons accessing such database, the costs
involved in identifying, collecting, updating,
disseminating, and selling, and other
activities relating to, the operations of the
database that are incurred by the entities
carrying out those activities;
(I) specify the frequency with which such
database will be updated and specify the method
by which such updating will take effect for
purposes of compliance with the regulations
prescribed under this subsection;
(J) be designed to enable States to use the
database mechanism selected by the Commission
for purposes of administering or enforcing
State law;
(K) prohibit the use of such database for any
purpose other than compliance with the
requirements of this section and any such State
law and specify methods for protection of the
privacy rights of persons whose numbers are
included in such database; and
(L) require each common carrier providing
services to any person for the purpose of
making telephone solicitations to notify such
person of the requirements of this section and
the regulations thereunder.
(4) Considerations required for use of database
method.--If the Commission determines to require the
database mechanism described in paragraph (3), the
Commission shall--
(A) in developing procedures for gaining
access to the database, consider the different
needs of telemarketers conducting business on a
national, regional, State, or local level;
(B) develop a fee schedule or price structure
for recouping the cost of such database that
recognizes such differences and--
(i) reflect the relative costs of
providing a national, regional, State,
or local list of phone numbers of
subscribers who object to receiving
telephone solicitations;
(ii) reflect the relative costs of
providing such lists on paper or
electronic media; and
(iii) not place an unreasonable
financial burden on small businesses;
and
(C) consider (i) whether the needs of
telemarketers operating on a local basis could
be met through special markings of area white
pages directories, and (ii) if such directories
are needed as an adjunct to database lists
prepared by area code and local exchange
prefix.
(5) Private right of action.--A person who has
received more than one telephone call within any 12-
month period by or on behalf of the same entity in
violation of the regulations prescribed under this
subsection may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or
rules of court of a State bring in an appropriate court
of that State--
(A) an action based on a violation of the
regulations prescribed under this subsection to
enjoin such violation,
(B) an action to recover for actual monetary
loss from such a violation, or to receive up to
$500 in damages for each such violation,
whichever is greater, or
(C) both such actions.
It shall be an affirmative defense in any action
brought under this paragraph that the defendant has
established and implemented, with due care, reasonable
practices and procedures to effectively prevent
telephone solicitations in violation of the regulations
prescribed under this subsection. If the court finds
that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated the
regulations prescribed under this subsection, the court
may, in its discretion, increase the amount of the
award to an amount equal to not more than 3 times the
amount available under subparagraph (B) of this
paragraph.
(6) Relation to subsection (b).--The provisions of
this subsection shall not be construed to permit a
communication prohibited by subsection (b).
(d) Technical and Procedural Standards.--
(1) Prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for any person
within the United States--
(A) to initiate any communication using a
telephone facsimile machine, or to make any
telephone call using any automatic telephone
dialing system, that does not comply with the
technical and procedural standards prescribed
under this subsection, or to use any telephone
facsimile machine or automatic telephone
dialing system in a manner that does not comply
with such standards; or
(B) to use a computer or other electronic
device to send any message via a telephone
facsimile machine unless such person clearly
marks, in a margin at the top or bottom of each
transmitted page of the message or on the first
page of the transmission, the date and time it
is sent and an identification of the business,
other entity, or individual sending the message
and the telephone number of the sending machine
or of such business, other entity, or
individual.
(2) Telephone facsimile machines.--The Commission
shall revise the regulations setting technical and
procedural standards for telephone facsimile machines
to require that any such machine which is manufactured
after one year after the date of enactment of this
section clearly marks, in a margin at the top or bottom
of each transmitted page or on the first page of each
transmission, the date and time sent, an identification
of the business, other entity, or individual sending
the message, and the telephone number of the sending
machine or of such business, other entity, or
individual.
(3) Artificial or prerecorded voice systems.--The
Commission shall prescribe technical and procedural
standards for systems that are used to transmit any
artificial or prerecorded voice message via telephone.
Such standards shall require that--
(A) all artificial or prerecorded telephone
messages (i) shall, at the beginning of the
message, state clearly the identity of the
business, individual, or other entity
initiating the call, and (ii) shall, during or
after the message, state clearly the telephone
number or address of such business, other
entity, or individual; and
(B) any such system will automatically
release the [called party's line] telephone
line called within 5 seconds of the time
notification is transmitted to the system that
the [called party has hung up] answering party
has hung up, to allow the [called party's line]
telephone line called to be used to make or
receive other calls.
(e) Prohibition on Provision of Inaccurate Caller
Identification Information.--
(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person
within the United States, in connection with any
telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice service,
to cause any caller identification service to knowingly
transmit misleading or inaccurate caller identification
information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or
wrongfully obtain anything of value, unless such
transmission is exempted pursuant to paragraph (3)(B).
(2) Protection for blocking caller identification
information.--Nothing in this subsection may be
construed to prevent or restrict any person from
blocking the capability of any caller identification
service to transmit caller identification information.
(3) Regulations.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 6 months
after the date of enactment of the Truth in
Caller ID Act of 2009, the Commission shall
prescribe regulations to implement this
subsection.
(B) Content of regulations.--
(i) In general.--The regulations
required under subparagraph (A) shall
include such exemptions from the
prohibition under paragraph (1) as the
Commission determines is appropriate.
(ii) Specific exemption for law
enforcement agencies or court orders.--
The regulations required under
subparagraph (A) shall exempt from the
prohibition under paragraph (1)
transmissions in connection with--
(I) any authorized activity
of a law enforcement agency; or
(II) a court order that
specifically authorizes the use
of caller identification
manipulation.
(5) Penalties.--
(A) Civil forfeiture.--
(i) In general.--Any person that is
determined by the Commission, in
accordance with paragraphs (3) and (4)
of section 503(b), to have violated
this subsection shall be liable to the
United States for a forfeiture penalty.
A forfeiture penalty under this
paragraph shall be in addition to any
other penalty provided for by this Act.
The amount of the forfeiture penalty
determined under this paragraph shall
not exceed $10,000 for each violation,
or 3 times that amount for each day of
a continuing violation, except that the
amount assessed for any continuing
violation shall not exceed a total of
$1,000,000 for any single act or
failure to act.
(ii) Recovery.--Any forfeiture
penalty determined under clause (i)
shall be recoverable pursuant to
section 504(a).
(iii) Procedure.--No forfeiture
liability shall be determined under
clause (i) against any person unless
such person receives the notice
required by section 503(b)(3) or
section 503(b)(4). Paragraph (5) of
section 503(b) shall not apply in the
case of a violation of this subsection.
(iv) [2-year] 4-year statute of
limitations.--No forfeiture penalty
shall be determined or imposed against
any person under clause (i) if the
violation charged occurred more than [2
years] 4 years prior to the date of
issuance of the required notice or
notice or apparent liability.
(B) Criminal fine.--Any person who willfully
and knowingly violates this subsection shall
upon conviction thereof be fined not more than
$10,000 for each violation, or 3 times that
amount for each day of a continuing violation,
in lieu of the fine provided by section 501 for
such a violation. This subparagraph does not
supersede the provisions of section 501
relating to imprisonment or the imposition of a
penalty of both fine and imprisonment.
(6) Enforcement by states.--
(A) In general.--The chief legal officer of a
State, or any other State officer authorized by
law to bring actions on behalf of the residents
of a State, may bring a civil action, as parens
patriae, on behalf of the residents of that
State in an appropriate district court of the
United States to enforce this subsection or to
impose the civil penalties for violation of
this subsection, whenever the chief legal
officer or other State officer has reason to
believe that the interests of the residents of
the State have been or are being threatened or
adversely affected by a violation of this
subsection or a regulation under this
subsection.
(B) Notice.--The chief legal officer or other
State officer shall serve written notice on the
Commission of any civil action under
subparagraph (A) prior to initiating such civil
action. The notice shall include a copy of the
complaint to be filed to initiate such civil
action, except that if it is not feasible for
the State to provide such prior notice, the
State shall provide such notice immediately
upon instituting such civil action.
(C) Authority to intervene.--Upon receiving
the notice required by subparagraph (B), the
Commission shall have the right--
(i) to intervene in the action;
(ii) upon so intervening, to be heard
on all matters arising therein; and
(iii) to file petitions for appeal.
(D) Construction.--For purposes of bringing
any civil action under subparagraph (A),
nothing in this paragraph shall prevent the
chief legal officer or other State officer from
exercising the powers conferred on that officer
by the laws of such State to conduct
investigations or to administer oaths or
affirmations or to compel the attendance of
witnesses or the production of documentary and
other evidence.
(E) Venue; service or process.--
(i) Venue.--An action brought under
subparagraph (A) shall be brought in a
district court of the United States
that meets applicable requirements
relating to venue under section 1391 of
title 28, United States Code.
(ii) Service of process.--In an
action brought under subparagraph (A)--
(I) process may be served
without regard to the
territorial limits of the
district or of the State in
which the action is instituted;
and
(II) a person who
participated in an alleged
violation that is being
litigated in the civil action
may be joined in the civil
action without regard to the
residence of the person.
(7) Effect on other laws.--This subsection does not
prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative,
protective, or intelligence activity of a law
enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a
political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence
agency of the United States.
(8) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
(A) Caller identification information.--The
term ``caller identification information''
means information provided by a caller
identification service regarding the telephone
number of, or other information regarding the
origination of, a call made using a
telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice
service.
(B) Caller identification service.--The term
``caller identification service'' means any
service or device designed to provide the user
of the service or device with the telephone
number of, or other information regarding the
origination of, a call made using a
telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice
service. Such term includes automatic number
identification services.
(C) IP-enabled voice service.--The term ``IP-
enabled voice service'' has the meaning given
that term by section 9.3 of the Commission's
regulations (47 C.F.R. 9.3), as those
regulations may be amended by the Commission
from time to time.
(9) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of this section, subsection (f) shall not apply to this
subsection or to the regulations under this subsection.
(f) Effect on State Law.--
(1) State law not preempted.--Except for the
standards prescribed under subsection (d) and subject
to paragraph (2) of this subsection, nothing in this
section or in the regulations prescribed under this
section shall preempt any State law that imposes more
restrictive intrastate requirements or regulations on,
or which prohibits--
(A) the use of telephone facsimile machines
or other electronic devices to send unsolicited
advertisements;
(B) the use of automatic telephone dialing
systems;
(C) the use of artificial or prerecorded
voice messages; or
(D) the making of telephone solicitations.
(2) State use of databases.--If, pursuant to
subsection (c)(3), the Commission requires the
establishment of a single national database of
telephone numbers of subscribers who object to
receiving telephone solicitations, a State or local
authority may not, in its regulation of telephone
solicitations, require the use of any database, list,
or listing system that does not include the part of
such single national database that relates to such
State.
(g) Actions by States.--
(1) Authority of states.--Whenever the attorney
general of a State, or an official or agency designated
by a State, has reason to believe that any person has
engaged or is engaging in a pattern or practice of
telephone calls or other transmissions to residents of
that State in violation of this section or the
regulations prescribed under this section, the State
may bring a civil action on behalf of its residents to
enjoin such calls, an action to recover for actual
monetary loss or receive $500 in damages for each
violation, or both such actions. If the court finds the
defendant willfully or knowingly violated such
regulations, the court may, in its discretion, increase
the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more
than 3 times the amount available under the preceding
sentence.
(2) Exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts.--The
district courts of the United States, the United States
courts of any territory, and the District Court of the
United States for the District of Columbia shall have
exclusive jurisdiction over all civil actions brought
under this subsection. Upon proper application, such
courts shall also have jurisdiction to issue writs of
mandamus, or orders affording like relief, commanding
the defendant to comply with the provisions of this
section or regulations prescribed under this section,
including the requirement that the defendant take such
action as is necessary to remove the danger of such
violation. Upon a proper showing, a permanent or
temporary injunction or restraining order shall be
granted without bond.
(3) Rights of commission.--The State shall serve
prior written notice of any such civil action upon the
Commission and provide the Commission with a copy of
its complaint, except in any case where such prior
notice is not feasible, in which case the State shall
serve such notice immediately upon instituting such
action. The Commission shall have the right (A) to
intervene in the action, (B) upon so intervening, to be
heard on all matters arising therein, and (C) to file
petitions for appeal.
(4) Venue; service of process.--Any civil action
brought under this subsection in a district court of
the United States may be brought in the district
wherein the defendant is found or is an inhabitant or
transacts business or wherein the violation occurred or
is occurring, and process in such cases may be served
in any district in which the defendant is an inhabitant
or where the defendant may be found.
(5) Investigatory powers.--For purposes of bringing
any civil action under this subsection, nothing in this
section shall prevent the attorney general of a State,
or an official or agency designated by a State, from
exercising the powers conferred on the attorney general
or such official by the laws of such State to conduct
investigations or to administer oaths or affirmations
or to compel the attendance of witnesses or the
production of documentary and other evidence.
(6) Effect on state court proceedings.--Nothing
contained in this subsection shall be construed to
prohibit an authorized State official from proceeding
in State court on the basis of an alleged violation of
any general civil or criminal statute of such State.
(7) Limitation.--Whenever the Commission has
instituted a civil action for violation of regulations
prescribed under this section, no State may, during the
pendency of such action instituted by the Commission,
subsequently institute a civil action against any
defendant named in the Commission's complaint for any
violation as alleged in the Commission's complaint.
(8) Definition.--As used in this subsection, the term
``attorney general'' means the chief legal officer of a
State.
(h) Junk Fax Enforcement Report.--The Commission shall submit
an annual report to Congress regarding the enforcement during
the past year of the provisions of this section relating to
sending of unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile
machines, which report shall include--
(1) the number of complaints received by the
Commission during such year alleging that a consumer
received an unsolicited advertisement via telephone
facsimile machine in violation of the Commission's
rules;
(2) the number of citations issued by the Commission
pursuant to section 503 during the year to enforce any
law, regulation, or policy relating to sending of
unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile
machines;
(3) the number of notices of apparent liability
issued by the Commission pursuant to section 503 during
the year to enforce any law, regulation, or policy
relating to sending of unsolicited advertisements to
telephone facsimile machines;
(4) for each notice referred to in paragraph (3)--
(A) the amount of the proposed forfeiture
penalty involved;
(B) the person to whom the notice was issued;
(C) the length of time between the date on
which the complaint was filed and the date on
which the notice was issued; and
(D) the status of the proceeding;
(5) the number of final orders imposing forfeiture
penalties issued pursuant to section 503 during the
year to enforce any law, regulation, or policy relating
to sending of unsolicited advertisements to telephone
facsimile machines;
(6) for each forfeiture order referred to in
paragraph (5)--
(A) the amount of the penalty imposed by the
order;
(B) the person to whom the order was issued;
(C) whether the forfeiture penalty has been
paid; and
(D) the amount paid;
(7) for each case in which a person has failed to pay
a forfeiture penalty imposed by such a final order,
whether the Commission referred such matter for
recovery of the penalty; and
(8) for each case in which the Commission referred
such an order for recovery--
(A) the number of days from the date the
Commission issued such order to the date of
such referral;
(B) whether an action has been commenced to
recover the penalty, and if so, the number of
days from the date the Commission referred such
order for recovery to the date of such
commencement; and
(C) whether the recovery action resulted in
collection of any amount, and if so, the amount
collected.
(i) Annual Report to Congress on Robocalls and Transmission
of Misleading or Inaccurate Caller Identification
Information.--
(1) Report required.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of the enactment of this subsection, and annually
thereafter, the Commission, after consultation with the
Federal Trade Commission, shall submit to Congress a
report regarding enforcement by the Commission of
subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e) during the preceding
calendar year.
(2) Matters for inclusion.--Each report required by
paragraph (1) shall include the following:
(A) The number of complaints received by the
Commission during each of the preceding five
calendar years, for each of the following
categories:
(i) Complaints alleging that a
consumer received a call in violation
of subsection (b) or (c).
(ii) Complaints alleging that a
consumer received a call in violation
of the standards prescribed under
subsection (d).
(iii) Complaints alleging that a
consumer received a call in connection
with which misleading or inaccurate
caller identification information was
transmitted in violation of subsection
(e).
(B) The number of citations issued by the
Commission pursuant to section 503(b) during
the preceding calendar year to enforce
subsection (d), and details of each such
citation.
(C) The number of notices of apparent
liability issued by the Commission pursuant to
section 503(b) during the preceding calendar
year to enforce subsections (b), (c), (d), and
(e), and details of each such notice including
any proposed forfeiture amount.
(D) The number of final orders imposing
forfeiture penalties issued pursuant to section
503(b) during the preceding calendar year to
enforce such subsections, and details of each
such order including the forfeiture imposed.
(E) The amount of forfeiture penalties or
criminal fines collected, during the preceding
calendar year, by the Commission or the
Attorney General for violations of such
subsections, and details of each case in which
such a forfeiture penalty or criminal fine was
collected.
(F) Proposals for reducing the number of
calls made in violation of such subsections.
(G) An analysis of the contribution by
providers of interconnected VoIP service and
non-interconnected VoIP service that discount
high-volume, unlawful, short-duration calls to
the total number of calls made in violation of
such subsections, and recommendations on how to
address such contribution in order to decrease
the total number of calls made in violation of
such subsections.
(3) No additional reporting required.--The Commission
shall prepare the report required by paragraph (1)
without requiring the provision of additional
information from providers of telecommunications
service or voice service (as defined in section 7(d) of
the Stopping Bad Robocalls Act).
(j) Information Sharing.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the
date of the enactment of this subsection, the
Commission shall prescribe regulations to establish a
process that streamlines the ways in which a private
entity may voluntarily share with the Commission
information relating to--
(A) a call made or a text message sent in
violation of subsection (b); or
(B) a call or text message for which
misleading or inaccurate caller identification
information was caused to be transmitted in
violation of subsection (e).
(2) Text message defined.--In this subsection, the
term ``text message'' has the meaning given such term
in subsection (e)(8).
(k) Robocall Blocking Service.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of the enactment of this subsection, the Commission
shall take a final agency action to ensure the robocall
blocking services provided on an opt-out or opt-in
basis pursuant to the Declaratory Ruling of the
Commission in the matter of Advanced Methods to Target
and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls (CG Docket No. 17-59;
FCC 19-51; adopted on June 6, 2019)--
(A) are provided with transparency and
effective redress options for both--
(i) consumers; and
(ii) callers; and
(B) are provided with no additional line item
charge to consumers and no additional charge to
callers for resolving complaints related to
erroneously blocked calls.
(2) Text message defined.--In this subsection, the
term ``text message'' has the meaning given such term
in subsection (e)(8).
* * * * * * *
[all]