Among the topics Steve will discuss is the FCC’s recent FNPRM proposing to require gateway providers to assist in the battle against illegal robocalls by applying STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication and other robocall mitigation techniques to calls that originate abroad from U.S. telephone numbers. The FNPRM, adopted at the FCC’s September 30 Open Meeting, seeks comment on several other proposals aimed at mitigating robocalls, including the following requirements that would be applicable to gateway providers: (1) responding to traceback requests within 24 hours; (2) blocking calls upon notification from the Enforcement Bureau that a certain traffic pattern involves illegal robocalling; (3) utilizing reasonable analytics to block calls that are highly likely to be illegal; (4) blocking calls originating from numbers on a do-not-originate list; (5) confirming that a foreign call originator using a U.S. telephone number is authorized to use that number; (6) including robocall mitigation obligations in contracts with foreign customers; and (7) submitting a certification regarding robocall mitigation practices to the Robocall Mitigation Database. In addition, the FNPRM seeks comment on a requirement that service providers block calls from gateway providers identified as bad actors by the FCC and on whether additional information should be collected by the Robocall Mitigation Database. The FNPRM asks whether there are alternative means to stop illegal foreign-originated robocalls. Finally, while the rulemaking proceeding is pending, the FCC declared that it would not enforce the prohibition in Section 63.6305(c) of the FCC’s rules on U.S.-based providers accepting traffic carrying U.S. NANP numbers that is received directly from a foreign voice service provider that is not in the Robocall Mitigation Database.

In case you missed it:

Guidance for Implementing the STIR-SHAKEN Call Authentication and Robocall Mitigation Mandates in 2021 (December 2020)

The FCC’s Packed September Meeting Agenda Includes Focus on IoT Spectrum and Robocall Prevention (September 2021)

You will find more information about the items on the September meeting agenda after the break:

Promoting More Resilient Networks - The NPRM would seek comment on various issues related to improving the reliability and resiliency of communications networks during emergencies and natural disasters. The NPRM focuses on whether the Framework (a wireless industry agreement aimed at providing mutual aid during emergencies, ensuring municipal and consumer readiness and communicating about service restoration) can be improved, such as by expanding participation, increasing the scope of participants’ obligations or codifying industry disaster-based coordination obligations. The NPRM would also seek comment on enhancing information provided to the FCC during disasters and network outages through the Network Outage Reporting System and the Disaster Information Reporting System. In addition, the NPRM would ask about communications resilience strategies to mitigate the impact of power outages, including coordination between communications providers and power companies and the use of backup power during disasters.

Reassessing 4.9 GHz Band for Public Safety – The Order on Reconsideration would grant requests by public safety organizations to vacate a 2020 order that permits states to lease spectrum in the 4.9 GHz band (designated for public safety use) to third parties for non-public-safety use. The Order on Reconsideration would also lift a freeze on 4.9 MHz licenses to allow incumbent licensees to modify licenses or seek new permanent fixed sites. The FNPRM would propose to establish a nationwide framework for the 4.9 GHz band to maximize public safety while promoting interoperable communications and interference protection throughout the network. Areas for comment would include how to protect public safety users from harmful interference, the use of the Universal Licensing System or another database to maintain relevant technical data, adoption of consistent technical standards to foster interoperability of equipment using the band and giving public safety uses priority. The NPRM would also seek comment on how to manage the band, incentivize public safety licensees to use the latest commercially available technologies and allow non-public safety use of the band without jeopardizing public safety operations.

Authorizing 6 GHz Band Automated Frequency Coordination Systems - The Public Notice would set forth a process for the OET to authorize AFC systems, which are required to operate standard-power devices in the 6 GHz band. Specifically, unlicensed standard power devices that operate in the 6 GHz band are required to check an AFC system prior to operating to avoid harmful interference to incumbent operations. The Public Notice would explain the approval process for AFC system operators, which would include conditional approval, a public trial period and an opportunity for public comment. The Public Notice would provide detailed information about the content of AFC system proposals and request that such proposals be submitted no later than November 30, 2021 (although proposals will be accepted after that date).

Spectrum Requirements for the Internet of Things - The NOI (which is required to be issued by The William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2021 (Pub. L. No. 116-28) (the “Act”)) would seek comment on whether there is sufficient spectrum available for current and future IoT needs. As directed by the Act, the LOI would ask for comment on how to ensure that adequate spectrum is available for the increased demand for the IoT, whether regulatory barriers would prevent accessing any additional needed spectrum and the roles of licensed and unlicensed spectrum for supporting the IoT.

Shielding 911 Call Centers from Robocalls – The FNPRM would propose to update the FCC’s rules governing the PSAP Do-Not-Call registry. Although the FCC adopted rules in 2012 to establish the registry as a means to protect PSAPs from unwanted robocalls, the registry has not been fully implemented due to security concerns associated with releasing PSAP telephone numbers to entities accessing the registry. The FNPRM would propose that voice service providers block autodialed calls to PSAP telephone numbers on the PSAP Do-Not-Call registry, as an alternative to allowing entities claiming to use autodialers to access the registry to identify telephone numbers that may not be called. In addition, the FNPRM would seek comment on whether autodialed calls and text messages continue to disrupt PSAPs’ operations, security risks associated with maintaining a centralized registry of PSAP telephone numbers, ways to address security issues (such as enhanced caller vetting and data security requirements) and alternative means to prevent robocalls to PSAPs (such as by utilizing other technological solutions or leveraging the National Do-Not-Call registry).

Stopping Illegal Robocalls From Entering American Phone Networks - The FNPRM would propose to require gateway providers to assist in the battle against illegal robocalls by applying STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication and other robocall mitigation techniques to calls that originate abroad from U.S. telephone numbers. The FNPRM would also seek comment on several other proposals aimed at mitigating robocalls, including the following requirements that would be applicable to gateway providers: (1) responding to traceback requests within 24 hours; (2) blocking calls upon notification from the Enforcement Bureau that a certain traffic pattern involves illegal robocalling; (3) utilizing reasonable analytics to block calls that are highly likely to be illegal; (4) blocking calls originating from numbers on a do-not-originate list; (5) confirming that a foreign call originator using a U.S. telephone number is authorized to use that number; (6) including robocall mitigation obligations in contracts with foreign customers; and (7) submitting a certification regarding robocall mitigation practices to the Robocall Mitigation Database. In addition, the FNPRM would seek comment on a requirement that service providers block calls from gateway providers identified as bad actors by the FCC and on whether additional information should be collected by the Robocall Mitigation Database. The FNPRM would ask whether there are alternative means to stop illegal foreign-originated robocalls. Finally, while the rulemaking proceeding is pending, the FCC would not enforce the prohibition in Section 63.6305(c) of the FCC’s rules on U.S.-based providers accepting traffic carrying U.S. NANP numbers that is received directly from foreign voice service providers that are not in the Robocall Mitigation Database.

Supporting Broadband for Tribal Libraries Through E-Rate - Pursuant to Section 254(h)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, a library may not receive preferential treatment or rates (such as under the E-rate program) unless it is eligible for assistance from a State library administrative agency under the Library Services and Technology Act (“LSTA”). In 2018, the LSTA was amended to specifically include Tribal libraries as eligible for assistance from a State library administrative agency. The NPRM would propose to amend Sections 54.500 and 54.501(b)(1) of the FCC’s rules to clarify that Tribal libraries are eligible for E-rate support. The NPRM would also seek comment on other measures to enable Tribal schools and libraries to gain access to the E-rate program and ways to increase participation in the E-rate program.

Strengthening Security Review of Companies with Foreign Ownership - The Second Report and Order would adopt standardized national security and law enforcement questions (“Standard Questions”) to be answered by applicants with reportable foreign ownership as part of the Executive Branch review of certain applications filed with the FCC. The issuance of Standard Questions is the FCC’s final step in implementing several reforms to formalize and streamline the FCC and Executive Branch review process consistent with Executive Order No. 13913 (April 20, 2020), which established a Committee for the Assessment of Foreign Participation in the United State Telecommunications Sector (“Committee” (formerly known as Team Telecom)) and set forth procedures and timelines for the Committee to complete its review. The Second Report and Order would include Standard Questions for the following types of applications when reportable foreign ownership (generally a 5 percent or greater equity and/or voting interest (indirect or direct) in the applicant) is present: (1) applications for a new or modified International Section 214 authorization or submarine cable landing license; (2) applications for assignment or transfer of control of an International Section 214 authorization or a submarine cable landing license; and (3) petitions for a declaratory ruling to permit foreign ownership in a broadcast licensee, common carrier wireless licensee or common carrier earth station licensee that exceeds the benchmarks in Section 310(b) of the Communications Act. There would also be a supplement to each set of questions to provide personally identifiable information for individuals with a reportable ownership interest, non-U.S. individuals with access to the applicant’s facilities, corporate officers and directors, and a law enforcement point of contact.

You will find more information about the most significant items after the break.

Appeals of STIR/SHAKEN Revocation Decisions – The Third Report and Order (“Order”) would establish a process for the FCC’s private Governance Authority that oversees the STIR/SHAKEN framework to review and revoke the ability of a voice service provider to participate in STIR/SHAKEN. The Order would also create an appeals process for voice service providers to challenge any revocation decisions, modeled on the established appeals process and procedures for reviewing decisions by the Universal Service Administrative Company (“USAC”). Voice service providers affected by a revocation could file a request for review with the FCC, and third parties would be permitted to file oppositions and replies to the request in ECFS.

Establishing Two New Innovation Zones – The Public Notice would approve the creation of two new Innovation Zones for experimental licenses in Boston, MA (Northeastern University) and Raleigh, NC (NC State University), and would expand the geographical boundary of the Innovation Zone in New York City. Innovation Zones allow experimental licensees to conduct unrelated experiments at designated locations without requiring explicit FCC approval. The NC State Innovation Zone would be intended to study new use cases for advanced wireless technologies emerging in unmanned aerial systems (“UAS”), while the Northeastern Innovation Zone would allow researchers to use the Colosseum wireless network emulator to extend and accelerate research in wireless networked systems. The two Innovation Zones would also promote platforms to test the integration of Open Radio Access Networks (Open RAN). Both Innovation Zones would be established for a renewable period of five years.

Updating FCC Numbering Policies – The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would adopt clarifications and revisions to the Commission’s numbering rules, consistent with the Congressional directives in the TRACED Act. The FNPRM would propose to require additional certifications as part of the direct access application to numbering resources and would require disclosures of foreign ownership information of applicants, proposing to refer applicants with 10% or greater foreign ownership to the Executive Branch agencies. It would also require direct access authorization holders to more frequently update the FCC of any ownership changes, and would seek comment on expanding the direct access to numbers authorization process to one-way VoIP providers or other entities using numbers.

Updating TRS Compensation – The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would propose changes to the compensation methodology for the Internet Protocol Relay, a form of Telecommunications Relay Service (“TRS”) that allows an individual with a hearing or speech disability to communicate with voice telephone users by transmitting text via the Internet. The NPRM would propose to modify the compensation methodology to permit recovery of reasonable costs of outreach and operating margins, and would seek comment on permitting recovery of indirect overhead costs. It would also propose to calculate the base compensation level using projected costs and demand over a multi-year compensation period. The NPRM further would seek comment on a proposed potential hybrid compensation model that would rely in part on compensation for state-program relay service.

You will find more information about the most significant items on the June meeting agenda after the break:

Securing the Communications Supply Chain – The NPRM and NOI would seek comment on a proposal to prohibit all future authorizations for equipment on the FCC’s Covered List under the Secure and Trusted Communications Act. The NPRM would seek comment on whether, and how, the FCC should revoke any current authorizations for equipment included on the Covered List, and if it should revise the rules to no longer permit exceptions for equipment authorizations on the Covered List. It would also propose to require participants in any upcoming FCC auctions to certify that their auction bids do not and will not rely on financial support from any entity that the agency has designated as a national security threat to the communications supply chain. The NOI would seek comment on how the FCC can leverage its equipment authorization program to encourage manufacturers to consider cybersecurity standards and guidelines when building devices that will connect to U.S. networks.

Modernizing Equipment Marketing and Importation – The Report and Order would adopt changes to the equipment authorization rules to allow expanded marketing and importation of radiofrequency (“RF”) devices prior to certification, with conditions. The Order would add a new condition to allow importation of up to 12,000 RF devices for certain pre-sale activities prior to authorization. It would additionally amend the FCC’s rules to allow conditional sales of RF devices prior to authorization, so long as those devices will not be delivered to consumers until they are authorized. The Order includes labeling, recordkeeping, and other conditions to ensure that RF devices are not sold or operated prior to equipment authorization.

Improving Emergency Alert Systems – The Report and Order and FNPRM would adopt the rule changes proposed in the FCC’s March 2021 NPRM to update the EAS and WEA systems rules, pursuant with the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) requirements. The Order would create a new category of non-optional “National Alerts,” combining WEA Presidential Alerts with FEMA Administrator Alerts, which may be nationally or regionally distributed. States would be encouraged to establish a state EAS plan checklist for State Emergency Communications Committees (“SECCs”), or otherwise establish an SECC if not already formed. This Report and Order would also enable FEMA to report false EAS and WEA alerts and to repeat certain EAS messages if necessary. The FNPRM would seek comment on whether to remove or refine certain EAS emergency event codes that are irrelevant or confusing, and on whether to update the EAS to include a more persistent display and notification of emergency messages for more severe events.

Implementing the TRACED Act – The Report and Order would establish rules pursuant to the TRACED Act to create a process that streamlines the ways in which a private entity may report robocalls or spoofed caller ID to the FCC. The Commission would create on online portal where private entities, meaning any entity other than an individual person or public entity, could submit suspected violations directly to the Enforcement Bureau. The Order clarifies that the new portal would not affect the existing consumer complaint process, and the agency will still use the consumer complaint portal for individual consumer complaints.

Connected Care Pilot Program – The Second Report and Order offers further guidance on the Commission’s Connected Care Pilot Program, including on the Pilot Program budget and administration, eligible services, competitive bidding instructions, invoicing, and data reporting for selected participants. Notably, the Order clarifies that the Pilot Program will reimburse network equipment purchases necessary to make both broadband and connected care information services functional, even if the Pilot Program is not directly supporting the costs of those services. The FCC announced earlier this year that an initial 23 applicants had been selected, with more selected applications to be announced at a later date, and selected applicants could begin the funding request process once this Report and Order becomes effective.

You will find more details about these items on the May meeting agenda after the break.

Reducing Interstate Rates and Charges for Incarcerated People – The Third Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Fifth FNPRM all have different purposes related to reducing the telephone service rates for inmate phone calls. The Third Report and Order would lower the interstate interim rate caps to $0.12 per minute for prisons and $0.14 per minute for jails with populations of 1,000 or more. It would permit an additional allowance of $0.02 for negotiated site commission payments, and eliminate the separate interstate collect calling rate cap. The Report and Order would cap international calling rates, change ancillary service charge rules for third-party financial transaction fees, and adopt a new mandatory data collection to gather data and set permanent rates. The Report and Order would also reaffirm providers’ obligations regarding access for incarcerated people with disabilities. The Order on Reconsideration would reaffirm the FCC’s findings in the 2020 Inmate Calling Services Order that the jurisdictional nature of a telephone call for purposes of charging consumers depends on the physical location of the originating and terminating endpoints of the call. The FNPRM seeks comment on the provision of communications services to incarcerated individuals with disabilities, permanent interstate and international rate caps, and reforms to site commission payments and rules regarding ancillary service charges.

Strengthening Support for Video Relay Service – The NPRM suggests a continued use of a tiered rate structure for the next VRS compensation plan. It also seeks comment on whether to adjust tiered rate levels, bring average provider compensation closer to allowable costs, or defer rate changes for two years while waiting for a resolution of uncertainty about post-pandemic changes in VRS costs and demands. The Order would extend current VRS compensation rates through December 31, 2021, or the effective date of compensation rates adopted by the NPRM, whichever is earlier.

Shortening STIR/SHAKEN Extension for Small Providers Likely to Originate Robocalls – The Third FNPRM proposes to shorten the extension for small voice service providers that are most likely to originate illegal robocalls. These small providers would have to implement STIR/SHAKEN in the IP portions of their networks by June 30, 2022—shortening the extension by one year. The FNPRM seeks comment regarding the best methods to identify and define the small voice service providers that are at a heightened risk or originating an especially large amount of illegal robocall traffic. It proposes three measures to identify such providers that would be subject to a shortened implementation deadline:

• small voice service providers that originate more than 500 calls per day for any single line in the normal course of business;
• small voice service providers that receive more than half their revenue from customers purchasing services that are not mass market services; or
• small voice service providers that offer certain service features to customers commonly used for unlawful robocalls, such as the ability to display any number in the called party’s caller ID, or to upload and broadcast a prerecorded message.

Section 214 Petition for Partial Reconsideration for Mixed USF Support Companies – The Order on Reconsideration addresses a request related to a transaction involving a Section 214 transfer of control. The Order would grant the petition and exclude the petitioner from the mixed support condition because the cost shifting harm that the mixed support condition was designated to address is not present in the current case. The Order would also reaffirm the FCC’s delegation of authority to the Wireline Competition Bureau to continue applying the mixed merger condition where it is deemed necessary to remedy a potential public interest harm.

Our preview of the Supreme Court’s consideration of Duguid can be found here and our analysis of the oral argument can be found here. The Court’s decision is discussed below, and its opinion can be found here.

Background

Plaintiff Noah Duguid alleged that defendant Facebook had used an ATDS without the requisite consent to contact him via text message when its systems used an automated response protocol to alert a customer-provided number of an access attempt. Mr. Duguid alleged that he did not have a Facebook account and never provided consent for Facebook to send him text messages. In 2018, the Northern District of California dismissed Duguid’s TCPA claim against Facebook because it held that he had failed to properly allege the use of an ATDS where the complaint’s allegations “strongly suggested direct targeting rather than random or sequential dialing.” In 2019, the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision. It reasoned that Duguid had sufficiently pled the use of an ATDS by alleging Facebook’s equipment “had the capacity to store numbers to be called and to dial such numbers automatically.” The Ninth Circuit thus held that any device or system that could store telephone numbers was an ATDS restricted by the TCPA. Facebook appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

The TCPA defines an ATDS as equipment that has the capacity “(A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.” The Supreme Court took up the following question: “Whether the definition of ATDS in the TCPA encompasses any device that can ‘store’ and ‘automatically dial’” telephone numbers, even if the device does not ‘us[e] a random or sequential generator?’”

Although the Supreme Court’s Duguid decision stemmed out of a challenge to the Ninth Circuit’s ATDS definition, five other federal circuit courts of appeals had weighed in on that issue, creating a deep circuit split. The Second, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits had held that any predictive dialer or system that dials from a stored list should be considered an ATDS under the TCPA. On the other hand, the Third, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits held that an ATDS must have the capacity to generate random or sequential telephone numbers to be subject to the restrictions of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b).

SCOTUS’s Decision: Supreme Court Reverses the Ninth Circuit

In an opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor, a unanimous Supreme Court held that to qualify as an ATDS subject to Section 227(b)’s restrictions, a device or system must use a random or sequential number generator in storing or in producing a telephone number. The Court found that because “the equipment in question must use a random or sequential number generator” to be an ATDS, “[t]his definition excludes equipment like Facebook’s login notification system, which does not use such technology.”

The Court started by confirming that a proper reading of the statutory text confirmed the narrower standard. The Court reasoned that under clear rules of grammar, the modifying phrase “using a random or sequential number generator” modifies both antecedent verbs: “store” and “produce.” Additionally, the Court reasoned that because the modifying phrase immediately follows the cohesive clause “store or produce telephone numbers to be called” it would be odd to apply the modifier to one part of the cohesive clause. Thus, the Supreme Court cut through the grammatical roadblock that had led some circuit courts into opining that equipment that could simply “store” telephone numbers could be considered to be a restricted ATDS.

Justice Sotomayor’s opinion also relied on the statutory context of the TCPA to support the Court’s holding. The Court noted that the TCPA’s ATDS restrictions “target a unique type of telemarketing equipment that risks dialing emergency lines randomly or tying up all the sequentially numbered lines at a single entity.” Congress intended to address a very nuanced problem; therefore, expanding the definition of an ATDS to encompass any equipment that merely stores telephone numbers would go beyond the intent of Congress, and “take a chainsaw to these nuanced problems when Congress meant to use a scalpel.” Additionally, the Court noted that such an expansive definition would encompass virtually all modern cellphones and expose ordinary cell phone owners to TCPA liability when they engage in speed dialing or send automated text message responses, which could not have been Congress’s intent.

As to public policy concerns, the Court refused to impose “broad privacy-protection goals” onto the statute’s narrow definition of ATDS, noting: “[t]hat Congress was broadly concerned about intrusive telemarketing practices, however, does not mean it adopted a broad autodialer definition.” The Court noted that the TCPA would continue to restrict artificial and prerecorded voice calls, regardless of the narrow reading of ATDS, and that fears of a “torrent” of “robocalls” are thus overstated. In the end, as Judge Sotomayor explained, “Duguid’s quarrel is with Congress, which did not define an autodialer as malleably as he would have liked.”

In a short concurrence, Justice Alito agreed with the Court’s ruling, but wrote separately to take issue with the main opinion’s reliance on a “set” grammar rule. He advised that the canons of statutory interpretation are meant to be used as tools to help identify the way in which “a reasonable reader” would have understood the text of a statute at the time it was issued. The other justices dealt with Justice Alito’s concurrence in a footnote, and reminded lower courts to be methodical when interpreting statutory text.

Impact

There are hundreds of litigations and arbitrations pending around the country dealing with claims of illegal use of an ATDS, and dozens of high-profile class action cases have been stayed pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Duguid. The Court’s decision will alter the course of current and future cases as courts and litigants now have a uniform definition of an ATDS when assessing ATDS-based claims brought under Section 227(b) of the TCPA. Additionally, Duguid has provided guidance for companies that wish to directly reach out to current and prospective customers, by settling the question of what types of devices and systems will be considered an ATDS so as to require specific prior consents for their use. The decision has already prompted calls for a legislative response to the Court’s more narrow interpretation of ATDS from lawmakers who want to “amend the [TCPA], fix the Court’s error, and protect consumers.”

The Court’s decision also moots much of the ATDS question remanded to the FCC in 2018 in ACA International v. FCC. Given that the Court has now interpreted the ATDS definition, the FCC will not be required to provide its own interpretation of the term. In addition, the Court undermines alternative formulations of the ATDS definition occasionally advanced by the FCC that inquire as to the ability to initiate a high volume of calls or texts in a short period of time. The Court’s statement that it does not “interpret the TCPA as requiring such a difficult line-drawing exercise around how much automation is enough” likely moots that line of inquiry. Finally, several pending petitions ask the FCC to create or modify exceptions to the ATDS restriction. Many of those petitions will have less practical impact going forward.

Prerecorded/artificial voice call claims and Do Not Call violation claims under the TCPA, however, were not the focus of the Court’s decision. Callers should remain vigilant about their communications practices and ensure that they have procedures in place to remain fully compliant with the TCPA.

If you have any questions, please contact our experienced TCPA team.

Click here to listen to this episode.

To start, here is the first resolution we suggested for the industry:

Resolution for Voice Service Providers: Resolve to reduce illegal robocalls. Voice service providers long have supported the FCC’s ongoing efforts to target bad actors sending illegal and fraudulent robocalls, but in 2021, each carrier should resolve to do its part individually in the battle to stop illegal calls. All voice service providers must implement the STIR/SHAKEN call authentication framework by June 30, 2021 and should develop an effective robocall mitigation program to prevent their customers from originating illegal robocalls. These changes are necessary to stay on the right side of the anti-robocall battle. Each voice service provider should resolve to make reducing illegal robocalls a top priority.

Background: 2020 marked a turning point in the number of requirements that voice service providers have in the battle against illegal robocalls. These include:

• STIR/SHAKEN Implementation Mandate

STIR/SHAKEN is an industry-developed framework designed to allow communications service providers to distinguish legitimate calls from illegally spoofed calls so that they can take steps to mitigate the illegal calls. STIR/SHAKEN utilizes an encrypted authentication and verification process that establishes a chain of trust between the calling party and the called party. In March 2020, the FCC required “voice service providers” (including intermediate providers) to implement STIR/SHAKEN in the IP portions of their network by June 30, 2021, while in October creating with some exceptions, most notably for small carriers (fewer than 100,000 voice lines), who receive a two-year extension of the deadline.

• Call Blocking Order

On December 30, the FCC released an Order requiring voice service providers to meet certain affirmative obligations and to better police their networks against illegal calls. These requirements include an obligation to notify callers when calls are blocked, to provide customers upon request with a list of calls that were blocked, and to implement processes for addressing claims that calls were improperly blocked. Further, regardless of whether a provider blocks calls, every provider has certain obligations to “prevent and avoid” originating illegal robocalls, including an obligation to conduct due diligence on new and renewing customers.

• Reassigned number database deadline

On February 8, the FCC announced via Public Notice the compliance date for the remaining rule requiring service providers to report information to the Reassigned Numbers Database Administrator. Beginning April 15, 2021 and recurring on the 15th day of each month thereafter, service providers must report permanent disconnections of their subscribers.

• Development and submission of Robocall Mitigation Plans

The FCC will soon require voice service providers that have not fully implemented STIR/SHAKEN in their networks to submit a Robocall Mitigation Plan detailing their efforts to prevent and avoid originating illegal robocalls. A provider must include three things in its robocall mitigation program:

• • the provider must take reasonable steps to avoid originating illegal robocall traffic (the FCC recommends the use of reasonable analytics);
  • the provider must commit to respond to requests from the Industry Traceback Group to trace suspect calls for mitigation efforts; and
  • the provider must cooperate in investigating and stopping any illegal robocallers (meaning that the provider must block calls or callers that are believed to be illegal).

Keeping the Resolution

So how can a voice service provider keep this resolution? We have several suggestions.

First, if it has not already begun the work, a provider should begin ASAP to implement STIR/SHAKEN in the IP portions of its network. For the time being, implementation requires a provider to have direct access to telephone numbers or else it cannot obtain an SPC token from the STIR/SHAKEN Governance Authority. (Sometime later in the year, merely filing a Robocall Mitigation Plan will be sufficient.) Those that have direct access to numbers should obtain their token authority and obtain a technological solution for implementing STIR/SHAKEN. Those that do not, including resellers, should work with their underlying carriers to determine how STIR/SHAKEN will be implemented and, most importantly, what attestation level will be assigned to the provider’s outbound calls.

Second, every provider should begin to develop its Robocall Mitigation Plan. These plans will be highly individualized, depending on the service provider’s customer base, technologies, and position in the call flow. Nevertheless, we expect the FCC to hold providers to their stated plans, so both an insufficient plan and an overly ambitious plan pose risks to the service provider. KDW is working with several providers already to develop their plans.

Third, service providers must develop compliance mechanisms to address the new anti-robocall obligations that have been implemented. These include processes for receiving and promptly responding to Industry Traceback Group requests, processes for responding to Enforcement Bureau notices of customers that are violating the robocall rules, and “know your customer” due diligence when provisioning or renewing service to a customer. Finally, compliance will also include reporting service reassignments to fuel the FCC’s new Reassigned Number Database. These are not the only requirements that will be adopted, so we recommend that a service provider implement a process for receiving compliance updates regularly as well.

2021 will be a big year for anti-robocall efforts. Voice service providers will want to keep this resolution in order to stay on the right side of the illegal robocall battle.

Follow the Communications group for ongoing coverage of TCPA/Robocall news, including:

• Kelley Drye at the 2021 INCOMPAS Policy Summit On February 9, Partner Steve Augustino moderated a two-part Robocall Compliance panel at the 2021 INCOMPAS Summit. Watch both panels here.
• Effectively Mitigating Illegal Robocalls: What Service Providers Need to Do On March 3, join Partner Steve Augustino for a Telestrategies webinar that will help service providers understand the STIR/SHAKEN framework, informing service providers of their new obligations, how to respond to investigation requests, and how to develop an effective robocall mitigation program.
• TCPA Tracker The TCPA Tracker Newsletter is produced as a collaborative effort between Kelley Drye’s Litigation, Advertising/Privacy, and Communications practices to help you stay current on TCPA (and related) matters, including case developments, and provide an updated comprehensive summary of TCPA petitions pending before the FCC. Subscribe here.
• Kelley Drye’s Full Spectrum Kelley Drye’s Full Spectrum podcast features smart, informative conversations about the latest issues in the technology, telecommunications, and media industries. Bringing together thought leaders in business, government, and enterprise, Full Spectrum offers an in-depth exploration of current legal, regulatory, and business issues. Our “Inside the TCPA” series offers a deeper focus on TCPA issues and petitions pending before the FCC.

See below for recordings of both sessions:

FCC Panel

Industry Panel

Question Presented

The Supreme Court granted review of the question: “Whether the definition of ATDS in the TCPA encompasses any device that can “store” and “automatically dial” telephone numbers, even if the device does not “us[e] a random or sequential generator”?”

Six Circuits have previously answered the question. The Second, Sixth and Ninth held that a predictive dialer or system that dials from a stored list can qualify as an ATDS under the TCPA. The Third, Seventh, and Eleventh require that technology must have the capacity to generate random or sequential telephone numbers to qualify as an ATDS. The Seventh Circuit decision, Gadelhak v. AT&T Services, Inc., was penned by then-Judge Barrett, who participated in today’s argument. In addition, the D.C. Circuit’s 2018 remand in ACA International v. FCC questioned whether a broad reading of ATDS was lawful.

This case arises out of the Ninth Circuit’s broad approach to the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system under the TCPA.

Procedural History

The controversy comes before the Supreme Court on the basis of text messages that plaintiff Duguid allegedly received from Facebook in 2005. Duguid alleged that Facebook had violated the TCPA by maintaining a database of numbers on its computer and transmitting text message alerts to selected numbers from its database using an automated protocol. Facebook filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Duguid had failed to plead the use of an ATDS. The district court held that the ATDS allegations were insufficient because they “strongly suggested direct targeting rather than random or sequential dialing” and dismissed the case. Soon after, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Marks v. Crunch San Diego, holding that an ATDS definition includes devices with the capacity to store numbers and to dial numbers automatically. Duguid appealed the prior dismissal of his claims and, applying Marks, the Ninth Circuit reversed. Facebook asked the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

Briefing

Duguid, Facebook, and the United States have fully briefed the issue. Duguid argues for a broad definition of ATDS based on the statutory text and two canons of construction, the distributive-phrasing canon and last-antecedent canon, that he alleges show the adverbial phrase “using a random or sequential number generator” modifies the verb “to produce” but not the verb “to store.” Facebook, on the other hand, posits that the statutory language “using a random or sequential number generator” is an adverbial phrase that modifies both the verbs “store” and “produce.” Under that approach, the statutory text limits the definition of an ATDS to technology that uses a random- or sequential-number-generator. The United States filed a brief agreeing with Facebook that the plain text of the TCPA limits the definition of an ATDS to random- or sequential-number-generators. The government’s grammatical analysis focuses on the comma that precedes the adverbial phrase, pointing to past Supreme Court decisions and canons of statutory interpretation that advise such a comma is evidence that the phrase is meant to modify all antecedents (in this case, both the verbs “store” and “produce”).

Oral Argument

Argument in the case went over the scheduled hour by about 20 minutes. Facebook and the United States split the first 30 minutes and Duguid took the remaining time, excluding Facebook’s brief rebuttal. While oral argument does not always foretell the Court’s decision, certain trends developed.

• Grammatical Construction: A majority of Justices seemed to agree that Facebook and the United States had a stronger grammatical reading of the statute, but struggled with both the awkwardness of the construction, and the surplusage problem that their interpretation creates.
  • Justice Alito, for example, asked both Facebook and the United States whether it made sense to talk about random or sequential number generators as a device that can “store” numbers, wondering if their interpretation rendered the verb “store” superfluous. In response, the United States suggested that Congress was likely taking a “belt-and-suspenders” approach to drafting.
  • The Chief Justice, noting that most speakers do not resort to statutory canons of interpretation to understand language, suggested that the “sense” of the provision was more important than its syntax.
  • Justice Kavanaugh repeatedly asked about the different scope of the prohibition on artificial or prerecorded voice calls and “live” calls using an ATDS, as a way to understand the ATDS language.
  • Justice Gorsuch asked Facebook and the United States to address an alternate interpretation, offered by then-Judge Barrett in her decision in Gadelhak, that the clause “using a random or sequential number generator” could modify the phrase “telephone numbers to be called” instead of the verbs “store” and/or “produce.” Both parties asserted this interpretation would lead to their preferred outcome.
• Broader Questions on TCPA Scope: The Justices also pressed the parties on questions unrelated to the grammatical construction the statute.
  • Justice Thomas asked why “text messages” were covered by the TCPA at all, given that the statute’s language only regulates calls and later called the statute an “ill fit” for current technology. Justice Thomas’s question is indicative of a broader concern, shared expressly by Justices Sotomayor, Alito and Kavanaugh, that the TCPA may be ill-suited to regulate technology that looks very different from the technology available in 1991 when the TCPA was passed.
  • Justices Sotomayor, Barrett, Breyer, and Gorsuch each questioned whether the Ninth Circuit’s broad definition of an ATDS would expose all smartphone users to potential liability.
  • Justice Barrett was concerned specifically with the call-forwarding function and seemingly “automated” functions that modern cellphones are equipped with.
  • Duguid seemed unable to provide the Justices with a satisfactory answer on several of the non-grammatical issues and gave conflicting answers concerning the role for, and level of, human interaction necessary to remove technology from the definition of an ATDS.

The Court is expected to issue its ruling by Spring 2021. To learn more about the background of the case, the Circuit Courts’ varying definitions of an ATDS, and the potential implications for the Court’s ruling, consider listening to Kelley Drye litigator and Partner Paul Rosenthal’s preview podcast of Duguid or Kelley Drye’s monthly TCPA Tracker.

Click here to listen to this episode.

Case Background

Allan came before the Sixth Circuit on appeal of the district court’s entry of summary judgment for plaintiffs. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant had placed 353 calls to them using an ATDS after they had each revoked consent. The district court held that defendant’s system qualified as an autodialer. It was undisputed that the system did not randomly or sequentially generate numbers. It would place calls to a daily-created list based on a stored list of a numbers in connection with collection of specific individual’s private education loan debt. By a 2-1 majority, the Sixth Circuit concluded that equipment may be an ATDS if it has the capacity to store numbers to be called, or to produce numbers using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.

Majority Opinion

The majority opinion found that the ATDS definition is facially ambiguous. The TCPA defines an ATDS as “equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator” (and the capacity to dial those numbers automatically). The opinion engaged in a grammatical analysis of the statutory text to resolve the definition’s latent ambiguity, which interpretation it then confirmed with reference to relevant statutory and administrative history.

The Sixth Circuit concluded that a predictive dialer or system that dials from a stored list could qualify as an ATDS under the TCPA. The Court relied on the existence of exceptions to help establish the rule. For example, the Court confirmed that the “prior express consent” exception permits calls made using an autodialer if the recipient has given his or her prior express consent to receiving those calls. Thus, it reasoned, “[a]n exception for consented-to calls implies that the autodialer ban otherwise could be interpreted to prohibit consented-to calls. And consented-to calls by their nature are calls made to known persons, i.e., persons whose numbers are stored on a list and were not randomly generated.” Ergo, the Court held that the definition of an ATDS must broadly sweep in stored-number systems and predictive dialers, not just calls to unknown individuals via random or sequential number generation.

Delving into the TCPA’s legislative history, the Court highlighted Congress’s intent to crack down on pervasive and intrusive telemarketing practices. Rather than regulate certain types of technology used to place calls, the TCPA was meant to curb the calls themselves – particularly the near-daily, multiple calls that formed the Allan plaintiffs’ cause of action.

Consistent with every other Circuit to have addressed the issue, the Sixth Circuit reached this decision without administrative guidance, holding that prior guidance from the FCC, including those pre-2015, was invalidated by the D.C. Circuit in its 2018 decision ACA International v. FCC. While some District Courts have relied on those prior FCC orders, the Circuit Courts, with the exception of the Second Circuit, have held that the prior orders were set aside.

Importantly, the Court affirmatively declined to comment on the potential impact of human intervention on dialing because, it found, the defendant failed to present a legal basis for that argument in this case.

Dissent

The dissent disagreed with the majority’s conclusion and methodology, putting forth a third interpretation of the statutory language. Rather than modifying the verbs “store” and/or “produce,” the dissent maintained that the language “using a random of sequential number generator” should be read to modify the entire phrase “telephone numbers to be called.” In the instant case, because the telephone numbers dialed were not generated randomly or sequentially, the dissent would have held that the equipment at issue did not qualify as an ATDS.

The dissent gave four reasons why its interpretation was the “best” reading among the three possible interpretations. First, it does not require a judicial rewrite of the statute as does the definition of an ATDS that includes stored-number systems: even if unartfully drafted, it is grammatically correct. In contrast, the majority’s definition requires a grammatically incorrect reading of the statute. Second, it avoids the problem of superfluity associated with a definition of ATDS that excludes stored-number systems (thereby rendering the term “store” in the statute’s definition surplusage). Third, the dissent concludes that the interpretation is consistent with the FCC’s early orders interpreting the TCPA. The FCC’s early definitions of an ATDS define it “as a device that uses a random or sequential number generator.” And fourth, the dissent argues that Congress’s intent was in fact to curb the use of machines that dialed randomly or sequentially generated numbers, pointing out language from an early congressional hearing to that effect. (KDW note: This argument is similar to the argument made by then-Commissioner Ajit Pai in dissent to the 2015 FCC decision that was overturned in ACA International v. FCC.)

What Comes Next

The Sixth Circuit’s position only further deepens the divide between the Circuits with six, evenly split Circuits having offered their positions. In the short term, the Allan decision expands the definition of an ATDS for callers and litigants in the Sixth Circuit; thus, increasing the potential risks and exposure.

The Allan decision is not likely to have lasting effect, however, because the United States Supreme Court has accepted a case to address the ATDS definition. The Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in Allan closely tracks the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Duguid v. Facebook, 926 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2019). That decision has been accepted for review by the Supreme Court and will be argued in the fall. The resolution of the appeal should settle the question of what is an ATDS, providing (we hope) consumers and businesses alike with clear guidance on permissible autodialing systems.

Interestingly, the defendant in Allan had opposed a motion to stay the pending appeal until the Supreme Court reached a decision in Facebook. With this unhelpful ruling in hand, the defendant in Allen may file its own petition for certiorari, and/or seek further review by the Sixth Circuit en banc.

[1] These circuits stand opposite to the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits, which hold that an ATDS must use a random or sequential number generator. Although the Third Circuit has also weighed in Dominguez v. Yahoo, Inc., 894 F.3d 116 (3d Cir. 2018), the Allan court took the position that it did not expressly construe the definition. “The Third Circuit has not expressly addressed this question, but it did assume (without providing any analysis) that an ATDS must use a random or sequential number generator.” Allan at 5, n.3; but see Dominguez v. Yahoo, Inc., 629 F. App’x 369 (3d Cir. 2015) (considering “the definition of ‘random or sequential’ number generation” and confirming “the phrase refers to the numbers themselves rather than the manner in which they are dialed.”)

The TCPA prohibits telemarketing calls to be placed using an ATDS without the requisite level of prior consent. Thus, the definition of what technology qualifies as an ATDS is often a fundamental, threshold question upon which TCPA litigation turns. Prior to 2015, the FCC had offered various, sometimes vague, interpretations of the term. In 2015, the FCC offered an expansive definition, which was set aside in March 2018 in the ACA International decision. While the issue has been before the FCC on remand for over two years now, courts nevertheless engaged in their own analysis of the statute, resulting in a broadening Circuit split on how the law is interpreted and applied and divergent outcomes based on the court in which the case is filed. Now the Supreme Court is poised (potentially) to resolve that dispute.

DEFINITION OF AN ATDS

Since the March 2018 decision of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in ACA International set aside the FCC’s overbroad and expansive definition of an ATDS, two distinct interpretations of an ATDS have emerged. In Marks v. Crunch San Diego, the Ninth Circuit held that any equipment that dials telephone numbers from a stored list qualifies as an ATDS under the TCPA. That expansive approach threatens to encompass ordinary smartphones on the market within the TCPA’s ambit. This approach is also employed by the Second Circuit. In contrast, the Third, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits have opted for a narrower, more textually honest and logical interpretation, that requires a showing that equipment has the present capacity to generate numbers using randomly or sequentially and dial them. (Arguably, the D.C. Circuit’s decision also called for an interpretation closer to the Third, Seventh and Eleventh Circuit interpretations). District Courts in the remaining Circuits (as well as some where the Circuit Courts have spoken) have generally (but inconsistently) adhered to one of these two approaches. Some of our prior discussions of these issues can be found here and here.

FACEBOOK SEEKS AN END TO TCPA CONFUSION

In Facebook, Inc. v. Noah Duguid, et al, Case No. 19-511 (2020), plaintiff Noah Duguid alleges that defendant Facebook had contacted him via text messages without appropriate levels of consent using an ATDS, as that term is defined under the TCPA. Mr. Duguid is not a Facebook customer and alleges that he received repeated login notification text messages from Facebook. Plaintiff alleges that he never provided the company with his cellphone number, much less prior express written consent to be contacted by text. Plaintiff’s original complaint was filed in the Northern District of California in March 2015 and dismissed without prejudice for failure to properly allege that an ATDS was used to send the texts at issue. In his Amended Complaint, Duguid added factual allegations that Facebook used an ATDS by maintaining a database of numbers on its computer and transmitting text message alerts to selected numbers from its database using an automated protocol.

Facebook again moved to dismiss Duguid’s allegations arguing that the TCPA was unconstitutional and that Duguid failed to plead the use of an ATDS. On February 16, 2017, the District Court granted Facebook’s motion to dismiss, finding the ATDS allegations were insufficient. Because of that finding, the court never reached the constitutional question. The court reasoned that Duguid’s ATDS allegations “strongly suggested direct targeting rather than random or sequential dialing,” which did not indicate the use of an ATDS. Importantly, the District Court rendered its opinion before the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of the ATDS definition in Marks v. Crunch San Diego in September 2018.

On June 13, 2019, the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court’s dismissal. Applying the Marks standard, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that Duguid had sufficiently alleged that Facebook used an ATDS by alleging the equipment “had the capacity to store numbers to be called and to dial such numbers automatically.” The Ninth Circuit separately addressed Facebook’s constitutional challenge to the TCPA and agreed that, although the TCPA included content- and speaker-based restrictions on speech, the overall statute could be salvaged by severing what it saw as the most offensive aspect—the government debt exception.

ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT

Facebook appealed and in its petition to the Supreme Court presented both the constitutional challenge and definitional question for review.

On July 6, 2020, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the TCPA in William P. Barr et al. v. American Association of Political Consultants et al., Case No. 19-631 (2020), thus mooting the constitutional challenge in Facebook’s petition. Our analysis of that decision can be found here.

On July 9, 2020, three days after it released its decision in Barr, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on the following question: Whether the definition of ATDS in the TCPA encompasses any device that can “store” and “automatically dial” telephone numbers, even if the device does not “us[e] a random or sequential generator”?

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court’s resolution of this circuit split has the potential to forever change business communications by making it more or less difficult for businesses to reach their customers. As noted, a threshold question in TCPA litigation is whether equipment used to originate a call or text is an ATDS. The D.C. Circuit, in remanding the FCC’s 2015 expansive definition, noted that definition’s “eye-popping sweep.” Just how far the 29-year-old TCPA’s definition should reach into modern dialing technology has been a central question in litigation since the D.C. Circuit remand. How the Supreme Court addresses this could affect the methods businesses use to provide notifications and reminders to customers as well as how they obtain new customer and collect debts.

In addition to resolving the question of an ATDS, the Supreme Court’s acceptance of Facebook’s petition has other implications. In the short term, companies and practitioners are likely to see stays across the robust and active TCPA docket as lower courts await direction on this core (often threshold) legal question from the Supreme Court. While the decision in ACA International returned the ATDS definition to the FCC for consideration, the Supreme Court’s grant also makes it less likely that the FCC will take any additional affirmative steps on the definition of an ATDS until the Facebook case is decided.

The Supreme Court’s next term opens on October 5, 2020, and oral argument will be scheduled for a date sometime thereafter. A decision can be expected to be published sometime between the argument and when the terms recesses in late June/July 2021.

Background

When first enacted in 1991, the TCPA prohibited calls placed using an automatic dialer or prerecorded voice with certain, specific exceptions. In 2015, Congress amended the TCPA to permit calls that relate to the collection of debts guaranteed by the U.S. government. That amendment does not permit the use of the same technology for debts guaranteed by private lenders or calls related to other topics, which served as the basis for challenges that the exception rendered the statute unconstitutionally content-based in violation of the First Amendment. In 2019, the Fourth Circuit agreed, finding the exception failed strict scrutiny, was unconstitutional, and should be severed from the TCPA. The government disagreed with the Fourth Circuit’s decision and petitioned the Supreme Court to review the decision. Plaintiffs also filed a cross-petition.

Supreme Court Affirms

In the controlling opinion written by Justice Kavanaugh (joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito), relying on Reed v. Town of Gilbert and applying strict scrutiny, the Supreme Court held that the government debt exception to the TCPA was an unconstitutional content based speaker restriction. As a remedy, the majority opted to sever the government debt exception from the TCPA, which leaves the remainder of the TCPA fully operative.

Justice Kavanaugh reasoned that both severability principles and the Communication Act’s severance clause mandated severance in this case. Justice Kavanaugh also reasoned that the remainder of the TCPA survived the constitutional challenge because Congress has a continuing interest in protecting consumer privacy, noting that “[t]he continuing robocall restriction proscribes tens of millions of would-be robocalls that would otherwise occur every day.”

In a short concurrence, Justice Sotomayor argued that the exception should be subjected to intermediate scrutiny; however, she agreed that the exception also did not survive that analysis and therefore should be severed.

In a partial dissent, Justice Breyer (joined by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan) argued that the Supreme Court should have applied intermediate scrutiny because the restriction did not suppress a particular viewpoint or threaten the neutrality of a public forum. Justice Breyer reasoned that the exception survived intermediate scrutiny because the speech related harm of the exception was modest in proportion to the important government goal of protecting the public fisc. Justice Breyer also found that the exception was narrowly tailored because it only applied to the limited categories of calls related to the collection of government debt. For Justice Breyer, strict scrutiny should only apply when a restriction interferes with the marketplace of ideas or interferes with an individual’s right to communicate with the government. With respect to the proper remedy, however, Justice Breyer agreed that severability of the offending exception was appropriate.

In another partial dissent, Justice Gorsuch (joined, in relevant part, by Justice Thomas) attacked the Court’s severability doctrine, including because the application of the doctrine in this instance did not provide the plaintiffs with the relief that they had initially sought. Instead of a remedy which allows for the plaintiffs to speak more freely, severance banned additional speech. For Justice Gorsuch, that result undercuts the purpose of the First Amendment, which is intended to act as a buffer against government restriction of speech, not assist it. Thus, he felt severance was an insufficient response.

Ultimately, 7 Justices agreed that severance of the government debt exception was the proper remedy, while only two (Justices Gorsuch and Thomas) concluded that the entire TCPA should be struck down as an improper content-based restriction.

Impact

Unless a caller was relying upon the government debt exception to avoid liability under the TCPA, this decision does very little to change the status quo on TCPA enforcement and compliance. The opinion did not wade into the contentious definition of an automatic telephone dialing system under the TCPA (which has become the subject of a widening Circuit split). Accordingly, callers should remain vigilant whenever telemarketing and consistently audit their telemarketing procedures to avoid potential liability.

In the first ruling, P2P Alliance, the Bureau ruled that an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) is not determined by whether the equipment has the capability to send a large volume of calls or texts in a short period of time. Instead, the Bureau, while recognizing that the Commission’s interpretation of the ATDS definition remains pending, ruled that “whether the calling platform or equipment is an autodialer turns on whether such equipment is capable of dialing random or sequential telephone numbers without human intervention.” The Bureau also provides an illuminating discussion of the so-called “human intervention” element of prior FCC statements regarding autodialers.

In the second ruling, Anthem, Inc., the Bureau denied a petition to exempt certain healthcare-related calls from the TCPA’s consent requirements. In this order, the Bureau breaks less new ground and instead reiterates that prior express consent must be obtained before a call (or text) is made and that the supposed value or “urgency” of the communication does not necessarily make it permissible.

Besides these two petitions, the Commission has nearly three dozen petitions pending before it on a variety of matters relating to exemptions from the TCPA’s consent requirements, the collection and revocation of consent, the “junk fax” provisions, and other questions raised by the flood of TCPA class action litigation in the last five years. If the FCC begins addressing these other pending petitions, the course of TCPA class action litigation could change significantly.

In March 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a landmark rebuke of the FCC’s interpretation of the TCPA. The case, ACA International v. FCC, reviewed a 2015 Omnibus Declaratory Ruling on a variety of matters, the most notable of which was the FCC’s expansive interpretation of an “automatic telephone dialing system” (“ATDS”), the use of which triggers therobo TCPA’s prior express consent requirements and private right of action provisions. In ACA International, the court found the FCC’s interpretation “impermissibly broad” and remanded the case to the FCC for further consideration.

Since that time, the FCC has taken comment twice on the ACA International remand, but FCC Chairman Pai has focused the agency’s efforts on identifying and reducing illegal robocalls rather than addressing the remand. Chairman Pai has repeatedly said that unwanted automated calls is a top consumer complaint and he has pursued a multi-faceted approach to preventing or blocking those calls before they reach consumers.

The Commission has

• authorized voice service providers to block incoming calls that “reasonable call analytics” identify as likely illegal calls,
• mandated that service providers implement a call authentication framework to prevent unlawfully spoofed calls,
• directed specific service providers to block certain calls or have their own calls blocked by other providers,
• proposed multiple fines exceeding $100 million each for illegally spoofed calls, and
• authorized a comprehensive database to identify when telephone numbers have been reassigned from a subscriber who may have given consent to a new subscriber.

The Anthem and P2P Alliance Rulings

Against this backdrop, the flood of TCPA class action cases has powered a rising tide of petitions for declaratory rulings addressing specific aspects of the TCPA’s requirements, from when consent is needed, how it may be obtained, and how it may be revoked. At Kelley Drye, we have chronicled these developments in our monthly TCPA Tracker and its accompanying FCC Petitions Tracker of the nearly three dozen pending petitions. The total number of petitions has risen slightly over time, as new petitions have modestly outnumbered decisions issued by the Commission.

P2P Alliance Petition (Two-Way Texting With Manual Intervention). In May 2018, the P2P Alliance, a group that represents providers and users of “peer to peer” text messaging services, sought a declaratory ruling that peer to peer messaging services did not involve an ATDS and thus were not subject to the restrictions on ATDS calls/texts contained in the TCPA. The petition sought a ruling with respect to text messaging services that enable two-way text communication, requiring a person to manually send each message. Although the Bureau declined to rule with respect to any specific platform – citing a lack of sufficient evidence regarding the how the platforms operate – the Bureau issued a ruling with several important clarifications.

First, the Bureau ruled that the ability of a platform or equipment to send “large volumes of messages” is not probative of whether that platform or equipment constitutes an ATDS under the TCPA. The Bureau declared that “whether the calling platform or equipment is an autodialer turns on whether such equipment is capable of dialing random or sequential telephone numbers without human intervention.”

This conclusion effectively puts to rest ambiguous statements in some prior orders that TCPA plaintiffs had argued brought any high-volume calling platform within the scope of the TCPA. Furthermore, the Bureau’s conclusion appears most consistent with decisions by several U.S. Courts of Appeal that have ruled an autodialer must employ a random or sequential number generator to meet the TCPA’s definition of an ATDS. The Bureau noted, however, that the “details” of the interpretation of an ATDS were before the Commission in ACA International so, until the Commission addressed that issue, the Bureau was relying solely on “the statutory definition of autodialer.”

The Bureau’s ruling contains an illuminating discussion of the so-called “human intervention” element of prior FCC statements regarding autodialers. Per the Bureau’s ruling, “If a calling platform is not capable of dialing such numbers without a person actively and affirmatively manually dialing each one, that platform is not an autodialer.” The Bureau explained the “actively and affirmatively” dialing standard as requiring a person to manually dial each number and send each message one at a time. Use of such technologies is not an “evasion” of the TCPA, the Bureau commented, because the TCPA “does not and was not intended to stop every type of call.”

Thus, while the full contours of the ATDS definition are still to be defined by the Commission, the Bureau’s P2P Alliance ruling helps to clarify that an “active and affirmative” manual process for sending calls or messages removes a platform or piece of equipment from the ambit of the TCPA. This ruling could buttress many district court rulings that have found sufficient human intervention in the operation of many calling or texting platforms.

Anthem Petition (Prior Express Consent for Healthcare-Related Calls). The Anthem petition addressed by the Bureau was filed in June 2015, one month before the FCC released the Omnibus Declaratory Ruling addressed in ACA International. (Anthem has a more recent petition addressing post-Omnibus order issues that remains pending.) In the June 2015 petition, Anthem asked the Commission to create an exemption for informational healthcare-related calls/texts initiated by healthcare providers and sent to existing patients, arguing that such communications were beneficial to patients and could be protected by an opt-out process it believed the Commission was then considering for ATDS calls. The Commission received limited comment in September 2015 (while the ACA International appeal was being litigated) and has received virtually no filings discussing the petition since that time.

In the ruling, the Bureau denied virtually all of Anthem’s requests, emphasizing instead the TCPA’s requirements for prior express consent for ATDS calls. Specifically, the Bureau ruled that “makers of robocalls generally must obtain a consumer’s prior express consent before making calls to the consumer’s wireless telephone number.” (emphasis in original). It rejected Anthem’s request for an exemption permitting such calls, subject to opt-out, and repeated that the “mere existence of a caller-consumer relationship” does not constitute consent. Importantly, however, the Bureau affirmed prior statements that a consumer who has knowingly released their phone number for a particular purpose has given consent to receive calls at that number.

To the extent that the Anthem petition sought an exemption based on the “urgency” of healthcare-related communications, the Bureau declined to create such an exception, emphasizing, however, that the “emergency purposes” exception could apply to the extent the calls/texts satisfied the Commission’s rules and its recent COVID-19 Declaratory Ruling.

In the end, the ruling likely will not change the status quo for calls and texts being made today. The Bureau emphasized previous rulings requiring prior express consent and endorsed previous statements about how such consent may be obtained. Further, the Bureau affirmed the “emergency purposes” exception, although declining to expand its scope. Thus, entities making calls or texts following prior FCC guidance should not need to make any changes as a result of the Anthem ruling.

Looking Ahead

These decisions are not the broad rulings that many hoped for when ACA International was remanded to the FCC in March 2018. Chairman Pai was highly critical of the 2015 Omnibus order from the FCC (from which he dissented) and welcomed the ACA International decision. He has focused the agency on reducing unwanted calls prior to addressing the legal interpretations called for by the remand. Now, however, with those actions at an advanced stage and with his expected time as Chairman of the FCC about to end, many are wondering if the Pai Commission will revisit the ATDS definition, revocation of consent, and safe harbor questions remanded to it. Even if it does not, however, the Commission has nearly three dozen other petitions still pending, which could provide needed guidance on discrete issues that have arisen in TCPA litigation.

We don’t know at this time which way the FCC is likely to go, or even if it will address more TCPA issues during Chairman Pai’s tenure, but enterprises and service providers should watch the FCC closely over the next few months.

TCPA litigation has largely focused on the autodialer restriction over the past decade. In 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) adopted an expansive interpretation of the restriction, which the U.S. Court of Appeals vacated and remanded in 2018. While the industry has waited for the FCC to offer further guidance, entities making calls and sending texts have navigated an environment plagued by uncertainty. Several courts of appeals have adopted conflicting interpretations of the autodialer provision. Meanwhile, the FCC could offer its interpretation at any time, throwing the issue into further litigation in all probability. In this environment, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the constitutionality of one TCPA exemption in the Barr case. Many are hoping for a decision that goes beyond the 2015 amendment and offers definitive guidance on the autodialer provision’s scope. This post discusses what to expect – and what to watch for – in the Supreme Court’s oral argument this week.

Background

In Am. Ass'n of Political Consultants v. Sessions, 323 F. Supp. 3d 737 (E.D.N.C. 2018), a group of political and polling organizations who wished to use autodialer technology to contact potential voters, sued the Government challenging the constitutionality of the TCPA’s autodialer ban. The group argued that the autodialer ban is a content-based restriction on speech, which does not survive strict scrutiny under First Amendment jurisprudence. According to the plaintiffs, the autodialer restriction fails strict scrutiny’s narrow tailoring requirement because it allows the FCC to promulgate various exemptions based on the content of the call and the 2015 amendment exempts calls related to the collection of government debt. Therefore, the law is not narrowly tailored to advance the privacy interests of the TCPA. Additionally, Plaintiffs asserted that less restrictive means could advance the TCPA’s interests.

The district court disagreed with the Plaintiffs and found that the government debt collection exemption survived strict scrutiny because it is a narrow exception, which furthers the compelling interest of government debt collection. Additionally, the court declined to consider the constitutionality of the FCC’s exemptions because it reasoned that it was not the correct court to hear such challenges. Regarding Congressional delegation of authority to the FCC to create exemptions, the court reasoned that the delegation “does not substantively except any communications” and therefore “is not facially or inherently content-based.” Lastly, the court concluded that the supposed less restrictive means would not be as effective in achieving the purposes of the TCPA.

Plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Fourth Circuit. In Am. Ass'n of Political Consultants, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 923 F.3d 159 (4th Cir. 2019), the Fourth Circuit held that the government debt exemption failed strict scrutiny due to under-inclusiveness. The Fourth Circuit concluded that the exemption is underinclusive because: (1) the exemption “subverts the privacy protections underlying the ban” by authorizing many intrusive calls, and (2) debt collection calls are “among the most intrusive, disruptive, and complained of phone calls.” However, instead of invalidating the entire TCPA, the court relied on a severance clause in the Communications Act of 1934 (which contains the TCPA) and severed the government debt collection exemption. The court reasoned that severance was appropriate because Congress explicitly intended the severance of constitutionally infirm portions of the Communications Act and the autodialer restriction had worked effectively for twenty-four years before Congress amended it to exempt government debt collection calls.

Consequently, on November 14, 2019, the Solicitor General petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Fourth Circuit’s decision to settle the question of the TCPA’s constitutionality and to provide clarity on the severance of unconstitutional portions of the statute. On January 10, 2020, the Supreme Court accepted the petition for review.

Previewing the Supreme Court Review

The Supreme Court accepted two questions regarding the TCPA:

1. Is the 2015 government debt collection exemption constitutional, and
2. Is the appropriate remedy to sever the provision from the TCPA?

On the first question, the Government argued that the government debt collection exemption is not content-based but relationship-based as it is dependent on the relationship between debtors (called parties) and their creditor (the Government). Therefore, it argued, the government debt collection exemption is actually subject to intermediate scrutiny, which it passes since it is a narrow exception, which applies to a few calls only and furthers the significant interest of protecting the public fisc. This comports with the autodialer restriction, which is a content-neutral time, place, and manner restriction. The American Association of Political Consultants (Respondents in the Supreme Court) asserted that the Fourth Circuit correctly found that the autodialer restriction as currently written is a content-based restriction, which fails strict scrutiny and renders the TCPA unconstitutional.

Remedy

As to the second question, Respondents argued that First Amendment jurisprudence mandates that courts should issue decisions that protect speech and not abridge it. Thus, Respondents argued, finding the TCPA to contain a content-based restriction on speech, the proper remedy should have been to strike down the restriction on speech, not to sever the “speech-promoting exception.” Respondents also argued that the autodialer restriction must be invalidated because the TCPA, even after the Fourth Circuit’s remedy, continues to be an unconstitutional restriction on speech. .

Amicus Curiae Positions

In addition to the arguments presented by the litigants, interested parties filed 17 amicus curiae briefs. On the one hand, supporting the government and the constitutionality of the exemption were many states, members of Congress, student loan servicing centers and several consumer interest groups. In the amicus brief submitted by the states, the states argued, among other things, that the robocall ban should be upheld because it prohibits highly intrusive robocalls regardless of content and therefore passes First Amendment scrutiny. In the amicus brief submitted by the members of Congress, they argued that the TCPA is a critical law that stops intrusions on Americans’ privacy, deters scams, and protects the integrity of the telephone as a means of communication. Consumer groups similarly argued that the TCPA protects government interests “of the highest order” (according to Public Citizen) and argued that invalidation would harm consumer privacy. The consumer interests generally argued that, even if the government debt collection provision fails to satisfy scrutiny, the remainder of the TCPA should survive.

Notably, while not supporting either party, consumer groups the National Consumer Law Center and Consumer Federation of America, joined by telecommunications carrier Verizon, argued that the government’s interest is compelling and argued in support of the TCPA’s restrictions on calling, particularly restrictions on unconsented calls to cellular phones.

On the other hand, supporting the position that the provision is unconstitutional were the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, debt collection companies, several business groups and several free speech groups. In its amicus brief, the Chamber of Commerce argued that the TCPA should be invalidated because the autodialer restriction has become a tremendous source of meritless litigation that FCC guidance has not addressed. Similarly, trade groups such as the Retail Energy Supply Association argued that the government debt collection exemption is not severable because Congress would not have adopted such broad restrictions on automated calls without the exemptions adopted in the statute. Debt collectors such as Portfolio Recovery Associates sounded a similar point, arguing that the TCPA’s “open ended delegation of authority” to the FCC to create exemptions renders the statutory scheme unconstitutional. The Retail Litigation Center, while ostensibly not taking a position on either issue, offered an extensive critique of the TCPA’s “real world effects” on communications with customers and urged the Court to “address this dysfunction” in its disposition of the case.

What to Watch For in Oral Argument

With this lineup of arguments, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a highly unusual setting. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court scheduled its first-ever arguments to be held via teleconference for this week, giving court-watchers an unprecedented opportunity to hear arguments live, rather than via audio files released after the argument. Due to the teleconferencing format, the Justices will ask questions in order of seniority, rather than the customary rapid-fire open questioning format. In earlier arguments this week, the approach permitted a more straightforward examination of the issues, with fewer interruptions in the litigant’s arguments.

The resolution of Barr could affect many stakeholders. A key question to watch will be the extent to which the Court entertains questions relating to severability of the government debt collection exemption and the broader TCPA critiques offered by various amicus parties. While the Supreme Court has ruled in several TCPA cases recently, thus far, it has addressed the issues narrowly or on grounds not exclusive to the TCPA. We will be watching to see if the Court may deviate from this approach in Barr and bring some clarity to the more contentious provisions of the TCPA.

Click here to register.

The Warning Letters

The agencies identified the three VoIP gateway providers as the sources of the illegal calls through the efforts of the USTelecom Industry Traceback Group, a consortium of phone companies that help officials identify potentially unlawful calls. The phone companies used a process known as “traceback,” in which they share information to trace unlawful spoofed robocalls to their origination.

In the letters, the agencies reminded the companies that the COVID-19 scam robocalls are in fact illegal and directed them to cease transmitting the traffic immediately, as the calls have “the potential to inflict severe harm on consumers.” The letters warned the companies that if they did not stop transmitting the identified traffic within 48 hours, the FCC would authorize other U.S. voice providers to block all calls from the companies and take any other steps necessary to prevent transmission of the calls. The agencies also sent a separate letter to USTelecom advising the trade association that, if the VoIP providers do not block the traffic, the FCC will authorize other U.S. service providers to block all calls coming from that gateway and will take other actions as necessary to authorize U.S. service providers to block traffic from the originating entities. In addition, the FCC encouraged other service providers to take immediate action to block unlawful calls pursuant to existing legal authority.

This action is a significant – and significantly aggressive – new approach by the agencies. While both agencies have taken actions to prevent and deter unlawful robocalls, the threat to block traffic from the originating carrier is a new tactic in the fight against unlawful calls. Notably, it is not clear under what authority the FCC can or would order the blocking of all traffic from the subject VoIP gateway providers if they failed to block the allegedly unlawful robocalls. The letter does not cite any provision of the Communications Act that would authorize such blocking. Moreover, existing FCC orders relating to call blocking have authorized only limited call blocking practices that were optional for the carriers. Were the FCC to order such blocking (and to make it mandatory), it appears that such action would be the first of its kind by the agency.

Briefly, we will review the agencies’ recent history with anti-robocall activities.

The Educare Services Enforcement Action and Prior FTC Warning Letters

In the three letters to the VoIP gateway providers, the FCC and FTC reference the FTC’s recent enforcement action against VoIP provider Globex Telecom. This action relied upon provisions of the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule ("TSR"), which addresses calls made for a telemarketing purpose. In December 2019, the FTC obtained a preliminary injunction against Educare Services and Globex Telecom Inc. for robocalling consumers to promote allegedly fraudulent credit card interest rate reduction services. The FTC complaint alleges that Globex played a key role in “assisting and facilitating” the illegal credit card interest rate reduction services Educare promoted by providing Educare with the means to call consumers via interconnected VoIP communication services and facilities. For a VoIP company to be liable under a TSR “assisting and facilitating” theory, the FTC must prove that the company “knew or consciously avoided knowing” the robocall campaigns violated the TSR.

A week before the joint letters, the FTC sent letters to nine VoIP service providers and other companies warning them that “assisting and facilitating” in the transmission of illegal COVID-19-related telemarketing or robocalls is unlawful. The agency also sent letters to nineteen VoIP service providers in January with a similar warning about all illegal robocalls.

FCC TRACED Act Implementation and the STIR/SHAKEN Mandate

Like the FTC, the FCC recently shifted its focus in robocall enforcement towards the originating carriers. On February 4, 2020, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau sent letters to seven VoIP gateway service providers, notifying them that unlawful robocalls had been traced to their networks and asking for their assistance in tracking down the originators of the calls. Although no enforcement action was threatened at the time, the FCC also asked each provider to detail their anti-robocall efforts to the Commission.

More recently, the FCC took several steps in implementing the TRACED Act, which requires the FCC to initiate several near-term rulemakings and other actions aimed at addressing unlawful spoofing and robocalling operations. On March 27, the agency adopted a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking establishing rules for the registration of a single consortium to conduct private-led “traceback” efforts, which is expected to formalize the relationship with the USTelecom Industry Traceback Group. Additionally, on March 31, the FCC adopted a separate Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking mandating that originating and terminating voice service providers implement the STIR/SHAKEN framework in the IP portions of their networks by June 30, 2021. STIR/SHAKEN—the technology framework behind the “traceback” process—allows providers to verify that the caller ID information transmitted with a particular call matches the caller’s number as the calls are passed from carrier to carrier. FCC Chairman Pai previously urged major providers to adopt STIR/SHAKEN technology voluntarily and warned that the voluntary approach would become a mandate if the providers did not move fast enough. Still to come are comments on a “know your customer” obligation for service providers and rules to deny access to numbering resources to originators of unlawful calls.

As we have previously noted, the TRACED Act also requires the implementation of an alternative call authentication framework in non-IP networks, extends the FCC’s statute of limitations for bringing some illegal robocall enforcement actions, and eliminates the requirement to give warnings before issuing certain filings.

Takeaways

These letters, coupled with the recent activity by the FTC and FCC to combat illegal robocalls, signal the agencies’ desire to cause a meaningful reduction in unlawful calling, and in particular, demonstrate a desire to prevent scammers from taking advantage of the COVID-19 crisis to carry out their deceptions. Both agencies can seek civil penalties and take other actions necessary to prevent the proliferation of these calls.

Importantly, the targets of agency action are not necessarily limited to the entities that place the unlawful calls. These federal actions are a good reminder for VoIP and other service providers to assess whether their customers’ practices may indicate unlawful use of VoIP or other services. With the warning letters, and now these blocking letters, the FCC and FTC increasingly are showing an openness to pursuing penalties under vicarious liability theories. If there are facts that support knowledge of the unlawful activity or “red flag” type practices (such as a customer being the target of multiple third party government subpoenas, among other facts), that’s a good indication that further steps by the VoIP provider may be warranted to mitigate the risk of facing an enforcement action by the FTC or FCC. If you have questions about how these enforcement trends and related risk factors are relevant to your business, please contact your Kelley Drye counsel.