Report to Congressional Committees

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

January 2005 TELEMARKETING

Implementation of the

National Do-Not-Call 

Registry 

GAO-05-113 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-05-113.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Paul L. Jones 

at (202) 512-8777 or jonespl@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-113, a report to 

congressional committees 

January 2005

TELEMARKETING

Implementation of the National Do-NotCall Registry 

FTC and FCC have done several things to implement the national registry, 

including issuing regulations and coordinating with each other on the 

development of regulations and enforcement efforts. FTC has contracted out 

management of the operational aspects of the registry. 

Fees for the national registry were less than costs incurred in fiscal year 

2003 but covered costs in fiscal year 2004, the first full year of operation. 

Fees collected by FTC in fiscal year 2003 fell short of actual costs incurred 

by about $9.4 million. However, fees collected in fiscal year 2004 covered 

FTC’s $14 million in costs incurred. FTC uses appropriated funds to cover 

costs associated with the national registry and, as required, reduces its 

appropriations by the amount of fees collected. FCC uses appropriated funds

to cover its costs associated with the national registry. 

FTC established three objectives to measure whether the national registry 

was successful—(1) having the system operational in calendar year 2003, 

(2) having the system capable of enrolling about 60 million telephone 

numbers within the first 12 months of operation, and (3) reducing by 80 

percent unwanted calls to consumers who sign up for the registry. The 

national registry was operational in calendar year 2003, and 62 million 

telephone numbers had been registered by consumers as of June 2004, 

within 12 months after registration opened. FTC cannot measure how much 

unwanted calls have been reduced because it does not know how many calls 

were being received before the establishment of the registry. However, as an 

alternative, FTC relied upon two surveys. The results of one survey showed 

that respondents had an 80 percent reduction in unwanted telemarketing 

calls since registering on the national registry. However, this result is 

questionable because, among other problems, the survey relied on 

respondents’ recall of the number of telemarketing calls received at least 

three months prior. The two surveys found that about 90 percent and 87 

percent of registered consumers surveyed reported receiving fewer calls. 

The surveys may provide indications of the national registry’s overall 

performance; however, GAO is uncertain how representative the results are 

because, for example, one survey did not use a probability sample that can 

be projected nationwide. FTC and FCC provided informal technical 

comments to our report, which we incorporated where appropriate. 

According to FTC, there is no evidence that the national registry is not 

working. 

FTC Fees Collected and Costs Incurred for the National Registry 

In response to consumer 

frustration and dissatisfaction with 

unwanted telemarketing calls, 

Congress has passed several 

statutes directing the Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) and Federal 

Communications Commission 

(FCC) to regulate intrusive and 

deceptive telemarketing practices, 

authorizing both agencies to 

establish the National Do-Not-Call 

Registry (the national registry), and 

authorizing FTC to collect fees to 

fund this national registry. The 

objective of the national registry is 

to limit the numbers of unwanted 

telemarketing calls that registered 

consumers receive. The 

Conference Report for the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2004, mandated that GAO evaluate 

the implementation of the national 

registry. Specifically, this report 

addresses (1) how FTC and FCC 

have implemented and operated 

the national registry, (2) fees 

collected to cover costs to operate 

the national registry, and (3) how 

FTC has measured the success of 

the national registry. 
Page i GAO-05-113 National Do Not Call Registry 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2 

Background 5 

Implementation and Operation of the National Registry 8 

Fees Collected for the National Registry Did Not Cover Costs in 

Fiscal Year 2003 But Did in Fiscal Year 2004 17 

FTC Reported Three Objectives to Measure Whether the National 

Registry Was Successful 22 

Agency Comments 24 

Appendix I FTC Lawsuits and FCC Enforcement Actions Related 

to the National Do-Not-Call Registry 26 

Appendix II Information on the Two Surveys About the National 

Do-Not-Call Registry 30 

Appendix III Comments from the Federal Trade Commission 33 

Appendix IV GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 35 

GAO Contacts 35 

Staff Acknowledgments 35 

Tables 

Table 1: FTC and FCC Identified Inconsistencies Related to the 

National Registry Enforcement 12 

Table 2: FTC’s Estimation of National Registry Fee to Raise about 

$18 million to Cover Estimated Costs to Implement, 

Operate, and Enforce the National Registry in Fiscal Year 

2003 19 

Table 3: FTC’s Estimation of National Registry Fee to Raise About 

$18 Million to Cover Estimated Costs to Implement, 

Operate, and Enforce the National Registry in Fiscal Year 

2004 21 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-05-113 National Do Not Call Registry 

Table 4: FTC’s Costs Related to the National Registry for Fiscal 

Years 2003 and 2004 22 

Table 5: FCC Enforcement Actions under the National Registry as 

of December 31, 2004 28 

Figures 

Figure 1: Timeline of FTC and FCC Actions to Implement the 

National Registry 10 

Figure 2: Number of Telemarketers Who Accessed the National 

Registry, as of June 1, 2004. 20 

Abbreviations

FCC Federal Communications Commission 

FTC Federal Trade Commission 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-05-113 National Do-No-Call Registry 

January 28, 2005 

The Honorable Thad Cochran 

Chairman 

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Jerry Lewis 

Chairman 

The Honorable David R. Obey 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) have promulgated regulations governing the $720 

billion telemarketing industry pursuant to a number of statutory mandates 

to regulate telephone solicitations. In response to consumer frustration 

and dissatisfaction with unwanted telemarketing calls, Congress has 

passed several statutes directing the FTC and FCC to regulate intrusive 

and deceptive telemarketing practices, authorizing both agencies to 

establish the National Do-Not-Call Registry (the national registry), and 

authorizing the FTC to collect fees to fund the national registry. In 

general, the national registry is a listing of telephone numbers received 

from consumers, who registered with the FTC to prevent unwanted 

telemarketing calls. Telemarketers are required to access the national 

registry to remove registered consumers from their telephone call lists and 

violators may be subject to enforcement actions. The objective of this 

national registry is to limit the number of unwanted telemarketing calls 

that registered consumers receive. 

The Conference Report for the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 

directed that we evaluate FTC’s and FCC’s implementation of the national 

registry and determine whether FTC has achieved its goal of reducing by 

80 percent the number of telemarketing calls received by registered 

consumers.1

 Accordingly, taking into consideration our consultation with 

 1

H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-401, at 637 (2003). 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-05-113 National Do-No-Call Registry 

your staff, this report addresses (1) how FTC and FCC have implemented 

and operated the national registry, (2) fees collected to cover the costs to 

operate the registry, and (3) how FTC has measured the success of the 

national registry, including its assessment of whether telemarketing calls 

received by registered consumers have been reduced by 80 percent. 

To respond to the first objective, we reviewed laws, regulations, and rules 

related to the national registry and FTC and FCC documents describing 

the roles and responsibilities of each commission with respect to the 

implementation, operation, and enforcement of the national registry. We 

obtained and reviewed FTC’s contract with AT&T Government Solutions, 

which is managing the operational aspects of the national registry 

database that contains telephone numbers of consumers who have 

registered and information about alleged violations of the national 

registry’s provisions reported by registered consumers (e.g., consumer 

complaint data). For the second objective, we reviewed FTC’s Federal 

Register notices of proposed rulemaking and final rules to establish the 

national registry fees and obtained information from FTC about its 

estimation of the national registry fees to be paid by telemarketers, actual 

fees collected, and actual costs incurred to implement, operate, and 

enforce the national registry. To assess the reliability of FTC’s cost and fee 

collection data, we talked with agency staff about data quality control 

procedures and reviewed relevant documentation. We determined the data 

were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 

For the third objective, we obtained information on FTC’s objectives for 

assessing the national registry’s success. FTC included in its assessment of 

the national registry’s success surveys conducted by two private 

companies addressing the effectiveness of the national registry. We 

reviewed these surveys to determine whether they could be used to 

measure the success of the national registry. We also met with FTC and 

FCC staff to discuss all three objectives. We conducted our review from 

April through December 2004 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. 

FTC and FCC initially responded to their statutory mandates by regulating 

certain telemarketing practices, ranging from limiting the hours when 

unsolicited calls may be made to prohibiting calls altogether under certain 

circumstances (i.e., when a consumer had asked the entity not to call), but 

both commissions ultimately decided to implement the national registry to 

address continued consumer frustration regarding unwanted 

telemarketing calls. As directed by statute, FTC and FCC consulted and 

Results in Brief 
Page 3 GAO-05-113 National Do-No-Call Registry 

coordinated with each other to maximize the consistency of their 

regulations and enforcement of the national registry. FTC entered into a 

contract with AT&T Government Solutions to manage the operational 

aspects of the national registry and a consumer complaint database. 

The national registry started accepting consumer telephone number 

registrations in late June 2003, and telemarketers began accessing the 

national registry to obtain registered consumer telephone numbers in 

September 2003. FTC and FCC began enforcing the provisions of the 

national registry in October 2003—the beginning of fiscal year 2004. 

Consumers can register their telephone numbers and file complaints by 

telephone (1-888-382-1222) or on FTC’s Web site (www.donotcall.gov), the 

latter being the most popular method. Registered consumers can file 

complaints when they believe a telemarketer has called them in violation 

of the national registry provisions. FTC’s Web site provides guidance to 

consumers about how to register their telephone numbers and file 

complaints. Another Web site (www.telemarketing.donotcall.gov) 

provides guidance to organizations2

 (hereafter referred to as 

telemarketers) about how to access the national registry database to 

obtain the telephone numbers of persons who do not wish to receive 

telemarketing calls. Telemarketers pay an annual fee3

 to subscribe to the 

registry and are to renew their subscription every 12 months after their 

initial subscription date. FTC and FCC do not take action on every 

complaint alleging a violation of the national registry provision; rather they 

consider a number of factors, such as the number of complaints filed 

against a telemarketer and the potential that a telemarketer will make 

 2

Organizations that may use the Web site include telemarketers, sellers, service providers, 

and exempt organizations. Telemarketers include persons, who in connection with 

telemarketing, initiate or receive telephone calls to or from a customer. Sellers include 

organizations that, in connection with a telemarketing transaction, provide, offer to 

provide, or arrange for others to provide goods or services to a consumer. A seller may also 

be a telemarketer, if it is calling on its own behalf. Or a seller may retain one or more 

telemarketer(s). Service providers are persons who provide assistance to sellers or 

telemarketers to engage in telemarketing. Exempt organizations are organizations that are 

exempt from both FTC’s and FCC’s requirements to access the national registry, such as 

charities and political fundraisers, but that voluntarily choose to access the information 

solely for the purpose of preventing telephone calls to telephone numbers in the national 

registry. 

3

FTC defines an “annual period” consisting of 12 months following the first day of the 

month in which the telemarketer paid the fee. For example, a telemarketer that pays its 

annual fee on September 15, 2003, has an annual period that runs from September 1, 2003, 

through August 31, 2004. 
Page 4 GAO-05-113 National Do-No-Call Registry 

future unlawful calls, to determine whether to take action against a 

telemarketer for violations of the national registry provisions. FTC’s 

enforcement actions usually are accomplished by seeking injunctive relief 

and sometimes consumer redress in federal court;4

 actions for civil 

penalties are generally filed by the Department of Justice on behalf of FTC 

and are less common. FCC’s enforcement efforts are generally 

accomplished through an administrative process. Both commissions can 

obtain civil penalties up to $11,000 per violation. 

Fees collected by FTC did not cover all costs to implement, operate, and 

enforce the national registry in fiscal year 2003. FTC collected about 

$5.2 million in fiscal year 2003 and incurred costs of about $14.6 million—a 

shortfall of about $9.4 million. FTC set fees in fiscal year 2003 based on its 

estimate of the number of telemarketers that would pay to access the 

national registry, and the average number of area codes that a 

telemarketer would pay to access. According to FTC, it collected fewer 

fees than costs incurred for two reasons. First, FTC did not begin 

collecting fees until September 2003 because its appropriations funding, 

which provided the total estimated fees that could be collected, was 

enacted later than anticipated, delaying implementation of the fee 

collection process. Second, FTC overestimated the number of 

telemarketers that would pay to access the registry and the average 

number of area codes that would be accessed. FTC revised its fee, 

effective September 1, 2004, based on the number of telemarketers that 

had paid to access the national registry and the average number of area 

codes accessed. FTC collected about $14 million in fiscal year 2004 that 

covered costs incurred of about $14 million. FTC uses appropriated funds 

to cover costs to implement, operate, and enforce the national registry and 

is required to reduce its appropriations by the amount of fees collected. 

FCC uses appropriated funds to cover costs associated with its 

enforcement of the national registry. 

According to FTC staff, the commission has measured the success of the 

national registry on the basis of three objectives—(1) having the national 

registry operational during calendar year 2003 (consumers could register 

their telephone numbers, telemarketers could access the national registry 

to obtain telephone numbers, and FTC and FCC could obtain information 

 4

Injunctive relief is to prevent or stop violations of law under both the Telemarketing Sales 

Rule and section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC act), 15 U.S.C. § 45 (2000) 

and consumer redress is to compensate for any harm to the consumer. 
Page 5 GAO-05-113 National Do-No-Call Registry 

from the national registry for enforcement purposes); (2) having a system 

that could enroll about 60 million telephone numbers in the national 

registry within the first 12 months of when consumers began to register; 

and (3) reducing unwanted calls to consumers who sign up for the 

national registry, approximating Missouri’s experience (some states had 

previously established their own do not call registries) of reducing by 

about 80 percent the telemarketing calls to registered consumers.5

 With 

respect to its objectives, FTC (1) had the national registry operational in 

October 2003 and (2) achieved its objective when it reached about 62 

million telephone numbers registered in its system within the first 12 

months of consumer registration. With respect to reducing unwanted calls, 

FTC cannot measure how much unwanted calls have been reduced 

because it does not know how many calls were being received before the 

establishment of the registry. However, as an alternative, FTC has cited 

two private survey polls as evidence that the national registry has resulted 

in a reduction of unwanted telemarketing calls. The results of one survey 

showed that respondents had an 80 percent reduction in unwanted 

telephone calls since registering on the national registry. This result is 

questionable because the survey relied on respondent recall of the number 

of calls received at least 3 months prior. In addition, one poll found that 

over 90 percent of registered consumers surveyed reported receiving 

fewer telemarketing calls, and the other poll found that 87 percent of those 

who had signed up for the national registry had reported receiving fewer 

telemarketing calls. The two surveys may provide indications of the 

national registry’s overall performance; however, we are uncertain about 

how representative the results of each actually are of the opinions and 

experiences of adults nationwide because, for example, one survey did not 

use a probability sample that can be projected nationwide, and the other 

survey had a low response rate, among other things. Notwithstanding 

these concerns about the surveys’ methodologies, the FTC told us that 

they found no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that contradicts the 

results of the surveys. 

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (FCC’s basic statutory 

mandate with respect to telemarketers) required FCC to issue regulations 

to protect consumers’ privacy by preventing unwanted telemarketing calls 

and authorized, but did not require, FCC to fulfill this requirement by 

 5

In the supplementary information to a final rule issued January 29, 2003, FTC noted that 

Missouri reported a 70 to 80 percent reduction in the number of telephone calls people had 

received after the implementation of the state registry, based on anecdotal information. 

Background 
Page 6 GAO-05-113 National Do-No-Call Registry 

creating a national do-not-call database.6 The Telemarketing and 

Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act of 1994 (FTC’s specific 

statutory mandate regarding telemarketing) required FTC to issue rules 

prohibiting deceptive telemarketing acts or practices and other abusive 

telemarketing acts or practices 7

 but did not specifically mention a national 

registry.8

 Both commissions have promulgated regulations imposing 

requirements on telemarketing practices, ranging from restrictions on the 

hours when unsolicited calls may be made to provisions prohibiting calls 

under certain circumstances. FTC’s regulations are known as the 

Telemarketing Sales Rule,9

 and FCC’s as the Rules and Regulations 

Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.10

The two commissions have different but overlapping jurisdiction over the 

activities of entities that make telemarketing calls: thus, telemarketers 

may have to comply with one or both sets of regulations. FCC’s authority 

covers entities that use the telephone to advertise, including those making 

intrastate telephone solicitations, while FTC’s authority under its 

telemarketing law is limited to entities engaged in interstate telemarketing. 

In addition, by statute, certain entities are wholly or partially exempt from 

FTC jurisdiction but remain subject to FCC jurisdiction. These include 

common carriers,11 banks, credit unions, savings and loan institutions, 

airlines, nonprofit organizations, and insurance companies. 

FTC and FCC initially responded to the statutory mandate to address 

unwanted telemarketing by prohibiting calls to individuals who previously 

had stated to telemarketers that they did not wish to receive calls made by 

 6

Pub. L. No. 102-243, § 3(a), 105 Stat. 2394, 2396-97 (1991) (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)). 

7

Pub. L. No. 103-297, § 3(a)-(c), 108 Stat. 1545, 1546 (1994) (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 6102(a)-

(c)). 

8

Several lawsuits challenged both the constitutionality of the national registry and FTC’s 

authority to establish it and one court enjoined FTC from implementing the registry. On 

October 7, 2003, the court of appeals stayed the injunction pending FTC’s appeal and the 

court’s review. FTC v. Mainstream Marketing Services, Inc., 345 F.3d 850 (10th Cir. 2003). 

The decisions against the national registry were overturned on appeal early in 2004. 

Mainstream Marking Services, Inc., v. FTC, 358 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 

S.Ct. 47 (2004). 

9

6 C.F.R. pt. 310 (2004). 

1047 C.F.R. § 64.1200 (2004). 

11In a telecommunications context, a common carrier is a telecommunications company 

that holds itself out to the public for hire to provide communications transmission services. 
Page 7 GAO-05-113 National Do-No-Call Registry 

or on behalf of a particular seller. These regulatory provisions are called 

“entity-specific” do-not-call provisions, and they remain in effect as a 

complement to the national registry. 12 Telemarketers are required to 

maintain lists of consumers who have specifically requested to have their 

names placed on the company-specific do-not-call list, and it is a violation 

of law for them to call a consumer who has asked to be placed on the 

company’s list. Thus, those consumers who have not placed their 

telephone numbers on the national registry still can instruct telemarketers 

to place them on an entity-specific do-not-call list. In addition to FTC’s and 

FCC’s entity-specific do-not-call provisions, consumers can register their 

telephone numbers on state do-not-call lists. FCC stated in a July 2003 

Report and Order that 36 states had established their own statewide donot-call lists to respond to the growing consumer frustration with 

unsolicited telemarketing calls.13

Entering one’s telephone number on the national registry will not stop all 

unwanted solicitations. There are several exemptions in the law that allow 

organizations to call consumers, even if their telephone numbers are on 

the national registry. Exempt organizations include charities, 

organizations conducting surveys, political fundraisers, those calling on 

behalf of tax exempt organizations, and those calling under an 

“established business relationship” or with the consumer’s written 

permission. Under an established business relationship, a telemarketer can 

call a consumer for a period of up to 18 months after the consumer’s last 

purchase or financial transaction with the business or up to 3 months after 

the consumer’s last inquiry or application to the business. However, even 

if a business relationship was established, the company is required to 

 12The original entity-specific program did not apply to calls made by or on behalf of 

charitable organizations—FTC’s statute addressed only calls “to induce purchases of goods 

or services,” and FCC’s statute-exempted calls by tax-exempt nonprofits (which FCC 

extended to calls by or on behalf of tax-exempt nonprofits when it set up the program). 

The definition of telemarketing in FTC’s statute was subsequently amended to cover 

charitable solicitations. In response, FTC decided to expand its entity-specific program to 

cover charitable calls by for-profit telemarketers hired by charities to solicit donations. It 

was not able to cover calls made directly by charities because the amendment to cover 

charitable calls did not alter the telemarketing law’s reliance on the FTC act’s jurisdictional 

limitations as to nonprofit organizations. 

13The 36 states, identified in supplementary information to FCC’s July 2003 regulations for 

the national registry are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, 

Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New 

Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, 

Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 
Page 8 GAO-05-113 National Do-No-Call Registry 

comply with a request under the previously mentioned entity-specific donot-call provision. Thus, if the consumer tells the company they do not 

want to be solicited by telephone, the company is prohibited from calling 

again. Similarly, the consumer can use the entity-specific option to ask a 

paid fundraiser for a charitable organization to stop soliciting them for a 

specific charity by telephone.14

On the basis of its experience and growing evidence that the entityspecific provisions were ineffective and overly burdensome on consumers, 

in January 2002, FTC proposed a national do-not-call registry and 1 year 

later adopted its proposal to amend its Telemarketing Sales Rule to create 

the national registry and prohibit telemarketing calls to consumers who 

registered their telephone numbers. FTC also allowed states to transfer to 

the national registry those consumer telephone numbers on their state 

registries. As of December 2004, 17 states have transferred their state list 

and adopted the national registry as the state registry.15

FCC revised its regulations pursuant to the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act, in June 2003, to require telemarketers under its jurisdiction 

to comply with the requirements of the national registry. In addition, in 

accordance with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, FCC required 

states with their own state registries to include on the state registry those 

telephone numbers registered on the national registry from their 

respective states. FCC required this to reduce the potential for consumer 

confusion and reduce regulatory burdens on the telemarketing industry. 

FCC allowed an 18-month transition period for states to download 

information from the national registry to their state registry. 

In March 2003, Congress passed the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act (the 

Implementation Act), which authorized FTC to establish fees “sufficient to 

implement and enforce” the national registry.16 Initial registration of 

 14However, only paid fundraisers subject to FTC jurisdiction are required to abide by the 

request, because FCC exempted such businesses from its entity-specific do-not-call 

provision while FTC expanded its entity-specific provision to cover such businesses in 

response to a 2001 statutory amendment. 

15The 17 states (identified by FTC) are Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, 

Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, 

New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania. According to FTC, eight states do 

not now share their registries with the FTC—Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, 

Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. FTC staff said they continue to work with the 

states to coordinate the registries with the National Do-Not-Call Registry. 

16Pub. L. No. 108-10, § 2, 117 Stat. 557, 557 (2003). 

Implementation and 

Operation of the 

National Registry 
Page 9 GAO-05-113 National Do-No-Call Registry 

consumer telephone numbers began in late June 2003. In July 2003, FTC 

set fees to be paid by telemarketers to access the national registry. In 

September 2003, in response to legal challenges to the national registry 

and requirements, Congress passed additional legislation expressly 

authorizing FTC to implement and enforce a national do-not-call registry 

under the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act 

and ratifying the National Do-Not-Call Registry regulation as promulgated 

by FTC in 2002.17 To manage the anticipated large number of consumers 

who would want to register via the telephone, FTC had a two-stage 

process whereby consumers west of the Mississippi could register by 

telephone starting June 27, 2003, and on July 7, 2003, telephone 

registration was opened to the rest of the country. FTC and FCC began 

enforcement of the national registry on October 1, 2003; and FTC issued a 

revised rule to increase telemarketer fees in July 2004. Figure 1 provides a 

timeline of FTC and FCC actions to implement the national registry. 

 17Pub. L. No. 108-82, 117 Stat. 1006 (2003). The United States Court of Appeals for the 10th 

Circuit also ruled that, on the basis of FTC’s existing statutory responsibilities prior to the 

September 2003 legislation, FTC had the authority to create the national registry. 

Mainstream Marketing Services, Inc., v. FTC, 358 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 

125 S.Ct. 47 (2004). 
Page 10 GAO-05-113 National Do-No-Call Registry 

Figure 1: Timeline of FTC and FCC Actions to Implement the National Registry 

Under the Implementation Act, FTC and FCC were to consult and 

coordinate with each other to maximize consistency between their 

regulations governing the national registry. The Implementation Act 

required both FTC and FCC to provide a written report to Congress 45 

days after FCC finalized its rulemaking on the national registry. Each 

commission’s report was to cover their efforts to maximize consistency in 

their enforcement efforts by (1) conducting an analysis of the 

telemarketing rules implemented by both commissions, (2) listing any 

inconsistencies between the two commissions and the effects of such 

inconsistencies on consumers and on telemarketers paying for access, and 

(3) providing proposals to remedy any inconsistencies. FTC and FCC 

issued reports in September 2003 that analyzed differences related to 

enforcement of the national registry and other areas where they had 

Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12.....

FCC proposes to revise TCPA 

regulations to establish 

national registry provision

FTC issues regulations to 

require telemarketers to 

update their records with 

the national registry every 

31 days beginning 

January 1, 2005

FTC proposes to revise 

the Telemarketing Sales 

Rule to create a 

national registry

FTC and the FCC begin 

enforcing the 

national registry

FTC issues regulations to 

increase telemarketer fees

FTC issues final 

regulations to create a 

national registry

Enactment of the 

Do-Not-Call 

Implementation Act 

authorizes FTC to 

collect fees

Congress ratified 

FTC's authority

to establish a 

national registry

Increased telemarketer 

fees become effective

FCC adopts revised 

TCPA rules that parallel 

FTC’s provisions

Consumer registration begins

FTC establishes 

telemarketer access 

fees to national registry

2002 2003 2004

Source: GAO analysis of FTC data.

Year
Page 11 GAO-05-113 National Do-No-Call Registry 

common enforcement interests related to solicitations by telemarketers, 

such as abandoned calls and calling time restrictions.18

As shown in table 1, differences related specifically to the national registry 

that FTC and FCC identified in their reports included (1) jurisdiction, (2) 

definition of established business relationship, (3) instances where the 

telemarketer caller had a personal relationship with a consumer, and (4) 

instances where tax-exempt nonprofit entities use for-profit telemarketers 

to solicit on their behalf. FTC and FCC consulted and coordinated to 

address the inconsistencies that they identified. For example, since FCC’s 

jurisdiction is broader than FTC’s, FCC decided to focus its enforcement 

efforts on activities over which FTC does not have jurisdiction, such as 

common carrier and intrastate telemarketing. In other cases, the two 

agencies proposed monitoring the impact of the inconsistencies to 

determine whether any action was needed. Table 1 summarizes FTC’s and 

FCC’s inconsistencies with respect to the national registry and decisions 

made to address the differences. 

 18“Call abandonment” occurs when a consumer answers the telephone, only to find no one 

on the line. This happens because telemarketers use automatic equipment to increase their 

efficiency and sometimes results in no sales representative on the telephone when the 

consumer answers the calls. “Calling time restrictions” refers to hours of the day that 

telemarketers are allowed to make telephone solicitations. 
Page 12 GAO-05-113 National Do-No-Call Registry 

Table 1: FTC and FCC Identified Inconsistencies Related to the National Registry Enforcement 

FTC FCC FTC and/or FCC remedy 

FTC’s jurisdiction is narrower than FCC’s 

in that it excludes purely intrastate 

telemarketing campaigns and calls 

involving certain industries. 

FCC’s jurisdiction is broader in that it 

includes the types of business activities 

exempt from FTC jurisdiction and both 

interstate and intrastate activities. 

FCC will focus its enforcement efforts on 

entities such as common carriers and 

intrastate activities. 

FTC defines an established business 

relationship on the basis of either (1) a 

consumer’s purchase, rental, or lease of a 

seller’s goods or services or a financial 

transaction between the consumer and the 

seller; or (2) the consumer’s inquiry or 

application regarding a product or service. 

FCC defines established business 

relationship as a voluntary two-way 

communication between a person or entity 

and a consumer based on the consumer’s 

purchase or transaction with the entity or on 

the consumer’s inquiry or application 

regarding the entity’s products or services, 

regardless of whether any payment was 

involved. 

FTC reported that the commissions would 

monitor whether telemarketers take 

advantage of the potentially broader FCC 

exemption for an established business 

relationship and whether consumers 

reported receiving more unwanted 

telemarketing calls as a result. If this 

occurs, the two Commissions are to work 

together to reconcile the different 

requirements. 

FTC does not make exceptions for 

telemarketing calls to persons known 

personally by the telemarketer. 

FCC makes an exception for telemarketing 

calls to persons known by the telemarketer 

caller (e.g., family member or friend). 

FTC reported that it would monitor 

instances where this might occur to 

determine whether it needs to modify its 

enforcement of this provision. 

FTC requires for-profit telemarketers 

making interstate telephone solicitations 

on behalf of tax-exempt nonprofit entities 

to comply with the entity-specific do-notcall provisions but not with the provisions 

of the national registry. 

FCC rules exempt such entities from its 

entity-specific do-not-call provisions and 

from the national registry provisions. 

FCC reported that the commissions would 

work together to remedy the inconsistency.

Source: FTC and FCC September 8, 2003, reports to Congress on regulatory coordination. 

In addition to the above, FTC noted minor differences related to 

monitoring and enforcement with respect to safe harbor provisions and 

differences regarding entities that can be held liable for violations.19 FTC 

did not believe differences for these two issues were significant enough to 

warrant any action, and FCC had not identified these as inconsistencies in 

its report. 

FTC and FCC entered into a Memorandum of Understanding that further 

established both commissions’ intent to work together in a cooperative 

and coordinated fashion to implement consistent, comprehensive, 

efficient, and nonredundant enforcement of federal telemarketing statutes 

and rules. FTC and FCC agreed that (1) the commissions would meet at 

 19Safe harbor provisions protect a telemarketer from liability when a violation of the 

national registry is made in error, and the telemarketer can demonstrate compliance with 

each of several provisions of the national registry. 
Page 13 GAO-05-113 National Do-No-Call Registry 

least quarterly to discuss matters of mutual interest; (2) FTC would 

provide FCC with national registry information through the Consumer 

Sentinel system; 20 (3) the commissions would make available to each other 

consumer complaints regarding possible violations of federal 

telemarketing rules; (4) the commissions would endeavor to avoid 

unnecessarily duplicative enforcement actions; (5) the commissions would 

engage in joint enforcement actions, when necessary, that are appropriate 

and consistent with their respective jurisdictions; (6) the commissions 

would coordinate public statements on joint cases; and (7) the 

Memorandum of Understanding was to remain in effect until modified by 

mutual consent of both parties or terminated by either party upon 30 days 

advance written notice. FTC and FCC staff said that they tend to meet 

more frequently than quarterly to discuss matters of mutual interest. 

FTC’s December 2002 regulation establishing the national registry set forth 

a process for consumers to register their telephone numbers and for 

telemarketers to obtain these numbers to remove them from their call 

lists. Consumers who want to place their telephone number(s) on the 

national registry can register either on FTC’s Web site 

(www.donotcall.gov) or by telephone (1-888-382-1222). A consumer can 

enter up to three telephone numbers at one time by registering online. The 

consumer must also enter their e-mail address, which is used for 

confirmation and completion of the registration process. Consumers are to 

receive an e-mail of the Web site registration, which they must respond to 

within 72 hours in order to confirm registration. To register a number by 

telephone, a consumer must call the national registry from the telephone 

he or she wants to register. The consumer’s telephone number is 

confirmed at the time the call is made, and registration is completed at 

that time. A registered telephone number remains on the national registry 

for 5 years before expiration at which time the consumer may re-register 

it. A consumer can use FTC’s national registry Web site or toll free number 

to verify the registration’s expiration date. According to FTC, of the 

approximately 62 million registered consumer telephone numbers as of 

August 2004, 61 percent registered on FTC’s Web site, 22 percent 

registered using the toll-free telephone number, and 17 percent came from 

state downloads. 

 20Consumer Sentinel is an FTC law enforcement resource that contains a database of more 

than 1 million consumer complaints, as well as litigation resources and guides. It is 

accessible to more than 1,000 law enforcement agencies. Consumer Sentinel contains 

complaints on consumer fraud, identity theft, and national registry violations. 

Operation of the National 

Registry 
Page 14 GAO-05-113 National Do-No-Call Registry 

FTC entered into a contract, dated March 1, 2003, with AT&T Government 

Solutions to provide services necessary to develop, implement, and 

operate the national registry. The contract provided that the contractor 

was to develop and provide a secure database that included the telephone 

numbers collected from consumers during the registration process as well 

as receive telephone numbers from states that decided to include 

consumer telephone numbers from their do-not-call registries in the 

national registry. The database was also to include information on the date 

the registration was made and the expiration date of the registration. The 

automated database was to, among other things, permit consumers to 

confirm or alter their registration; provide reports and access to 

information regarding registration to FTC personnel; provide a system to 

allow telemarketers to access consumer telephone numbers and pay fees, 

when required; provide for a system to gather consumer complaint 

information concerning alleged violations of the national registry; provide 

a system that transferred all valid processed consumer complaints to the 

FTC in a format that would be compatible with the FTC’s Consumer 

Sentinel system; and allow appropriate federal, state, and other law 

enforcement personnel access to consumer registration and telemarketer 

information maintained in the national registry. 

Until December 31, 2004, covered telemarketers are to access the national 

registry within 3 months of making a call to drop from their call lists the 

telephone numbers of consumers who have registered. However, Congress 

directed FTC to amend its regulation to require telemarketers to access 

information at least once a month.21 FTC issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking February 13, 2004, and a final rule on March 29, 2004, to 

require, effective January 1, 2005, that telemarketers must obtain national 

registry telephone numbers and purge registered telephone numbers from 

their call lists at least every 31 days. In promulgating the final rule, FTC 

explained that 31 days was used to define the statutory monthly 

requirement in order to provide a set interval at which telemarketers must 

access the telephone numbers in the national registry. An interval of 31 

days rather than 30 days was used to mirror the length of the most 

frequently occurring and longest month. The FCC rule was also amended 

to require that telemarketers download the registry every 31 days. FTC 

also explained in promulgating the final rule that it had set the effective 

date as January 2005 to allow businesses 9 months to ready their systems 

and procedures and to enable FTC and its contractor sufficient time to 

 21Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-199, div. B, tit. V, 118 Stat. 3, 89. 
Page 15 GAO-05-113 National Do-No-Call Registry 

implement necessary changes to the national registry system to 

accommodate the increased usage. 

FTC and FCC have mechanisms in place to handle consumer complaints. 

Both commissions provide numerous ways for consumers to file 

complaints. These include by mail, over the telephone, by facsimile, by email directly to the agency and through their Web sites for the national 

registry. In filing a complaint, both FTC and FCC require that the 

consumer have been on the national registry for 3 months, but differ in the 

information consumers are to provide. For example, FTC requires 

consumers to provide their telephone number, the company name or 

telephone number, and the date of the violation. FCC requires consumers 

to provide their name and telephone number, the telemarketer’s name or 

telephone number, any specific information about the complaint, and the 

date of the violation. 

According to FTC and FCC, the requirement that consumers have been on 

the national registry for 3 months will be revised to 31 days on January 1, 

2005, when telemarketers are required to remove registered telephone 

numbers from their call lists every 31 days. As of December 11, 2004, 

consumers had filed 557,727 complaints through the national registry’s 

Web site and 117,610 complaints via the telephone. According to FCC staff, 

FCC has established a process for handling complaints against common 

carriers22 that differs from those used for noncommon carriers. 23 Under 

this process, FCC serves a common carrier with a notice of complaint that 

includes a copy of the complaint and a specified time in which to respond. 

With respect to noncommon carriers, FCC and FTC may initiate an 

investigation of the complaint depending on the number of complaints 

they have received against the company and other factors. 

FTC and FCC do not take action on all consumer complaints. Rather, FTC 

and FCC said that they consider a number of factors when determining 

which alleged violations to pursue that include the type of violation 

alleged, the nature and amount of harm to consumers (e.g. invasion of 

privacy or financial harm), the potential that telemarketers will make 

future unlawful calls, and securing meaningful relief for affected 

 22See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.716-1.718 (2003). 

23Noncommon carrier entities subject to FCC enforcement include companies engaged in 

the business of banking, credit unions, savings and loans, airlines, and companies engaging 

in the business of insurance. 
Page 16 GAO-05-113 National Do-No-Call Registry 

consumers. FTC’s enforcement actions generally are accomplished by 

seeking injunctive relief and sometimes consumer redress in federal court; 

actions for civil penalties (up to $11,000 per violation) are filed by the 

Department of Justice on behalf of FTC and are less common.24 FCC’s 

enforcement efforts are generally accomplished through an administrative 

process whereby FCC first issues citations against entities not otherwise 

regulated by FCC for violations of laws it enforces. For subsequent 

violations by such entities, or for initial violations by FCC regulated 

entities (such as common carriers, broadcasters, or other licensees), FCC 

may impose a civil penalty through forfeiture proceedings or take 

additional enforcement actions that include, for example, cease and desist 

proceedings, injunctions, and revocation of common carrier license 

operating authority for violations of the requirements of the national 

registry.25 Enforcement of a forfeiture order is done in federal court 

through the Department of Justice, which handles violations of statutes 

that FCC enforces.26 Fines collected through civil penalties go to the U.S. 

Treasury’s general fund and are not retained in either commission’s 

accounts for their use.27

As of December 2004, FTC filed 9 lawsuits for injunctive relief, and in 

some cases, consumer redress, and the Department of Justice had filed 

one lawsuit on behalf of FTC for violations of the national registry. As of 

December 2004, FCC reported that it had initiated 99 investigations against 

companies that allegedly made calls to consumers on the national registry. 

 24FTC can seek civil penalties on its own when the Department of Justice fails to bring suit 

within 45 days of FTC having forwarded the case for filing and litigation. 15 U.S.C. §56 

(2000). 

25Forfeiture proceedings are administrative proceedings to determine the appropriate 

monetary penalty for repeated or willful violations. They must follow a violation of a 

previously issued citation, unless the violator holds an FCC license or other authorization, 

in which case no warning is necessary before a forfeiture is proposed. They involve notice 

and an opportunity to respond before issuance of a forfeiture order requiring payment of a 

civil penalty. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 503(b) (2001); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80 (2003). Cease and desist 

proceedings generally involve an order to show cause why an order to cease and desist 

from violating any FCC rule or regulation should not be issued. After a hearing or waiver of 

the hearing, FCC may decide to issue the cease and desist order, and the order may be 

appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 312(b)-

(c), 402(b) (2001). An injunction requiring compliance with an FCC order may be issued by 

a federal court upon application by the FCC or the U.S. Department of Justice for 

enforcement of the order. See 47 U.S.C. § 401(b) (2001). 

2647 U.S.C. §§ 504(a), 401(c) (2001). 

2747 U.S.C. § 504(a) (2001); 31 U.S.C. §3302(b) (2001). 
Page 17 GAO-05-113 National Do-No-Call Registry 

FCC’s investigations have resulted in 16 citations for violations of the 

national registry. In addition, 2 companies have entered into consent 

decree settlements28 involving substantial voluntary monetary payments 

and implementation of strict compliance plans, 54 investigations have 

been closed because the calls underlying the complaints were not legally 

actionable, and the remaining 27 investigations are under active 

consideration. In some instances, consumers had an established business 

relationship but did not realize it. Also, as mentioned earlier, FTC and FCC 

have various factors they consider with respect to which complaints to 

pursue; therefore, not all complaints are investigated. Appendix I provides 

more information on FTC’s ten lawsuits, and FCC’s 16 citations and 2 

consent decrees related to enforcement of the national registry 

provisions.29

FTC collected about $5.2 million in fees in fiscal year 2003 and incurred 

costs of about $14.6 million to implement, operate, and enforce the 

national registry. This is a shortfall of about $9.4 million. In fiscal year 

2004, FTC collected about $14 million in fees and incurred costs of about 

$14 million to implement, operate, and enforce the national registry. FTC 

attributed the FY 2003 shortfall in fees to unexpectedly short partial year 

operations (less than one month) and to fees being set too low due to lack 

of information about (1) the number of telemarketers that would pay to 

access the registry and (2) the average number of area codes that 

telemarketers would access.30 FTC revised the national registry access fee 

effective September 1, 2004, using information on the number of 

telemarketers that had actually paid to access the registry in fiscal year 

2003 and the number of average area codes accessed. FTC uses funds 

 28FCC officials told us that unlike consent decrees at other agencies, FCC’s consent decree 

process doesn’t involve adoption by court order. In this context, a consent decree 

settlement is a written agreement between FCC and the party under investigation that is 

adopted by FCC order. See 47 C.F.R §1.93. Such a settlement may be reached in the 

context of ongoing FCC administrative proceedings, such as forfeiture or cease and desist 

proceedings. See id. §1.94. Any violation of such a consent decree is considered a 

violation of an FCC order and can subject the party to the sanctions associated with such a 

violation. See id. §1.95. 

29FTC and FCC have taken additional enforcement actions against telemarketers under 

each agency’s telemarketing statutes. The 10 lawsuits, 16 citations, and 2 consent decrees 

reflect enforcement actions specific to the national registry. 

30According to FTC staff, the short operations period in fiscal year 2003, which affected the 

fees collected, also had continuing effects into fiscal year 2004. 

Fees Collected for the 

National Registry Did 

Not Cover Costs in 

Fiscal Year 2003 But 

Did in Fiscal Year 

2004 
Page 18 GAO-05-113 National Do-No-Call Registry 

from its salaries and expenses account to cover costs of implementing, 

operating, and enforcing the national registry and is required to reduce its 

general fund appropriations by the amount of fees collected. In fiscal years 

2003 and 2004, appropriations estimates of fees to be collected for the 

national registry ($18.1 million and $23.1 million, respectively) were 

greater than the actual amount of fees collected and costs incurred.31 

Because the estimates were greater than the actual amounts of fees 

collected by the national registry, the differences represented funds 

available for other allowable expenses covered by the salaries and 

expenses appropriation.32 FCC’s costs associated with its enforcement of 

the national registry are funded in its salaries and expenses account. 

According to FCC staff, FCC does not distinguish costs associated with 

enforcing the national registry from its other enforcement efforts. 

In 2003 when FTC initiated its fee structure, it based the fee for the 

national registry on the number of entities that would be required to pay 

the fee and the number of area codes that a telemarketer would access 

annually. FTC estimated that $18 million would be needed to implement, 

operate, and enforce the national registry requirements. In two separate 

notices of proposed rule making for the original national registry fee, FTC 

stated that it made a number of assumptions to estimate the number of 

entities that would be required to pay and the number of areas codes to be 

accessed. Because of an absence of information available about the 

number of companies then in the marketplace that made telemarketing 

calls to consumers covered by national registry regulations, FTC sought 

public comment on its assumptions and methodology but received 

virtually no comments. Consequently, FTC estimated the fee based on 

those assumptions and estimates and noted that the fees might need to be 

reexamined periodically and adjusted to reflect actual experience with 

operating the registry. FTC’s original fee rule established an annual fee of 

$25 for each area code requested from the national registry, up to a 

 31The estimates were closer to FTC’s actual costs for implementing and enforcing all of the 

provisions of its telemarketing regulations (the Telemarketing Sales Rule), which were 

$20.1 million for fiscal year 2003 and $21.2 million for fiscal year 2004. While the Do-NotCall Implementation Act authorizes the FTC to establish only fees “sufficient to implement 

and enforce the provisions relating to the ‘do-not-call’ registry of the Telemarketing Sales 

Rule,” it provides that fees actually collected are available “to offset the costs of activities 

and services related to the implementation and enforcement of the Telemarketing Sales 

Rule, and other activities resulting from such implementation and enforcement.” Pub. L. 

No. 108-10,117 Stat. 557, 557 (2003). 

32GAO, Federal User Fees: Budgetary Treatment, Status, and Emerging Management 

Issues, GAO/AIMD-98-11 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 19, 1997), 18. 
Page 19 GAO-05-113 National Do-No-Call Registry 

maximum of $7,375 (300 area codes or more). The first 5 area codes are 

provided at no cost. FTC provided for free access to the first 5 area codes 

to limit the burden that might be placed on small businesses that only 

require access to a small portion of the national registry. FTC’s rule also 

permits exempt organizations to have free access to the national registry 

with the intent that should the exempt organizations want to purge their 

calling lists as a matter of customer service, they would be able to obtain 

the information necessary to do so. Once a telemarketer paid for access to 

a selected number of area codes, or was granted free access, it could 

access those area codes as often as it deemed appropriate for the annual 

period covered. If, during the course of the annual period, a telemarketer 

needed to access telephone numbers from more area codes than those 

initially selected, it would be required to pay for access to those additional 

area codes. For purposes of additional payments, the annual period was 

divided into two periods of 6 months each. Obtaining additional area 

codes for the first 6-month period required a payment of the full year fee of 

$25 for each new area code whereas for new area codes to be used for the 

second 6-month period, telemarketers would be assessed a reduced $15 

fee for each area code. Table 2 shows FTC’s estimation of the national 

registry fee to raise approximately $18 million in fiscal year 2003. 

Table 2: FTC’s Estimation of National Registry Fee to Raise about $18 million to 

Cover Estimated Costs to Implement, Operate, and Enforce the National Registry in 

Fiscal Year 2003 

Average number of area codes accessed 73

Multiplied by cost per area code $25

Average amount of fees to be collected per entity $1,825

Multiplied by estimated number of entities accessing database 10,000

Estimated total amount to be collected in fees $18,250,000

Source: Federal Register dated July 31, 2003. 

Note: Federal Register Vol. 68. No. 147, (dated July 31, 2003), pg. 45141. 

According to FTC, it collected about $5.2 million in fiscal year 2003. FTC 

said it collected fewer fees than anticipated for two reasons. First, FTC did 

not begin collecting fees until September 2003 because its appropriations 

funding, which provided the total estimated fees that could be collected, 

was enacted later than anticipated, delaying implementation of the fee 

collection process. Second, the number of telemarketers that accessed 

the national registry and the average number of area codes that they 

accessed were smaller than FTC estimated. FTC estimated that 10,000 

companies would pay for the national registry data and that, on average, 
Page 20 GAO-05-113 National Do-No-Call Registry 

telemarketers would access 73 area codes. In June 2004, FTC used 

information from the national registry to reexamine its estimates for 

setting the fee. As figure 2 shows, about 7,100 companies had paid for 

access to the national registry as of June 2004. The average number of area 

codes accessed was 63. 

Figure 2: Number of Telemarketers Who Accessed the National Registry, as of 

June 1, 2004 

FTC published a revised fee rule for the national registry on July 30, 2004. 

The revised final fee rule established the fee for each area code to be $40 

per year, with the first 5 area codes provided to each telemarketer at no 

charge. Exempt organizations would continue to be allowed access to the 

national registry at no charge. The maximum amount that would be 

charged any single telemarketer would be $11,000, which would be 
Page 21 GAO-05-113 National Do-No-Call Registry 

charged to any telemarketer accessing 280 or more area codes.33 The 

reduced fee charged to telemarketers requesting access to additional area 

codes during the second 6 months of the semiannual period would be $20. 

The fee was based on the number of telemarketers that had accessed the 

national registry as of June 1, 2004, the actual average number of area 

codes accessed, and FTC’s estimate that $18 million would be needed to 

cover estimated costs associated with the national registry in fiscal year 

2004. 34 Table 3 shows FTC’s estimation for the national registry fee to 

raise approximately $18 million in fiscal year 2004. In fiscal year 2004, 

FTC collected about $14 million in fees. 

Table 3: FTC’s Estimation of National Registry Fee to Raise About $18 Million to 

Cover Estimated Costs to Implement, Operate, and Enforce the National Registry in 

Fiscal Year 2004 

Average number of area codes accessed 63

Multiplied by cost per area code $40

Average amount of fees to be collected per entity $2,520

Multiplied by estimated number of entities accessing database 7,100

Estimated total amount to be collected in fees $17,892,000

Source: FTC. 

Funds collected through the national registry fees are to cover FTC costs 

related to the implementation, operation, and enforcement of the national 

registry. In its original fee rule dated July 31, 2003, FTC identified its costs 

as falling into three broad categories.35 First are the actual contract costs 

along with associated agency costs to develop and operate the national 

registry. The second category of costs relates generally to enforcement 

efforts. The third category of costs covers FTC infrastructure and 

administration costs, including information technology structural 

supports. Table 4 summarizes the costs incurred for the three broad 

categories plus overhead costs for fiscal years 2003 and 2004, as reported 

 33The final rule for the fee structure reduced the maximum number of area codes for which 

an entity would be charged from 300 to 280 to more closely correlate the charges with the 

number of active area codes in the country. 

34While FTC estimated that $18 million would be needed to cover costs associated with the 

national registry in fiscal years 2003 and 2004, FTC said that estimates of the annual costs 

associated with operating the national registry may vary from fiscal year to fiscal year. 

35Federal Register Vol. 68. No. 147, pg. 45141. 
Page 22 GAO-05-113 National Do-No-Call Registry 

by FTC. As shown in the table 4, FTC incurred costs of about $15 million 

in fiscal year 2003 and about $14 million in fiscal year 2004. 

Table 4: FTC’s Costs Related to the National Registry for Fiscal Years 2003 and 

2004 

Cost category 

Cost for fiscal 

year 2003

Cost for fiscal 

year 2004

Contract $4,332,338 $4,339,200

Enforcement $3,449,715 $7,282,188

Infrastructure and overhead $12,375,012 $9,432,276

Total $20,157,065 $21,053,664

Minus costs associated with other telemarketing 

sales rule efforts 

$5,550,815 $7,077,409

Net total costs for national registry $14,606,250 $13,976,255

Source: FTC. 

According to FTC staff, the commission had three objectives to measure 

whether the national registry was successful. These were to (1) have the 

system up and running during calendar year 2003, (2) to ensure that the 

system could enroll about 60 million telephone numbers in the national 

registry in the first year of operation, and (3) reduce unwanted calls to 

consumers who sign up for the national registry, approximating Missouri’s 

experience of reducing telemarketing calls by about 80 percent. 

The national registry was up and running in calendar year 2003. 

Performance goals were contained in FTC’s contract with AT&T 

Government Solutions to develop and maintain the national registry. The 

contractor was responsible for, among other things, consumer 

registration, telemarketer access to the registry, law enforcement access 

to the registry, and collecting consumer complaint information concerning 

violations of the national registry provisions. The contract contained 

specific performance measurements for completing various tasks 

associated with the national registry. FTC considered the national registry 

to be fully operational October 2003 when both commissions began 

enforcing national registry provisions. 

FTC also reached its expectation based on states’ experience to enroll 60 

million telephone numbers in the national registry in the first year of 

operation. FTC began receiving consumer registration of telephone 

FTC Reported Three 

Objectives to Measure 

Whether the National 

Registry Was 

Successful 
Page 23 GAO-05-113 National Do-No-Call Registry 

numbers in June 2003, and, as of June 2004, 62 million telephone numbers 

had been registered on the national registry. 

On the basis of the experience of certain states with do-not-call registry 

laws, FTC anticipated that consumers who entered their telephone 

numbers in the national registry would experience as much as an 80 

percent reduction in unsolicited telemarketing calls. However, measuring 

the actual reduction in telemarketing calls is not possible because baseline 

data on the volume of telemarketing calls consumers received prior to the 

national registry’s implementation are not available to make a comparison 

and determine what change has occurred in calls received. As an 

alternative, FTC has cited polls taken by Harris Interactive® and the 

Customer Care Alliance as evidence that the national registry has resulted 

in a reduction of unwanted telemarketing calls. Specifically, in January 

2004, Harris Interactive® found that about 90 percent of those who signed 

up for the national registry had fewer telemarketing calls, and 25 percent 

of those registered indicated they had received no telemarketing calls 

since signing up.36 In June 2004, a Customer Care Alliance telephone 

survey reported that 87 percent of those who had signed up for the 

national registry had received fewer telemarketing calls.37 This survey also 

attempted to quantify changes in the volume of unsolicited calls registered 

consumers had received since signingup, reporting an 80 percent 

reduction; however, we have concerns about how this was done and the 

accuracy of the results. The two surveys may provide indications of the 

national registry’s overall performance; however, we are uncertain about 

how representative the results of each actually are of the opinions and 

experiences of adults nationwide because, for example, the Harris survey 

did not use a probability sample that can be projected nationwide and the 

Customer Care survey had a low response rate, among other things. 

Notwithstanding these concerns about the surveys’ methodologies and 

implementation problems, the FTC told us that they found no evidence, 

anecdotal or otherwise, that contradicts the results of the surveys. 

Furthermore, FTC considers the surveys’ results to have found that most 

people know about the national registry and that most people who say 

 36Harris Interactive®

 conducted an on-line poll within the United States between January 19 

and 28, 2004, among 3,378 adults nationwide. 

37Customer Care Alliance is a consortium of companies that provides, among other things, 

services for clients to assess consumer satisfaction with their products. The company 

conducted its national registry telephone survey of 851 people from February through April 

2004. 
Page 24 GAO-05-113 National Do-No-Call Registry 

they have a telephone number on the national registry say they are getting 

fewer calls, creating some confidence that the results are generally 

correct. See appendix II for a more detailed discussion of the two surveys. 

FTC staff said that complaints filed also provide an alternative measure of 

the success of the national registry. As of December 11, 2004, 675,337 

complaints had been filed since FTC and FCC began accepting complaints 

in October 2003. FTC staff noted that as a percentage of the total number 

of telephone numbers registered, this is about 1 percent and is indicative 

of the success of the national registry. While the number of complaints 

may be an indication of the national registry’s success, few complaints 

could also be the result of consumer complacency or reluctance to take 

the time to file a complaint. 

The Implementation Act required FTC and FCC to each provide an annual 

written report for fiscal years 2003 through 2007 on the national registry to 

include (1) an analysis of the effectiveness of the national registry; (2) the 

number of consumers who have placed their telephone numbers on the 

national registry; (3) the number of persons paying fees for access to the 

national registry and the amount of such fees; (4) an analysis of the 

progress of coordinating the operation and enforcement of the national 

registry with similar registries established and maintained by the various 

states; (5) an analysis of the progress of coordinating operation and 

enforcement of the national registry with the enforcement activities of the 

FCC pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act; and (6) a review 

of the enforcement proceedings under the Telemarketing Sales Rule in the 

case of FTC and Telephone Consumer Protection Act in the case of FCC. 

The FCC issued its annual report for fiscal year 2003 on December 15, 

2004. As of December 2004, the FTC had not issued its annual report for 

fiscal year 2003, but it plans to have it issued by February 2005. 

We provided FTC and FCC with draft copies of this report for their review 

and comment. FTC and FCC agreed with the contents of our report and 

provided informal technical comments on the draft, which we have 

incorporated where appropriate. In addition, FTC noted that quantitative 

measurement of the effectiveness of a program based on “before and 

after” snapshots is difficult, particularly in situations like the national 

registry where only anecdotal evidence of a baseline for the “before” figure 

exists. According to FTC, when reports from consumers, the media, and 

professional surveyors consistently conclude that the national registry 

effectively and successfully protects registered consumers against 

Agency Comments 
Page 25 GAO-05-113 National Do-No-Call Registry 

invasions of their privacy by most commercial telemarketing calls, it is 

reasonable to infer the program is working as intended. 

We plan to provide copies of this report to Commissioners of the Federal 

Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission and 

interested congressional committees. We will make copies available to 

others upon request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge 

on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact 

me on (202) 512-8777 or at jonespl@gao.gov. Individuals making key 

contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV. 

Paul L. Jones, Director 

Homeland Security and Justice Issues 
Appendix I: FTC Lawsuits and FCC 

Enforcement Actions Related to the National 

Do-Not-Call Registry 

Page 26 GAO-05-113 National Do-No-Call Registry 

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) identified ten lawsuits related to the 

National Do-Not-Call Registry (the national registry) since enforcement of 

the national registry became effective October 1, 2004. The Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) has issued 16 citations for violations 

of the national registry and has entered into 2 consent decrees settling 

investigations of alleged violations of the national registry. 

The ten FTC lawsuits are as follows: 

• Telephone Protection Agency, Inc., was charged with falsely claiming 

that it would register consumers with the FCC’s national registry, 

when, in fact, FCC had no such list at the time. The charge also 

included other violations of the Telemarketing Sales Rule. (Ongoing 

litigation.) 

• National Consumer Council was charged with engaging in or causing 

others to engage in initiating telephone calls to consumers on the 

national registry and initiating or causing others to initiate telephone 

calls to consumers within a given area code without first paying the 

required access fee for the national registry data, among other 

violations of the Telemarketing Sales Rule. (Preliminary injunction in 

place, litigation ongoing.) 

• Braglia Marketing Group was charged with engaging in or causing 

others to engage in initiating telephone calls to consumers on the 

national registry, abandoning or causing others to abandon telephone 

calls, and initiating telephone calls to consumers within a given area 

code without first paying the required access fee for the national 

registry data. (Filed on behalf of FTC by the Department of Justice, ongoing litigation.) 

• Internet Marketing Group, Inc.; OnesetPrice, Inc.; First Choice 

Terminal, Inc., (Louisiana and Arizona Corporations); B & C Ventures, 

Inc.; RPM Marketing Group, Inc.; National Event Coordinators, Inc.; 

and several individual defendants were charged with engaging in or 

causing others to engage in initiating telephone calls to consumers on 

the national registry, among other violations of the Telemarketing Sales 

Rule. (Preliminary injunction in place; litigation ongoing.) 

• Free Do Not Call List.org and National Do Not Call List. US was 

charged with falsely claiming that for a fee it would arrange for 

consumers’ telephone numbers to be placed on the national registry. 

(Stipulated permanent injunction.) 

Appendix I: FTC Lawsuits and FCC 

Enforcement Actions Related to the National 

Do-Not-Call Registry 
Appendix I: FTC Lawsuits and FCC 

Enforcement Actions Related to the National 

Do-Not-Call Registry 

Page 27 GAO-05-113 National Do-No-Call Registry 

• Vector Direct Marketing, LLC was charged with unauthorized billing to 

consumers’ for purported do-not-call protection services and for 

removal of personal information from telemarketers’ files and falsely 

claiming to consumers that for a fee it would remove consumers’ 

personal information from telemarketers’ lists. (Stipulated permanent 

injunction entered June 2004.) 

• 4086465 Canada, Inc., a corporation doing business as International 

Protection Center and Consumers Protection Center was charged with 

falsely claiming to consumers inter alia, that for a fee it would arrange 

for consumers’ telephone numbers to be placed on the national 

registry. (Ongoing litigation.) 

• Debt Management Foundation Services was charged with engaging in 

or causing others to engage in initiating telephone calls to consumers 

on the national registry and initiating telephone calls to consumers 

within a given area code without first paying the required access fee for 

the national registry data, among other violations of the Telemarketing 

Sales Rule. (Preliminary injunction in place; litigation ongoing.) 

• 3R Bancorp was charged with engaging in or causing others to engage 

in initiating telephone calls to consumers on the national registry and 

initiating or causing others to initiate telephone calls to consumers 

within a given area code without first paying the required access fee for 

the national registry data, among other violations of the Telemarketing 

Sales Rule. (Litigation ongoing.) 

• FGH International, Inc. was charged with initiating or causing 

telephone calls to numbers on the national registry and calls to 

consumers within a given area code without first paying the required 

access fee. (Litigation ongoing.) 

FCC has issued 16 citations for violations of the national registry and has 

entered into 2 consent decrees settling investigations of alleged violations 

of the national registry. Table 5 summarizes FCC’s enforcement actions as 

of December 31, 2004. 
Appendix I: FTC Lawsuits and FCC 

Enforcement Actions Related to the National 

Do-Not-Call Registry 

Page 28 GAO-05-113 National Do-No-Call Registry 

Table 5: FCC Enforcement Actions under the National Registry as of December 31, 2004 

Date of action Company name 

No. of 

complaints 

States where affected 

consumers located 

Type of enforcement 

action taken 

1. Sep. 27, 2004 Equity One 6 California, Florida, Oregon, and 

Pennsylvania 

Warning letter/citation sent to 

company. 

2. Sep. 16, 2004 Envision Mortgage 

Services, Inc. 

13 California Warning letter/citation sent to 

company. 

3. Sep. 07, 2004 Primus 98 California, Connecticut, Florida, 

Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, New 

Jersey, New York, North 

Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 

Puerto Rico, Tennessee, 

Texas, and Virginia 

Consent decree settlement — 

$400,000 voluntary payment and 

implementation of compliance 

plan. 

4. July 06, 2004 BLS Funding 31 Arizona, California, Colorado, 

Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, 

Michigan, New Mexico, New 

Jersey, and Virginia 

Warning letter/citation sent to 

company. 

5. July 02, 2004 See Through 

Windows & Doors 

LLC 

123 Maryland and Virginia Warning letter/citation sent to 

company. 

6. June 04, 2004 Planet Mortgage 

Corporation 

42 California Warning letter/citation sent to 

company. 

7. May 28, 2004 Fresh Start 

Financial 

1 California Warning letter/citation sent to 

company. 

8. May 17, 2004 Key Financial 

Corporation 

97 Alabama, California, Florida, 

Ohio, and Virginia 

Warning letter/citation sent to 

company. 

9. March 31, 2004 American Standard 

Mortgage 

13 Colorado, Illinois, and Ohio Warning letter/citation sent to 

company. 

10. Feb. 12, 2004 Mortgage Concepts, 

Inc. 

480 Arizona, California, Georgia, 

Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, South 

Carolina, and Washington 

Warning letter/citation sent to 

company. 

11. Jan. 30, 2004 L.A.P. Holdings, 

LLC a.k.a. First 

Finance 

84 Arizona, California, Florida, 

Maryland, and Michigan 

Warning letter/citation sent to 

company. 

12. Jan. 12, 2004 Nations Mortgage 163 Florida and Ohio Warning letter/citation sent to 

company. 

13. Dec. 22, 2003 Debt Masters 1 Nebraska Warning letter/citation sent to 

company. 

14. Dec. 22, 2003 Ban-Cor Mortgage 109 California Warning letter/citation sent to 

company. 

15. Dec. 22, 2003 Cactus Cash, Inc. 14 Arizona Warning letter/citation sent to 

company. 

16. Dec. 22, 2003 Dynasty Mortgage 259 Arizona and California Warning letter/citation sent to 

company. 
Appendix I: FTC Lawsuits and FCC 

Enforcement Actions Related to the National 

Do-Not-Call Registry 

Page 29 GAO-05-113 National Do-No-Call Registry 

Date of action Company name 

No. of 

complaints

States where affected 

consumers located 

Type of enforcement 

action taken 

17. Dec. 18, 2003 CPM Funding, Inc. 8 California, Florida, and New 

Mexico 

Warning letter/citation sent to 

company. 

18. Nov. 03, 2003 AT&T Corporation 

(FTC’s contractor, 

AT&T Government 

Solutions, is a unit 

within the larger 

corporation.) 

29 

complainants 

reporting 78 

separate 

alleged 

companyspecific donot-call 

violations, as 

well as 438 

complaints 

alleging 

national 

registry 

violations 

 Alabama, California, 

Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, 

Michigan, Minnesota, New 

Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode 

Island, South Carolina, and 

Washington 

Initially proposed forfeiture 

$780,000 ($10,000 per violation) 

for company-specific violations 

(Forfeiture not final). 

Consent decree settlement - 

$490,000 voluntary payment and 

implementation of compliance 

plan for separate national registry 

and company-specific do-not-call 

investigations. 

Source: FCC staff and Web site. 
Appendix II: Information on the Two Surveys 

About the National Do-Not-Call Registry 

Page 30 GAO-05-113 Do-No-Call National Registry 

Two surveys have been conducted about the National Do-Not-Call Registry 

(the national registry) since it went into effect in October 2003—one 

survey by Harris Interactive® and one by Customer Care Alliance.1

 The 

results of these surveys may provide some indications of the national 

registry’s overall performance; however, we are uncertain about how 

representative the results of each actually are of the opinions and 

experiences of adults nationwide, and we are uncertain of the accuracy of 

the measures in the Customer Care Alliance survey. Notwithstanding 

limitations of these surveys, FTC considers the surveys’ results to have 

found that most people know about the national registry and that most 

people who say they have a telephone number on the national registry say 

they are getting fewer calls creating some confidence that the results are 

generally correct. 

The Harris Interactive Survey 

The Harris Interactive survey was conducted on-line within the United 

States in January 2004 with a sample of nearly 3,400 adults from its 

multimillion-member Harris Poll market research panel of individuals 

specially recruited to participate in large surveys. In this brief survey, 

respondents were asked whether they knew about the national registry; 

whether they had registered for it; and, for those who had registered, an 

opinion question was asked about whether they had received more, about 

the same, or less telemarketing calls since registering. While respondents 

were asked whether they believed survey research firms and pollsters 

were exempt from calling restrictions, they were asked no further 

questions about their knowledge of what types of telemarketing calls are 

prohibited and what types of calls are exempt. Of all respondents, 

91 percent indicated that they had heard of the national registry, and 

57 percent indicated that they had signed-up for it. Of those who had 

registered, 25 percent answered that they had received no telemarketing 

calls since signingup, and 67 percent responded that they had received a 

little or far less calls than before signingup. Two-thirds (68 percent) of 

respondents who had registered answered that they did not know if survey 

 1

Harris Interactive® conducted an additional Harris Poll survey on the national registry; 

however, it was done in August 2003, just before the registry went into effect. In this brief 

telephone survey of just over 1,000 adults, respondents were asked whether they knew 

about the national registry, whether they had already registered or were planning to 

register for it, the extent to which they expected unsolicited telephone calls to decrease for 

people who registered, and asked about their knowledge of the types of unsolicited calls to 

which the registry applied. There was no attempt to measure the number of telemarketing 

calls respondents had received during any time period. 

Appendix II: Information on the Two Surveys 

About the National Do-Not-Call Registry 
Appendix II: Information on the Two Surveys 

About the National Do-Not-Call Registry 

Page 31 GAO-05-113 Do-No-Call National Registry 

research firms and pollsters were allowed to call. The survey data were 

weighted using both demographic and propensity score weights to be 

representative of the total adult population. However, because the survey 

sample consisted of computer users in its market research panel and the 

sample was selected using nonprobabilistic methods, we are uncertain 

how representative the results actually are of the opinions and 

experiences of adults nationwide. 

Customer Care Alliance Survey 

Customer Care Alliance conducted a telephone survey during February 

through April 2004 with about 850 adults nationwide. Among other topics 

and as in the Harris survey, respondents were asked whether they were 

aware of the national do-not-call legislation, and if so, whether they had 

signedup for the national registry. However, unlike the Harris survey, for 

those who had signed-up, this survey attempted to quantify changes in the 

number of telemarketing calls the respondents had received since signingup for the national registry compared to prior to registering. To measure 

changes in telemarketing call volume, these respondents were asked to 

estimate about how many telemarketing calls they had received per month 

prior to registering for the national registry and in the month prior to being 

interviewed for the survey. Respondents were also asked whether they 

had been on the national registry for more or less than 3 months. No 

questions were asked about respondents’ knowledge of what types of 

telemarketing calls are prohibited and what types of calls are exempt from 

the national registry. Ninety-two percent of all respondents answered that 

they were aware of the national do-not-call legislation, and 60 percent of 

all respondents said that they had placed their primary home telephone 

number on the national registry. Respondents who had signedup for the 

national registry reported receiving an average of about 30 telemarketing 

calls per month prior to registering and an average of 6 calls per month 

after signingup, for an 80 percent reduction. 

We are uncertain how representative the results of the Customer Care 

Alliance survey are of the opinions and experiences of adults nationwide 

because of certain limitations. First, the reported survey response rate was 

only 20 percent. Second, there appears to be a high degree of nonresponse 

bias in the respondent sample that may be due to the low response rate. 

The report indicates that the sample of survey respondents 

overrepresented adults in the U.S. population 45 years of age and older 

and underrepresented adults between the ages of 18 and 44. Additionally, 

individuals with incomes of less than $35,000 were greatly 
Appendix II: Information on the Two Surveys 

About the National Do-Not-Call Registry 

Page 32 GAO-05-113 Do-No-Call National Registry 

underrepresented and those with incomes of more than $50,000 were 

overrepresented. 

We are also uncertain about the accuracy of the measures used in the 

survey because of additional limitations. First, calls from charitable 

organizations were incorrectly included in a list of the types of prohibited 

telemarketing calls that was read to respondents in several questions. 

Second, while the approach to quantify changes in telemarketing call 

volume gives the appearance of obtaining quantifiable numbers about the 

national registry’s effect on the telemarketing call volume, we are 

uncertain about the validity of the answers to these questions. In a 

telephone interview, a month is a long time period to expect respondents 

to accurately recall telemarketing call volume. This recall is even more of 

a problem when respondents are asked to recollect during a telephone 

interview monthly call volumes from more than 3 months in the past, and 

over 80 percent of the individuals who reported signingup for the national 

registry said they had done so more than 3 months prior to being 

interviewed. So, given the length of time that had transpired since 

registering for such a large percentage of the survey sample and the 

complexities of what types of telemarketing calls are prohibited and what 

types of calls are exempt, we believe that it is unlikely that respondents 

could have accurately estimated the average number of calls received per 

month either before or after registering. 
Appendix III: Comments from the Federal 

Trade Commission 

Page 33 GAO-05-113 Do-No-Call National Registry 

Appendix III: Comments from the Federal 

Trade Commission 
Appendix III: Comments from the Federal 

Trade Commission 

Page 34 GAO-05-113 Do-No-Call National Registry 
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 35 GAO-05-113 Do-No-Call National Registry 

Paul L. Jones, Director (202) 512-8777 

Linda R. Watson, Assistant Director (202) 512-8685 

In addition to those mentioned above, David Alexander, John E. Bagnulo, 

Frances Cook, Katherine Davis, and Julian L. King made key contributions 

to this report. 

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contacts 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(440300) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548