a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Committees

April 2006 TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Weaknesses in 

Procedures and 

Performance 

Management Hinder 

Junk Fax Enforcement

GAO-06-425
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

April 2006

TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

Weaknesses in Procedures and 

Performance Management Hinder Junk 

Fax Enforcement 

Highlights of GAO-06-425, a report to 

congressional committees 

The Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act of 1991 prohibited

invasive telemarketing practices, 

including the faxing of unsolicited 

advertisements, known as “junk 

faxes,” to individual consumers and 

businesses. Junk faxes create 

costs for consumers (paper and

toner) and disrupt their fax 

operations. The Junk Fax 

Prevention Act of 2005 clarified an

established business relationship 

exemption, specified opt-out 

procedures for consumers, and

requires the Federal

Communications Commission 

(FCC)—the federal agency 

responsible for junk fax 

enforcement—to report annually to 

Congress on junk fax complaints 

and enforcement. The law also 

required GAO to report to Congress 

on FCC’s enforcement of the junk 

fax laws. This report addresses (1) 

FCC’s junk fax procedures and

outcomes, (2) the strengths and

weaknesses of FCC’s procedures,

and (3) FCC’s junk fax 

management challenges. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that FCC revise 

its junk fax guidance for 

consumers, develop data

management strategies, and 

implement recognized performance 

management practices in carrying

out its junk fax responsibilities. 

FCC officials said they generally

concur with the recommendations.

FCC also provided technical

comments that were incorporated 

throughout this report as

appropriate. 

FCC has procedures for receiving and acknowledging the rapidly increasing 

number of junk fax complaints, but the numbers of investigations and 

enforcement actions have generally remained the same. In 2000, FCC 

recorded about 2,200 junk fax complaints; in 2005, it recorded over 46,000. 

Using its procedures to review the complaints, FCC’s Enforcement Bureau 

(EB) issued 261 citations (i.e., warnings) from 2000 through 2005. EB has 

ordered six companies to pay forfeitures for continuing to violate the junk 

fax rules after receiving a citation. The six forfeitures totaled over $6.9 

million, none of which has been collected by the Department of Justice for 

various reasons. EB officials cited competing demands, resource 

constraints, and the rising sophistication of junk faxers in hiding their 

identities as hindrances to enforcement. 

An emphasis on customer service, an effort to document consumers’ 

complaints, and an attempt to target enforcement resources efficiently are

the strengths of FCC’s procedures; however, inefficient data management, 

resulting in time-consuming manual data entry, data errors, and—most 

important—the exclusion of the majority of complaints from decisions about 

investigations and enforcement, are weaknesses. FCC’s guidance to 

consumers does not provide them with all of the information they need to 

support FCC’s enforcement efforts. 

FCC faces management challenges in carrying out its junk fax 

responsibilities. The commission has no clearly articulated long-term or 

annual goals for junk fax monitoring and enforcement, and it is not analyzing 

the junk fax data. Without analysis, FCC cannot explore the need for, or 

implement, changes to its rules, procedures, or consumer guidance that 

might help deter junk fax violations or give consumers a better 

understanding of the junk fax rules. Most important, without performance 

goals and measures and without analysis of complaint and enforcement data, 

it is not possible to explore the effectiveness of current enforcement 

measures. 

Citations Issued to Junk Fax Violators, Complaints Resulting in a Citation, and Approximate 

Percentage of Total Annual Complaints Resulting in a Citation, 2000-2005 

Year 

Citations 

issued

Complaints 

resulting in a 

citation 

Approximate percentage of total 

annual number of complaints

resulting in a citation

2000 29 128 5.7%

2001 18 72 2.9

2002 120 639 8.4

2003 32 68 0.4

2004 38 230 0.7

2005 24 319 0.7

Total 261 1,456 1.3%

Source: FCC.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-425.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Mark L. 

Goldstein, (202) 512-2834, 

goldsteinm@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 6

FCC Has Recorded a Growing Number of Junk Fax Complaints, but 

Has Taken Limited Enforcement Action to Date 10

FCC’s Procedures Have Emphasized Customer Service and 

Documentation, but Enforcement Is Hampered by Multiple 

Factors 20

FCC Faces Management Challenges in Carrying Out Its Junk Fax 

Responsibilities 28

Conclusions 30

Recommendations for Executive Action 32

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 33

Appendixes

Appendix I: Statutes Protecting Consumers from Unsolicited 

Advertisements 36

Regulating Unsolicited Telephone and E-mail Advertisements 36

Appendix II: Scope and Methodology 45

Appendix III: Consumer Complaints Reported to FCC 47

Tables Table 1: Citations Issued to Junk Fax Violators, Complaints 

Resulting in a Citation, and Approximate Percentage of 

Total Annual Complaints Resulting in a Citation, 

2000-2005 17

Table 2: Status of Forfeitures Issued for Repeat Junk Fax 

Violations, 2000-2005 19

Table 3: Number of Complaints Reported Publicly by FCC, by Type, 

2003-2005 47

Figures Figure 1: FCC’s Process for Responding to Junk Fax 

Complaints 10

Figure 2: Number of Individual Consumer and Business Junk Fax 

Complaints, by Method Submitted to FCC, 2003-2005 12

Figure 3: FCC Form 475: Internet Complaint Form for 

General-Communications Related Issues 22

Figure 4: Number of Junk Fax Complaints with an Attachment That 

Could Be a Fax, 2003-2005 26
Contents

Page ii GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

Figure 5: Percentage of TCPA Complaints Reported in FCC 

Quarterly Reports That Are Junk Fax Complaints, 

2003-2005 48

Abbreviations

CAN-SPAM Act Controlling Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography & 

Marketing Act of 2003

CGB Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau 

DOJ Department of Justice

EB Enforcement Bureau

EBR established business relationship

FCC Federal Communications Commission

FTC Federal Trade Commission

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

ISP Internet service provider

OGC Office of General Counsel

SEC Securities and Exchange Commission

TCPA Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991

TSR Telemarketing Sales Rule

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-06-425 Telecommunications

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

April 5, 2006 Letr

The Honorable Ted Stevens

Chairman 

The Honorable Daniel Inouye

Co-Chairman

Committee on Commerce, Science, 

 and Transportation

United States Senate

The Honorable Joe Barton

Chairman

The Honorable John Dingell

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Energy and Commerce

House of Representatives

For more than a decade, it has generally been illegal to send unsolicited 

facsimile (fax) advertisements, commonly known as “junk faxes,” to 

consumers and businesses. This type of advertising burdens consumers 

and businesses because they incur costs associated with receiving the fax 

(paper and toner) as well as cause disruptions to their fax operations. The 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA)1

 prohibited a variety 

of telemarketing practices, including the faxing of advertisements without 

the recipient’s prior express permission. In 1992, the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) established rules for receiving junk 

fax complaints and taking enforcement actions. In July 2005, Congress 

enacted the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (2005 Act),2

 which amended 

certain provisions of TCPA. Specifically, the 2005 Act clarified an 

“established business relationship” exception, required specific opt-out 

procedures for consumers and businesses, and required FCC to report 

annually to Congress on junk fax complaints and enforcement actions. FCC 

is to adopt new rules implementing these changes by April 5, 2006. 

The 2005 Act required GAO to report to Congress on FCC’s enforcement of 

the junk fax laws. Accordingly, we answered the following questions in this 

report: (1) What procedures has FCC established for taking action on junk 

1

Pub. L. No. 102-243, § 3(a), 105 Stat. 2394, 2395 (1991).

2

Pub. L. No. 109-21, 119 Stat. 359 (2005). 
Page 2 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

fax complaints—including procedures for receipt, acknowledgment, 

investigation, and enforcement—and to what extent has it taken such 

action? (2) What are the strengths and weaknesses of FCC’s junk fax 

procedures? and (3) What challenges do FCC face in carrying out its junk 

fax responsibilities? In addition, we provide in appendix I of this report 

information on enforcement measures and penalties that have been 

established to protect consumers from other types of unsolicited 

advertising. 

To assess FCC’s procedures, implementation, and strengths and 

weaknesses, we reviewed the applicable statutes and FCC rules pertaining 

to junk fax enforcement. We interviewed FCC officials responsible for 

receiving junk fax complaints and taking enforcement actions. We obtained 

FCC data on junk fax complaints and enforcement actions and reviewed 

portions of the complaint database and enforcement spreadsheet. Although 

we discuss limitations to the complaint data in the report, we determined 

that these data were sufficiently reliable for us to present overall trends 

and approximate figures.3

 To identify challenges, we compared FCC’s 

enforcement efforts with recognized performance management practices 

and reviewed applicable FCC performance goals, measures, and data 

analysis. Finally, we reviewed other statutes relevant to protecting 

consumers from unsolicited advertisements. We conducted our work from 

November 2005 through March 2006 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. See appendix II for a more detailed 

explanation of our scope and methodology. 

Results in Brief FCC has applied its procedures for receiving and acknowledging junk fax 

complaints to the rapidly increasing number of complaints; however, the 

numbers of investigations and enforcement actions have generally 

remained about the same. In 2000, FCC recorded about 2,200 junk fax 

complaints; in 2005, it recorded over 46,000. FCC has never separately 

publicly reported the annual number of junk fax complaints. Yet, since 

2003, consumers have complained more to FCC about junk faxes than 

about any other issue under FCC’s jurisdiction except indecency and 

obscenity in radio and television broadcasting. Both individual consumers 

and businesses can report junk fax complaints to FCC by e-mail, postal 

3

In particular, because of concerns over some missing data and data counting errors, we 

report only overall complaint numbers for 2000 through 2002, and approximate numbers at 

a more detailed level for complaints from 2003 through 2005.
Page 3 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

mail, fax, or telephone or through an on-line complaint form. FCC’s 

Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) receives and records 

these complaints in a database, scans in any attachments, and 

acknowledges most complaints in a letter sent by postal mail that provides 

information on the complainant’s enforcement rights. FCC’s Enforcement 

Bureau (EB) handles junk fax investigations and enforcement. Because of 

the large number of complaints and limited resources, EB does not 

investigate each junk fax complaint received by FCC. Instead, EB officials 

said, they try to identify and take enforcement action against the major 

alleged violators and repeat offenders who, they believe, have had the 

greatest impact on consumers. EB’s formal enforcement actions, as 

required by statute, consist of two sequential steps. First, EB may issue a 

citation that notifies the faxer of the complaint(s) against it and informs the 

faxer that its alleged activity is illegal. Second, if FCC receives further 

complaints against a faxer, EB may pursue a “forfeiture” action (i.e., a 

monetary penalty against the faxer). FCC has issued 261 citations covering 

1,456 junk fax complaints, or just over 1 percent of the more than 108,000 

junk fax complaints recorded by FCC from 2000 to 2005. EB officials said 

that they have identified eight repeat offenders from the 261 citations 

issued and have pursued forfeiture actions against each of them. Six of 

these eight repeat offenders have received forfeiture orders. The amounts 

of the monetary forfeitures have increased, and the six forfeiture orders 

total over $6.9 million, but the Department of Justice has collected no 

forfeitures to date because, for example, violators were no longer in 

business or could not be located. EB officials identified competing 

demands, resource constraints, and the rising sophistication of junk faxers 

in hiding their identities as hindrances to enforcement. 

An emphasis on customer service, an effort to document consumer 

complaints, and an attempt to target enforcement resources efficiently are 

the strengths of FCC’s procedures. However, inefficient and uncoordinated 

data management, resulting in time-consuming manual data entry, data 

errors, and—most important—the exclusion of the majority of complaints 

from decisions about investigations and enforcement, are weaknesses. 

CGB has emphasized customer service by establishing multiple methods 

for consumers to report junk fax complaints to FCC, providing multiple 

sources of information about junk fax issues, and sending a letter in 

response to most complainants. However, these procedures are 

time-consuming and errors can occur when complaints are miscoded or 

not matched with supporting faxes. These errors may, to an unknown 

extent, affect the reliability of CGB’s complaint counts. They may also 

impact the quality of the report that FCC is now required to provide to 
Page 4 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

Congress on the number of junk fax complaints received each year. In 

addition, CGB and EB have not coordinated their data needs. This has led 

to the development of a separate spreadsheet by EB because the CGB 

database does not meet its needs. As a result, EB analysts spend about half 

of their time on manual, redundant data entry. Furthermore, it is EB’s 

practice to consider only complaints with an attached fax for enforcement 

action. For 2005, about 60 percent of the complaints—including almost all 

of the complaints reported via the Internet—did not have an attachment. 

Therefore, under EB’s practice, the Internet complaints would not have 

been included in EB’s enforcement spreadsheet. As a result, EB would not 

have included these complaints in its searches for major alleged violators 

or repeat offenders or have considered them in its decisions about 

investigation or enforcement. Compounding this problem is FCC’s 

consumer guidance on submitting junk fax complaints. Some of this 

guidance encourages consumers to send in the junk faxes they have 

received. However, none of the guidance states that without a copy of the 

junk fax, EB analysts do not review a complaint, include it in their 

investigations, consider it for enforcement action, or include it in their 

searches for repeat offenders. Moreover, although about half of the junk 

fax complaints are now reported through FCC’s Internet form, that form 

explains nothing about sending in the fax to FCC or how to do so.

FCC faces management challenges in carrying out its junk fax 

responsibilities. The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 

embodies recognized performance management practices that are to be 

applied to an agency’s efforts in carrying out its various responsibilities. 

FCC does not appear to be applying these practices to its junk fax 

monitoring and enforcement efforts; therefore, it lacks an important tool in 

assessing and reporting its progress. For example, FCC has no clearly 

articulated long-term or annual goals for junk fax monitoring and 

enforcement. FCC is not using the information it collects through junk fax 

complaints to measure its performance, set priorities, or allocate 

resources. Additionally, FCC is not analyzing the nature and frequency of 

the principal types of junk fax problems that complainants are reporting. 

As a result, FCC has not fully addressed concerns that consumers are 

raising, such as the percentages of complainants who reported that they 

were continuing to receive junk faxes after calling the opt-out number or 

the impact of the National Do-Not-Call Registry on junk faxes. 

Furthermore, FCC cannot identify and monitor trends in complaints and 

enforcement; therefore, it cannot target its resources to complainants’ 

greatest concerns or evaluate its own performance in addressing those 

concerns. Having information on the nature and frequency of problems 
Page 5 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

with opt-out numbers and FCC’s success in addressing these problems is 

particularly important because Congress, in the 2005 Act, specified opt-out 

procedures to protect consumers and businesses from repeated unwanted 

faxes. Without analysis, FCC is limited in its ability to understand the need 

for changes to its rules, procedures, or consumer guidance that might help 

deter junk fax violations or give consumers a better understanding of the 

junk fax rules. For example, many comments in CGB’s database indicated 

that consumers believed the National Do-Not-Call Registry that applies to 

telemarketers should protect them from junk faxes; however, FCC has only 

recently revised some of its guidance to clarify whether the National 

Do-Not-Call Registry applies to fax advertising. Most important, without 

establishing performance goals and measures and without analyzing 

complaint and enforcement data, it is not possible to explore the 

effectiveness of current enforcement measures. Without first gaining an 

understanding of the effectiveness of current enforcement measures, it is 

similarly not possible to determine whether additional enforcement 

measures are necessary to protect consumers. 

To address the procedural and performance management weaknesses we 

have identified, we recommend that the Chairman of FCC (1) revise FCC’s 

current guidance to alert complainants of the necessity, under current FCC 

practices, of submitting a copy of the junk fax(es) along with the 

complaint; (2) develop data management strategies to make the consumer 

complaint database more usable to enforcement staff and mitigate the 

amount of time spent on manual data entry, as well as possible errors 

resulting from this manual data entry; and (3) implement recognized 

performance management practices to improve the performance and 

accountability of FCC’s junk fax enforcement efforts. 

We provided a draft of this report to FCC for comment. Senior officials 

from the commission’s Enforcement and Consumer & Governmental 

Affairs Bureaus provided oral comments. FCC generally concurred with 

our recommendations and noted that they have already begun taking steps 

to address our recommendations. FCC took issue with our conclusion that 

FCC’s current process for prioritizing junk fax complaints for enforcement 

does not identify major alleged violators and repeat offenders. However, 

we reiterate that EB’s spreadsheet contains less than half of the total 

number of junk fax complaints received and contains almost none of the 

Internet complaints. FCC has done no analysis to determine whether the 

complaints that have been excluded from enforcement consideration 

involve the same entities they have identified as major alleged violators. 

Moreover, EB relies on its spreadsheet to identify repeat offenders by 
Page 6 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

searching the spreadsheet for the names or telephone numbers of junk fax 

violators that have already been warned by FCC with a citation to cease 

their activities. Since EB is using a subset of all complaint information 

received for this search, it is likely repeat offenders are being missed. In 

addition, this limited search process is not as effective since even one 

additional violation makes the repeat offender subject to further 

enforcement action, including monetary forfeitures. FCC also provided 

technical comments that were incorporated throughout this report as 

appropriate.

Background In 1991, Congress enacted TCPA to address a growing number of telephone 

marketing calls and certain telemarketing practices thought to be an 

invasion of consumer privacy and, in some cases, costly to consumers. 

Provisions of this law generally prohibit anyone from faxing unsolicited 

advertisements, or “junk faxes,” to consumers or businesses. An 

unsolicited advertisement under TCPA was defined as “any material 

advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or 

services which is transmitted to any person without that person’s prior 

express invitation or permission.”4

In addition, there are three distinct enforcement mechanisms for violations 

of the junk fax provisions.5

 First, persons or entities that believe they have 

been sent a fax in violation of the act have a private right of action—that is, 

they can sue the fax advertiser in an appropriate court for damages and/or 

injunctive relief.6

 Second, a state attorney general (or another official or 

agency designated by the state) may bring a civil lawsuit for damages 

and/or injunctive relief when a case involves a pattern or practice of 

violations.7

 Third, FCC is authorized to assess and enforce a “forfeiture” 

against those who violate the junk fax provisions—that is, a monetary

4

As amended, the term “unsolicited advertisement” means “any material advertising the 

commercial availability or quality of any property, goals, or services which is transmitted to 

any person without that person’s prior express invitation or permission in writing or 

otherwise.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(4).

5

The enforcement mechanisms apply to TCPA violations, which include sending an 

unsolicited advertisement to a fax machine.

6

47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).

7

47 U.S.C. § 227(f).
Page 7 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

penalty against the faxer for violating the junk fax rules.8 Appendix I 

provides a brief overview of how unsolicited advertisements sent via 

telephone, the Internet, and cellular telephones are regulated and enforced.

In 1992, FCC adopted rules implementing TCPA, including restrictions on 

the transmission of junk faxes. In a footnote, the commission concluded 

that entities that have an “established business relationship” (EBR) with a 

recipient can conclude that they have the necessary invitation or 

permission of the recipient to receive the fax advertisement.9

 The 

commission defined an EBR to mean the following:

“...a prior or existing relationship formed by a voluntary two-way communication between a 

person or entity and a residential subscriber with or without an exchange of consideration, 

on the basis of an inquiry, application, purchase or transaction by the residential subscriber 

regarding products or services offered by such person or entity, which relationship has not 

been previously terminated by either party.”10

In July 2003, FCC revised many of its telemarketing and fax advertising 

rules under TCPA. In part, the commission reversed its prior conclusion 

about an EBR, stating that its existence alone does not constitute the 

express permission required by TCPA. Instead, the commission concluded 

that a fax advertiser must first obtain written permission, including the 

recipient’s signature, before a fax can be sent. This requirement for written 

permission was stayed by FCC pending reconsideration and, to date, has 

not taken effect.11

Congress has now settled the question of whether prior written consent is 

explicitly required with the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005. The act 

8

47 U.S.C. § 503.

9

Although TCPA provided for an EBR exception for telephone solicitations, the act was 

silent with respect to fax solicitations. See, Rules and Regulations Implementing the 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CC Docket No. 92-90, Report and Order, 7 FCC 

Rcd. 8752, 8779, para. 54 n. 87 (1992) (1992 TCPA Order).

10See, Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 

1991; Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005, CG Docket No. 02-278, CG Docket No. 05-358, 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, 2005 FCC 05-206, para. 3 (2005) (ref. Dec. 9, 

2005) (Junk Fax NPRM).

11Junk Fax NPRM at para. 32.

“For the past 6 months or so, I have been 

awakened in the middle of the night to a

ringing phone, which turns out to be an 

unwanted, unsolicited fax.”

 -Consumer from Sante Fe, NM,12/2005

“We are a business and because of these 

faxes, my fax machine is constantly 

running out of ink & paper and causing me 

to have to call back customers to resend 

their faxes.”

 -Business from Yorkville, NY, 11/2005

“It doesn’t cost them much to mass fax 

electronically, but it [costs] me 50 cents for 

each unwanted fax and this [costs] me 

hundreds of dollars each year....”

 -Consumer from Hillsboro, OR, 11/2005

Consumer Complaints: Cost and

Inconvenience of Junk Faxes 

Source: FCC.
Page 8 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

(1) amends TCPA and codifies the EBR by expressly permitting businesses 

or entities to fax unsolicited advertisements to those with whom they have 

an EBR and (2) provides that prior permission may be in writing or 

otherwise. The act does, however, impose new disclosure and opt-out 

requirements on advertisers. Businesses or entities sending fax 

advertisements must now include on the first page of the ad an opt-out 

notice, the date and time the fax was sent, the registered name of the 

company sending the fax, and the telephone number of the company 

sending the fax or the sending fax machine’s telephone number. The 

opt-out notice should clearly state that the recipient may opt out of any 

future faxes and provide clear instructions for doing so. The opt-out 

telephone number must be domestic and free of charge to the recipient.12

Some businesses and individuals contract with fax broadcaster (also 

known as “fax blasters”) companies that transmit mass fax advertisements 

for others. This practice is legitimate if the fax broadcaster complies with 

the junk fax rules. In some instances, however, fax broadcasters fax 

unsolicited advertisements to parties that have no EBR with the advertising 

company. According to Verizon officials in an FCC filing, fax broadcasters 

often use automatic dialers on outbound fax servers to send large volumes 

of faxes in a short time, often in the middle of the night. Furthermore, their 

dialing lists may include primary residential telephone numbers as well as 

fax numbers. For example, according to these officials, one fax 

broadcaster transmitted 10,600 calls over Verizon’s network within 10 

minutes.

Two FCC bureaus—CGB and EB—are primarily responsible for developing 

and implementing rules and procedures to collect and analyze junk fax 

complaints and for conducting investigations and enforcement, among 

their other responsibilities. CGB develops and implements FCC’s consumer 

policies. CGB also addresses consumers’ informal inquiries and works to 

mediate and resolve complaints under FCC’s jurisdiction.13 These include 

complaints about the commission’s regulated entities, including common 

carrier, broadcast, wireless, satellite, and cable companies; complaints 

about unauthorized changes in telecommunications providers (slamming);

12FCC was required to implement the amendments by April 5, 2006. FCC released its Junk 

Fax NPRM on December 9, 2005.

13We were told by CGB officials that FCC’s consumer centers responded to over 3 million 

calls in 2005. 
Page 9 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

complaints about unwanted e-mail messages on wireless devices such as 

mobile telephones (spamming); and six types of TCPA-related complaints, 

including junk faxes, violations of the do-not-call list, and time-of-day 

violations (marketing between 9 p.m. and 8 a.m).14

EB is responsible for enforcing TCPA’s provisions and the commission’s 

rules and orders. EB handles three major areas of enforcement: local 

competition, public safety and homeland security, and consumer 

protection. Enforcement officials said that they follow FCC’s guidance on 

how to prioritize these responsibilities, and that these priorities can change 

as required by circumstances. EB’s Telecommunications Consumers 

Division is responsible for considering junk fax complaints for 

investigation and enforcement.15

EB uses several procedures to select complaints for investigation and 

possible enforcement. EB’s formal enforcement actions consist of several 

sequential steps. First, EB issues a citation, which notifies the faxer of the 

complaint(s) against it and informs the faxer that its alleged activity is 

illegal. The citation also states that further such activity could make the 

faxer subject to a forfeiture action.16 If FCC receives additional complaints 

against the faxer for violations of the junk fax rules and substantiates the 

complaints, EB may pursue the forfeiture action.17 This could lead to the 

involvement of the Department of Justice (DOJ), which is responsible for 

collection. Figure 1 depicts FCC’s process for responding to junk fax 

complaints.

14The remaining three types of TCPA violations are using artificial or prerecorded voice 

messages; using a telemarketer’s automatic dialer to simultaneously dial more numbers than 

the telemarketer can handle; and initiating a call for the purpose of encouraging the 

purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services. 

15Junk fax enforcement is only one part of the division’s responsibilities, which includes 

resolving other TCPA-related complaints as well as disability and slamming complaints. 

TCPA-related complaints include reports of telephone solicitations after 9 p.m. and before 8 

a.m. or requests to be removed from telephone solicitations not being honored. 

16The citation is released publicly, posted on the commission’s Web site, and listed in the 

commission’s Daily Digest. The citation gives the faxer a reasonable opportunity (usually 30 

days) to request a personal interview with a commission official at the FCC field office 

nearest to the faxer’s place of residence. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(5). 

17If the alleged violator holds or has applied for a commission authorization or license (e.g., 

telephone companies or radio stations), the commission may initiate an investigation that 

may lead to the issuance of a forfeiture order without issuing a citation first.
Page 10 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

Figure 1: FCC’s Process for Responding to Junk Fax Complaints

FCC Has Recorded a 

Growing Number of 

Junk Fax Complaints, 

but Has Taken Limited 

Enforcement Action to 

Date

In 2000, FCC recorded about 2,200 junk fax complaints; in 2005, that 

number had grown to more than 46,000. Despite this growth in junk fax 

complaints, the numbers of investigations and enforcement actions have 

generally remained the same. 

Junk fax complaints are

sent to FCC via an Internet

complaint form, telephone,

e-mail, fax, or postal mail.

FCC’s Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs

Bureau (CGB) responds

to each complaint with a

notice of receipt.

CGB enters all

complaints and scans any

attachments, including

faxes, into database.

FCC’s Enforcement Bureau

(EB) reviews complaint

database and enters

those complaints with

an attached fax into a

separate spreadsheet.

If the forfeiture penalty

is not paid, the case is

referred to the 

Department of Justice

for collection.

If subsequent complaints

are identified, FCC may

begin a forfeiture

proceeding and assess 

a monetary penalty.

After review, FCC may

issue a citation to a 

major alleged violator,

warning them to cease

junk fax activity.

EB researches

spreadsheet to identify

major alleged violators.

Sources: GAO analysis of FCC data; clipart (GAO).

FCC

FCCFCC

e-mail

or on-line form

fax

phone mail
Page 11 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

FCC’s Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs 

Bureau Has Received an 

Increasing Number of Junk 

Fax Complaints, Especially 

through Internet Forms

In 2000, CGB began using a new database to record the various types of 

consumer complaints under FCC’s jurisdiction, including complaints about 

TCPA violations. For junk fax complaints, CGB staff accept the complaints; 

enter information into the database; and scan the materials submitted with 

the complaints, including copies of the alleged junk faxes. CGB staff mail a 

letter to the majority of complainants acknowledging FCC’s receipt of their 

complaint. The letter states that FCC does not resolve individual 

complaints and cannot award monetary or other damages directly to the 

complainant. The letter also states that the complainant has the right to 

take private legal action against any junk fax violator.18

In 2000, FCC recorded about 2,200 complaints; in 2005, that number had 

grown to more than 46,000. Since 2002, FCC has reported quarterly on the 

number of consumer complaints received, consolidating all six types of 

TCPA complaints into one category. As a result, the number of junk fax 

complaints has never been separately reported. Using CGB data, we found 

that within the specific category of TCPA complaints, junk faxes 

represented over 85 percent of the complaints logged in 2005. In fact, when 

looking at all types of reported consumer complaints, junk fax complaints 

have ranked as the second most frequently reported since 2003—second 

only to complaints about indecency and obscenity in radio and television 

broadcasting.19 Appendix II lists the number of complaints reported 

publicly by FCC, by type, from 2003 through 2005 and details the 

percentage of the TCPA complaints that are junk fax complaints. 

Both individual consumers and businesses can report junk fax complaints 

to the commission by e-mail, postal mail, fax, telephone, or the Internet 

(using an on-line complaint form—Form 475—that appears on FCC’s Web 

site). FCC documents both the type of complainant (individual consumer 

or business) and the method of reporting (e-mail, postal mail, fax, 

telephone, or the Internet). Figure 2 shows the number of junk fax 

complaints that businesses and individuals reported through various 

methods from 2003 through 2005. As the figures indicate, the number of 

junk fax complaints reported by businesses dropped in 2005, but the 

18The “private right of action” states that an individual may go to court and seek damages for 

up to $500 for every unsolicited fax advertisement received. FCC staff said that they were 

not aware of any source that comprehensively tracks or documents such lawsuits. 

19In 2005, for example, there were about four times as many consumer complaints about 

indecency and obscenity as there were about junk faxes.
Page 12 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

number of complaints reported by individuals increased, bringing the total 

for both groups significantly higher in 2005 than in prior years. Additionally, 

the number of complaints reported using the on-line complaint form has 

increased, especially for individual consumers. In 2005, about half of all 

junk fax complaints were reported via the Internet.

Figure 2: Number of Individual Consumer and Business Junk Fax Complaints, by Method Submitted to FCC, 2003-2005

Telephone

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

20

25

30

35

40

2003 2004 2005

Numbers in thousands

Consumer Complaints

Year

5

10

15

2003 2004 2005

Numbers in thousands

Business Complaints

Year

Postal mail

Internet

Fax

E-mail

Source: FCC.

0 0
Page 13 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

In their junk fax complaints to FCC, individuals and businesses often 

described the adverse effects of junk faxes. We looked at hundreds of 

complainant comments received from September through December 2005 

and found complaints that cited the costs of toner and paper, the disruption 

of business activities during junk fax transmissions, and interruptions to 

personal lives. For example, the complainants expressed frustration about 

calls coming in the middle of the night and waking them up or causing 

panic. FCC has recently addressed this issue.20 Some complainants noted 

problems with the opt-out number—that is, the telephone number that they 

should be able to call to stop receiving the faxes. For example, the opt-out 

number did not work, was always busy, or was connected to a prerecorded 

message.21 According to some complainants, calling the opt-out number 

seemed to increase the number of junk faxes they received. Additionally, 

some complainants expressed frustration with the commission’s response 

to their prior complaints. 

20FCC rules prohibit telephone solicitation calls to residential homes after 9 p.m. and before 

8 a.m. In March 2006, FCC revised its consumer call center script to advise callers that these 

restrictions do not apply when an otherwise legal fax (e.g., when an EBR exists between the 

faxer and the recipient) is sent. In other words, if a consumer receives a fax at 2 a.m. from 

someone with whom there is an EBR, there is no violation.

21Inclusion of an opt-out telephone number on the faxed advertisement was required by 

Congress in the 2005 Act and is to be implemented into FCC’s rules by April 5, 2006. 

Previously, some faxers were already including an opt-out number on their faxes. TCPA 

requires that identifying information be placed on all fax transmissions. 

“We have repeatedly called the number to 

remove our fax number and we get a

busy signal.”

 -Consumer from Bethesda, MD, 12/2005

“When [the] opt out number is called a new 

opt out number is sent with the next fax.”

 -Consumer from Aptos, CA, 12/2005

“A opt out number is provided and when 

called I find that the phone number is not 

in service.”

 -Consumer from Burlingame, CA, 12/2005

“I have reported our number on the 

removal line several times, and the last 2 

times [I heard] a recording: this number 

has already been removed. Yet we 

continue to receive faxes.”

 -Consumer from Grand Rapids, MI, 12/2005

“When I call their fax removal system to 

get off their list an automated voice says

‘Welcome to our removal service,’ then 

says ‘Goodbye.’ You don’t ever have a

chance to tell them your number.”

 -Consumer from Glendale, WI, 11/2005

Consumer Complaints: Problems with

the Opt-out Number

Source: FCC.
Page 14 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

Some complainants described junk faxes they had received as unbelievable 

or potentially fraudulent. Among the frequently cited topics were hot 

stocks, cheap vacations, low-interest mortgages, and low-cost health care. 

We asked FCC officials whether they believed fraud was an issue with junk 

faxes. They said that, although enforcement related to fraud falls outside of 

FCC’s jurisdiction, some of the faxes advertising stock tips could be 

fraudulent and come under the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (SEC). Federal Trade Commission (FTC) staff, whom we also 

asked about fraud in connection with junk faxes, said they believed it was a 

concern and they cited travel and mortgage offers. FTC staff also 

mentioned pump-and-dump marketing schemes, which they also noted 

would come under SEC’s jurisdiction.22

FCC’s Enforcement Bureau 

Has Generally Issued a 

Limited Number of Citations 

Each Year since 2000 and 

Has Rarely Issued 

Forfeiture Orders 

FCC’s EB, established in November 1999, is responsible for investigating 

and determining the appropriate enforcement action for all types of TCPA 

complaints, including junk fax complaints. Currently, EB dedicates 11 staff 

(9 full-time analysts and 2 part-time attorneys) to work on junk fax 

enforcement. According to EB officials, the bureau’s overall staffing levels 

have remained relatively stable over the years. As a result, the staffing level 

for junk fax enforcement has remained about the same over the past 5 

years, even though the number of junk fax complaints has rapidly

increased. 

Because of the large number of complaints and limited resources, EB does 

not investigate each junk fax complaint. Instead, EB officials said, they try 

22“Pump-and-dump” schemes, also known as “hype-and-dump manipulation,” involve the 

touting of a company’s stock through false and misleading statements to the marketplace. 

After “pumping” the stock to inflate the prices, those involved will then sell, or “dump,” their 

stock into the market at a profit.

“Unsolicited fax from pump and dump 

promoters.... I am seeking to permanently 

bar them from sending faxes to me and to 

have them investigated by security 

regulators.”

 -Consumer from Summit, NJ, 12/2005

“We received 4 copies of the same fax 

over the weekend.... It is the scam about 

the money in South Africa that needs to be 

moved, they want a bank account number 

and we will get all these funds, and then 

give them their share.”

 -Consumer from Mankato, MN, 11/2005

“The faxes sometimes headline: 

‘Refinance Now,’ ‘FREE trip to Disney 

World,’ and some fax[es] that [ask] for your 

bank account number so they can transfer 

funds to your account.”

 -Consumer from Frederick, MD, 12/2005

Consumer Complaints: Junk Faxes

Potentially Promoting Fraud

Source: FCC.
Page 15 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

to identify and take enforcement action against the major alleged violators 

and repeat offenders who, they believe, have had the greatest impact on 

consumers. EB defines a major alleged violator as a company, carrier, or 

individual that has sent a large number of junk faxes to complainants over a 

given period of time; it defines a repeat offender as a company, carrier, or 

individual that continues to violate the junk fax rules after receiving a 

citation from the commission. 

To identify major alleged violators, the EB analysts responsible for 

responding to junk fax complaints first review CGB’s complaint database to 

identify those complaints with an attached fax.23 EB officials said they use 

only complaints with attached faxes because they contain the best 

evidence for starting an investigation. The analysts then transfer 

information from the complaint and the fax into an enforcement 

spreadsheet.24 Periodically, the EB analysts sort the information in the 

enforcement spreadsheet to align matching telephone numbers and 

identify those that are repeated most often. According to enforcement 

officials, the most frequently repeated telephone numbers are indicative of 

the major alleged violators that are creating the most widespread problems 

for consumers.25 In addition to using EB’s spreadsheet to prioritize which 

complaints receive enforcement action, EB will also initiate enforcement 

action on the basis of complaints received from other sources, such as 

congressional offices, FCC commissioners, or state attorneys general. In 

the past year, about half of the citations issued by EB were based, at least in 

part, on referrals from outside sources—the majority of these outside 

sources were Members of Congress.

The next step in the investigation is for the EB analysts to identify the 

major alleged violators associated with the most frequently repeated 

23If complainants send copies of the associated faxes by postal mail or e-mail, CGB staff 

scan the copies into the complaint database. However, if the complainant sends in more 

than 10 pages of faxes, CGB staff do not scan all of this information into the database 

because of the amount of time required to scan the documents and the amount of space 

required in the database. According to FCC officials, beginning on May 1, 2006, all faxes will 

be received by Right Fax, which is a personal computer-based fax software that will 

eliminate the need for CGB staff to scan faxes into the database. 

24EB staff began using this spreadsheet in July 2005. Previously, analysts sorted faxes by 

hand. 

25EB staff also sort the opt-out numbers to identify major fax broadcasters. Fax 

broadcasters send out, for a fee, fax advertisements and notices for other businesses and 

individuals. 
Page 16 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

telephone numbers. Finding their names and addresses involves contacting 

carriers to learn who was paying for the telephone numbers from which the 

alleged junk faxes were sent on the dates the faxes were sent. Waiting for 

this information from the carriers can take several days. According to 

enforcement officials, identifying and locating major alleged violators is the 

most challenging aspect of junk fax enforcement. They said that obtaining 

this information is becoming increasingly more challenging because 

violators have become more adept at hiding their identity. As a result, the 

officials said, the analysts have to spend more time on each investigation. 

Once a major alleged violator is identified, the analysts can decide whether 

to begin the formal, two-step enforcement process of citation and possible 

forfeiture action. EB officials said they consider the citation to be their 

most efficient enforcement action because many, perhaps the majority, of 

the violators are unaware that their activities are illegal and could lead to 

monetary forfeitures. As a result, the officials said, most violators that 

receive a citation do cease their junk fax activities. However, EB officials 

could not provide data to support this assertion.26

EB officials have issued a limited number of citations over the past 6 years, 

and the annual number did not change substantially, except in 2002.27 As 

table 1 indicates, FCC issued 261 citations covering 1,456 junk fax 

complaints from 2000 through 2005. EB officials cited competing demands, 

personnel reductions, and the increasing skill of violators in concealing 

their identity as reasons for the limited number of citations issued. 

26EB officials also stated that citations are relatively easy to issue. Citations may not require 

a copy of the associated fax, and there is no time limit on issuing a citation.

27According to EB officials, the number of citations increased in 2002 because of the 

activities of one fax broadcaster, Fax.Com, Inc. Of the 120 citations issued in 2002, 104 were 

associated with this fax broadcaster.
Page 17 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

Table 1: Citations Issued to Junk Fax Violators, Complaints Resulting in a Citation, 

and Approximate Percentage of Total Annual Complaints Resulting in a Citation, 

2000-2005

Source: FCC.

EB officials also noted that in 2005 the average number of complaints that 

each citation covered increased. They believe this demonstrates EB has 

successfully targeted the major alleged violators. However, as shown in 

table 1, the percentage of the total annual number of complaints resulting 

in a citation has been less than 1 percent since 2003. 

To identify repeat violators, EB analysts enter citation information into 

their enforcement spreadsheet, including the telephone numbers of the 

citation recipients, and search the information in the spreadsheet to 

identify any complaints sent after the citation date against these recipients. 

If any such complaints are found, the analysts decide whether to take the 

second formal enforcement step—a forfeiture action—which begins with 

the issuance of a notice of apparent liability. This notice informs the alleged 

repeat violator that its actions make it liable for forfeiture of a specific 

dollar amount.28 The notice must

• be issued within 1 year of the alleged violation(s) that forms the basis 

for the notice;

Year

Number of

citations issued

Number of complaints

resulting in a citation

Approximate percentage

of total annual number 

of complaints resulting

in a citation

2000 29 128 5.7%

2001 18 72 2.9

2002 120 639 8.4

2003 32 68 0.4

2004 38 230 0.7

2005 24 319 0.7

Total 261 1,456 1.3%

28Before initiating forfeiture, EB staff contact complainants and obtain signed declarations 

that attest, under penalty of perjury, to the apparently unlawful junk faxes and to whether 

the complainant granted permission to, or had an EBR with, the faxer.
Page 18 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

• identify each specific statute, rule, order, term, or condition that 

allegedly has been violated; 

• explain how the alleged repeat offender’s activities have violated the 

junk fax rules and the dates of the violations; and 

• specify the amount of the proposed monetary forfeiture.29

According to EB officials, their enforcement efforts are hampered by the 

requirement that a notice of apparent liability be issued within 1 year of an 

alleged repeat violation. For example, FCC’s notice of apparent liability 

against Fax.Com, Inc., stated that although FCC received some consumers’ 

correspondences and related declarations detailing additional unsolicited 

advertisements received from Fax.Com, FCC was unable to include these 

violations in the forfeiture action because they were beyond the 1-year 

statute of limitations. This statute of limitations is problematic, they said, 

because it takes time, after identifying a repeat violation, to prepare the 

notice and obtain a sworn statement from the complainant verifying that 

there was no EBR with the sender of the fax. FTC staff said that they have a 

statute of limitations of at least 5 years to enforce various telemarketing 

rules by seeking civil penalties, and they agreed with FCC that a 1-year 

statute of limitations was restrictive. 

Within a reasonable period of time, usually within 30 days of receiving the 

notice, the alleged repeat offender must either pay the proposed forfeiture 

in full or file a written response requesting that the proposed forfeiture be 

rescinded or be reduced. If the proposed forfeiture penalty is not paid in 

full in response to the notice, the commission, upon considering all 

relevant information available to it, will issue an order (1) canceling or 

reducing the proposed forfeiture or requiring that it be paid in full and (2) 

stating the date by which the forfeiture must be paid. If the recipient of the 

order fails to pay the fine within 30 days from the date it is due, EB staff 

will refer the case to the commission’s Office of General Counsel (OGC).30

2947 C.F.R. § 1.80(c)(3),(f). 

30The recipient can file a petition for reconsideration or an application for review, prompting 

the commission or EB to issue an order addressing the recipient’s arguments and deciding 

whether to uphold, reduce, or rescind the forfeiture amount.
Page 19 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

If the recipient ignores OGC’s request for payment, the commission refers 

the forfeiture order to DOJ for collection.31

EB officials stated that they have identified eight repeat offenders from the 

261 citations issued from 2000 through 2005, and that they have pursued 

forfeiture actions against all of the repeat offenders they have identified. 

Six of the eight repeat offenders have received forfeiture orders, as detailed 

in table 2. The amounts of the monetary forfeitures have increased, but no 

forfeitures have been collected to date. For various reasons, five of the six 

forfeitures will never be collected. The sixth forfeiture order accounts for 

about 78 percent of the fines FCC has levied.32

Table 2: Status of Forfeitures Issued for Repeat Junk Fax Violations, 2000-2005

Source: FCC.

a

In 2003, Congress extended the reach of TCPA to violations by persons outside of the United States if 

the recipient is within the United States. Pub. L. No. 108-187, § 12, 117 Stat. 2717 (2003).

31The matter is referred to DOJ after it has become final and the order is no longer an 

appealable order or after the appropriate court has entered final judgment in favor of FCC. 

32EB officials stated they are currently working with DOJ to collect the $5,379,000 forfeiture 

against Fax.Com, Inc.

Company

Date of forfeiture 

order

Number of 

violations

Amount of 

fine Status

Get-Aways, Inc. March 2000 19 $85,500 Referred to FCC’s OGC and DOJ. DOJ closed this case 

because the company filed for bankruptcy.

Tri Star Marketing, Inc. October 2000 8 47,000 Referred to both OGC and DOJ. DOJ closed this case 

because litigation was not cost-effective considering the 

amount of potential recovery. Also, collection was 

questionable since Washington State had already received 

a judgment in excess of $2 million dollars against the 

company.

Carolina Liquidators, 

Inc.

November 2000 34 230,000 Referred to both OGC and DOJ. DOJ closed this case 

because the company or its principal could not be found.

U.S. Notary, Inc. October 2001 26 90,000 Referred to both OGC and DOJ. DOJ closed this case 

because the company was out of business and unable to 

pay its debt.

21st Century Faxes January 2002 152 1,107,500 Referred to both OGC and DOJ. DOJ closed this case 

because faxes were transmitted from outside the United 

States.a

Fax.Com, Inc. January 2004 489 5,379,000 Referred to both OGC and DOJ. Litigation is ongoing. FCC 

staff is assisting DOJ to seek collection of the forfeiture.
Page 20 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

Two additional enforcement actions were taken in early 2006, outside the 

scope of our review. The remaining two forfeiture actions that EB began 

are against Elf Painting and Wallpaper (Elf) and First Choice Healthcare, 

Inc. (First Choice). FCC issued a notice of apparent liability to Elf in 

December 2004 for continuing to send junk faxes after receiving a citation 

in February 2003. The notice proposed a penalty of $22,500 for five specific 

violations of the junk fax rules. A final forfeiture order issuing a fine of 

$22,500 was released by FCC against Elf on March 10, 2006. In February 

2006, FCC issued a notice of apparent liability against First Choice, 

proposing a fine of $776,500 against the company for sending at least 98 

unsolicited fax advertisements after receiving a citation in July 2004.

FCC’s Procedures Have 

Emphasized Customer 

Service and 

Documentation, but 

Enforcement Is 

Hampered by Multiple 

Factors

The strengths of FCC’s junk fax procedures are that CGB has emphasized 

both customer service and documentation of consumers’ complaints; 

however, these processes are resource-intensive and susceptible to error. 

Additionally, CGB’s database contains detailed information about 

complaints, but does not present the information in a way that meets EB’s 

enforcement needs. While EB’s approach to making investigation and 

enforcement decisions is designed to make efficient use of limited 

enforcement resources, it does not consider or factor in the majority of 

complaints. 

Focus on Customer Service 

and Documentation Is 

Time-consuming, and Data 

Entry Errors May Occur 

CGB has emphasized customer service by establishing multiple methods 

for consumers to report junk fax complaints to FCC, providing multiple 

sources of information about junk fax issues, and sending a letter in 

response to the majority of the junk fax complaints. As previously 

discussed, consumers can report junk fax complaints by postal mail, 

telephone, fax, e-mail, and the Internet. FCC also staffs two consumer 

centers to handle consumer inquiries and provide junk fax guidance. This 

guidance is located in several places, including FCC’s Web page, a 

consumer fact sheet, and the Internet consumer complaint form (Form 

475). The letter that FCC sends in response to complaints further advises 

consumers of their legal options for addressing their complaints. 

CGB consolidates and maintains information about complaints in its 

database, together with any attachments. According to CGB officials, the 

database has improved CGB’s coding and counting of TCPA complaints. 

However, entering complaint information into the database is 

time-consuming. Data from complaints reported by postal mail, e-mail, fax, 
Page 21 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

and telephone must be entered manually, while data reported on FCC’s 

Internet complaint form (Form 475) can be electronically transferred from 

the form to the database. However, CGB staff still have to review the 

complaint summary from the consumer’s complaint (by opening a text box 

from the Form 475) to determine what type of TCPA violation is being 

reported. As figure 3 shows, the form includes a text box that asks the 

complainant, among other things, to describe the type of violation.33 CGB 

staff then have to analyze the consumer’s comment and manually code the 

type of TCPA violation into the database. 

33CGB officials have revised the Internet complaint form several times; the most recent 

revision was in November 2005. While previous versions of the form made it easy for 

complainants to identify the type of TCPA violation, the most recent version does not. 
Page 22 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

Figure 3: FCC Form 475: Internet Complaint Form for General-Communications Related Issues

 Approved by OMB

3060-0874

Estimated time per response: 30 minutes

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, DC 20554

FCC Form 475 – General-Communications Related Issues

This form can only be used for complaints related to: 1) wireless and wireline telecommunication services; 2) 

non-programming related cable, broadcasting and satellite services; and 3) communications accessibility issues. 

For example, use Form 475 for general telephone complaints such as billing disputes, cramming, telephone 

company advertising practices, paging services, unsolicited telephone marketing calls and unwanted faxes, and 

accessibility by persons with disabilities to telecommunications equipment and services. If you are complaining 

that your telephone company was changed to another telephone company without your permission 

(SLAMMING), you must use Form 501 to file the complaint. If you are complaining about the allegedly obscene, 

profane, or indecent content of a radio or television program, you must use Form 475B.

* Required Information

g. For Telephone Consumer Protection Act violations such as an unsolicited telephone call in violation of your 

do-not-call preference; a pre-recorded message; or an unsolicited advertisement sent to your fax machine, please provide:

 1. the telephone number of the individual or company who called or faxed you: 

*2. your telephone number(s) on which the call or fax was received: 

*3. a description of the telemarketing call, pre-recorded message, or unsolicited fax, including an identification of the 

 company whose products or services were being advertised, and any phone numbers that were included in the call or 

 fax:

*4. the opt-out” number(s) provided in the call(s) or, on the fax(es): (List number(s) given in the calls(s) or fax(es) for 

 you to contact if you do not want to receive any additional calls or faxes.)

*5. Have you: (a) purchased anything from the company being advertised in the call or fax; (b) made an inquiry or 

 application to that company; or (c) given consent to the company to send you the call or fax? If so, please describe 

 and state when you had such contact with the company.

Source: FCC.
Page 23 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

Besides being time-consuming, CGB’s data entry processes may cause 

errors in the database, despite the periodic supervisory review that CGB 

officials told us takes place. For example, errors can occur in coding 

complaints, matching complaints with associated attachments, and dating 

complaints. These problems may, to an unknown extent, affect the 

reliability of CGB’s complaint counts. They also may impact the quality of 

the report that FCC is now required to provide to Congress on the number 

of junk fax complaints received each year. Given the large numbers of 

complaints, we do believe that overall trends can be reported, but the 

specific numbers may not be accurate.

Errors in coding complaints can occur if the complainant’s comments on 

the Form 475 do not provide CGB staff with sufficient information to 

determine what type of violation should be coded in the database, or if the 

CGB staff simply miscode a comment. In a cursory review of 2005 

complaint data, we found several instances in which an Internet complaint 

was miscoded. For example, CGB’s database incorrectly identified one 

Internet complaint as a junk fax complaint, even though the complainant 

was asking for assistance in having charges removed that resulted from 

unsolicited advertisements sent as text messages to the complainant’s 

cellular telephone. 

Errors may also occur in matching complaints submitted by telephone, 

e-mail, or the Internet with the associated faxes sent to FCC separately by 

postal mail. Unless the consumer writes on the fax the unique identifier 

that CGB assigns to every complaint on the fax and CGB staff scan the fax 

into the database with the original complaint, the fax may be entered into 

the database as a new complaint. CGB officials acknowledged that these 

types of errors could be occurring, but they could not estimate the extent 

of the problem. 

CGB’s Database Does Not 

Meet EB’s Enforcement 

Needs, Leading to Duplicate 

Data Entry and 

Demonstrating Limited 

Coordination

Although CGB’s database contains detailed information about complaints, 

the database does not present the information in a way that meets EB’s 

enforcement needs. According to EB officials, CGB’s database does not 

meet EB’s enforcement needs because it does not contain separate fields 

for all of the information EB requires, and not all fields of the database can

“I received an unsolicited text message... 

offering ringtone download service for 

$5.99/month. I was charged 5 cents to 

receive this unsolicited message.” 

 -Consumer from Pittsburgh, PA, 8/2005

“...has been calling our phone number 

...for the past month for marketing 

purposes. I have requested on 2 occasions

to remove my name, and phone number 

from their marketing database. Each time 

they state they will do so, but the calls

continue....”

 -Consumer from Chicago, IL, 8/2005

“Today I called to dispute the charges on 

my phone bill; [their] Customer Service 

[tried] to give me a run around about 

calling my local phone company first.”

 -Consumer from Apopka, FL, 11/2005

Consumer Complaints: CGB Errors in

Classifying Complaints as Junk Fax

Complaints

Source: FCC.
Page 24 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

be easily searched.34 For example, the database does not contain separate 

fields for the names of the businesses or individuals that may have sent the 

junk faxes or for their telephone numbers.35 Most of this information, if 

included in the complaint, has been entered into a comment field manually 

by CGB staff or transferred electronically from a text box on the Form 475. 

To find the most frequently reported businesses or individuals (major 

alleged violators), EB staff would have to use the “Find” feature to search 

the comment fields for one name or telephone number at a time. 

Because CGB’s database does not contain the data fields that EB needs for 

enforcement, EB has developed a separate spreadsheet that contains the 

requisite data fields and allows the data to be searched and sorted to 

support EB’s enforcement activities. This spreadsheet is not linked in any 

way to CGB’s database. Consequently, EB analysts manually enter the data 

they need from CGB’s database and from the faxes scanned in as 

attachments to CGB’s database. Furthermore, since the type of attachment 

is not identified in the database, EB analysts have to open each attachment 

to determine whether it is a fax. According to EB officials, the 9 EB 

analysts who work on junk fax complaints spend about half their time on 

data entry and the remainder of their time on enforcement activities.

This duplication of data management activities demonstrates that limited 

coordination has taken place between CGB and EB in determining how 

best to manage junk fax complaint data. For example, CGB staff currently 

have no follow-up procedures to obtain any additional information from 

junk fax complainants that may assist in investigations and enforcement.36

In addition, EB staff acknowledged that maintaining a separate 

spreadsheet takes resources away from investigation and enforcement. 

34In addition, CGB staff may not enter any of the information contained in a copy of an 

alleged junk fax submitted by a complainant because the fax has been scanned and attached 

to the database. 

35The database does include separate fields for the date the complaint was received; the 

name, address, and telephone number of the complainant; and the method by which the 

complaint was sent to FCC.

36CGB officials said they are currently working on follow-up procedures for junk fax 

complaints, but they could not provide any information on what these procedures would 

cover or when they would be completed.
Page 25 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

Practice of Limiting 

Consideration for 

Enforcement to Complaints 

with Attached Faxes Has 

Excluded the Majority of 

Reported Complaints

EB’s practice is to investigate and consider taking enforcement action only 

when a fax is provided with a complaint. As previously noted, according to 

EB officials, a fax is not needed to issue a citation but may be needed for 

other formal enforcement actions. EB staff enter data into their 

spreadsheet only for those complaints from CGB’s database that have an 

attached fax. As figure 4 indicates, the majority of the junk fax complaints 

in CGB’s database for every year from 2003 through 2005 did not have an 

attachment.37 The remaining complaints had an attachment that may or 

may not have been a fax.38 For 2005, about 60 percent of the 

complaints—including almost all of the complaints reported via the 

Internet—did not have an attachment and, therefore, under EB’s practice, 

would not have been included in EB’s enforcement spreadsheet. As a 

result, EB would not have included these complaints in its searches for 

major alleged violators or repeat offenders or considered them in its 

decisions about investigation or enforcement.39

37CGB officials said they generally do not maintain complaint data that are over 2 years old, 

but they were able to provide total junk fax complaint numbers as far back as 2000. 

38Enforcement analysts cannot determine from the consumer database if an attachment to a 

complaint record is the associated fax, a copy of the complaint letter, or a copy of the 

Internet complaint form. Therefore, analysts have to open each attachment, and if it is the 

associated fax, they transfer the information to the enforcement spreadsheet. It if is not, 

they skip the complaint and move on to the next record.

39Some of these complainants that used an Internet complaint form may have separately 

mailed, faxed, or e-mailed a copy of the unsolicited fax associated with their complaint to 

the commission. In these cases, CGB staff may have counted the submission as a new 

complaint in the database if the complainant had not included the original FCC-assigned 

complaint number.
Page 26 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

Figure 4: Number of Junk Fax Complaints with an Attachment That Could Be a Fax, 

2003-2005

With the majority of reported complaints excluded from EB’s review, the 

chances of identifying repeat offenders—those who have already received 

a citation or a notice of apparent liability from FCC but have continued to 

send junk faxes—are more limited.40 We searched CGB’s 2005 complaint 

data for selected company names and telephone numbers from issued 

citations, using the “Find” feature, and found several complaints alleging 

violations by citation recipients dated after the citations were issued. 

However, none of these complaints had an attachment, and we did not find 

these repeat offenders when we searched EB’s spreadsheet. In addition, we 

found six complaints of violations by Elf Painting and Wallpaper that 

postdated the notice of apparent liability issued to this firm in December 

2004. The most recent complaint was dated November 2005. However, 

these complaints were all reported via the Internet and lacked an 

attachment; therefore, like the 2005 complaints we found against the other 

40Consumer and enforcement officials said they currently do not search CGB’s complaint 

database for the names or telephone numbers of businesses or consumers that previously 

received junk fax citations. In addition, CGB officials said they could not flag this 

information in complaints being entered into CGB’s database to help identify repeat 

violators.

0

10

20

30

40

50

2003 2004 2005

Number of complaints (in thousands)

(51%)

(61%)

(49%)

(58%)

(42%)

(39%)

Year

Complaints without attachment

Complaints with attachment 

Source: FCC.
Page 27 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

citation recipients, they may not have been found in a search of EB’s 

spreadsheet.

Compounding this problem is FCC’s consumer guidance on submitting junk 

fax complaints. Some of this guidance encourage consumers to send in the 

junk faxes they have received. However, none of the guidance state that 

without a fax, EB analysts do not review a complaint, include it in their 

investigations, consider it for enforcement action, or include it in their 

searches for repeat offenders. 

For example, FCC’s junk fax fact sheet and consumer center staff guidance 

both encourage complainants to send in the fax if possible, as the following 

excerpt from both documents indicates: 

“If you have received unsolicited faxes, you are encouraged to contact the FCC regarding 

the incident(s). You may need to provide documentation in support of your complaint, such 

as copies of the fax(es) you received....Your complaint should include:...a copy of the fax 

advertisement, if possible, or confirmation that you have retained a copy of the fax....” 

By contrast, the form for reporting complaints via the Internet says nothing 

about sending in a copy of the fax to FCC and does not tell complainants 

how to do so. As shown in figure 2, the Form 475 is designed for consumers 

to report a wide variety of telephone complaints. As a result, much of the 

information the form provides, as well as the information it seeks from 

consumers, does not apply to junk fax complaints. Only the last section of 

the form applies to junk fax complaints. 

Our review of a portion of CGB’s 2005 complaint data revealed that several 

consumers who reported junk fax complaints via the Internet were 

frustrated because they could not attach the faxes they had received to the 

form and could not find any guidance on how to send the faxes to FCC. For 

example, some consumers said they had kept copies of the faxes but did 

not know how to send them to FCC. Other consumers asked FCC to 

contact them to let them know how to send the faxes. 

Both CGB and EB officials said they do not explicitly state that a fax is 

needed for enforcement because they do not want to discourage 

consumers who no longer have the fax from sending in a complaint. In 

some instances, consumers who received a junk fax may not have kept the 

fax. In addition, CGB officials said the Form 475 asks for all of the 

information from the fax that is useful for EB to consider for possible 

investigatory action or to issue a citation, such as the telephone number of 

the company or individual that sent the fax and the “opt-out” numbers 

“I have copies of all the faxes listed below 

that can be sent to you, but there is no way 

to attach them through this form.”

 -Consumer from Chipley, FL, 9/2005 

“I don’t know how to send you a copy of 

these faxes using this form, but I will keep 

the faxes if you want me to send them to 

you.”

 -Consumer from Reno, NV, 9/2005

“I can’t attach the fax to this online 

submission.”

 -Consumer from Bartlett, IL, 10/2005

Consumer Complaints: FCC Form 475

Does Not Explain How to Send Fax

Source: FCC.
Page 28 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

provided on the fax. However, enforcement officials will not see this 

information because, under current practice, they are only looking for 

complaints that have an attached fax to transfer to the EB spreadsheet, 

regardless of how complete the information is on the Form 475. 

FCC Faces 

Management 

Challenges in Carrying 

Out Its Junk Fax 

Responsibilities

Congress passed the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 

(GPRA)41 to require federal agencies to take specific steps to improve their 

performance. In general, GPRA sets forth recognized performance 

management practices that agencies can apply in carrying out their 

governmental responsibilities. These practices include establishing 

long-term strategic goals and annual goals, measuring performance in 

meeting these goals, and reporting publicly on the agency’s progress.42

These performance management practices are critical in helping an agency 

determine how well it is achieving intended outcomes. FCC does not 

appear to be applying this model to its junk fax monitoring and 

enforcement activities and, therefore, lacks an important tool for assessing 

and reporting its progress.

The agency has not indicated, for example, whether its focus is to decrease 

the number of junk fax complaints received, increase the number of formal 

enforcement actions, or improve consumer guidance on how to stop junk 

faxes. FCC’s strategic goal includes a target for reducing the amount of 

time it takes to respond to consumer complaints; however, this goal may be 

encouraging FCC to shift its focus from monitoring and enforcement to 

customer service. CGB officials maintained, for example, that they 

generally send a letter to complainants within 2 to 3 days acknowledging 

that FCC has received their complaint. While this letter provides 

complainants with information on alternative enforcement mechanisms 

under the law—that is, their private right of action and a civil action 

brought by their state attorney general—it does not seek additional 

information from them, if needed, to pursue an FCC enforcement action. 

Furthermore, once CGB has responded to a complaint with the 

acknowledgment letter, it codes the complaint as a closed case for CGB 

purposes, meaning that these data can be purged from the database after 

41Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993).

42For additional details on GPRA and its requirements, see GAO, Results Oriented 

Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results, 

GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 10, 2004). 
Page 29 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

2 years. As a result, these data are no longer available for use in identifying 

major alleged violators and repeat offenders or for identifying and 

monitoring trends in complaints and assessing the effects of enforcement 

actions.

FCC is not using the information on junk fax complaints that it collects to 

measure its performance in carrying out its junk fax responsibilities. 

Although CGB allocates considerable staff and other resources to entering 

complaint data into its database, FCC is not analyzing these data and using 

the results of its analyses to set priorities and allocate resources. For 

example, it is not monitoring the number of junk fax complaints recorded 

each year. Thus, FCC’s quarterly reports identify the total number of TCPA 

complaints, but do not break out the total for each of the six types of TCPA 

complaints.43 As a result, the quarterly reports mask the magnitude of the 

junk fax problem, which, as our analysis indicates, accounts for about 85 

percent of all TCPA complaints received in 2005. In addition, the reports do 

not indicate that junk fax complaints are the second most frequently 

recorded type of consumer complaint overall. Without analyzing the data it 

collects to determine the relative frequency of junk fax and other types of 

complaints, FCC is limited in its ability to determine whether its staff and 

other resources are appropriately aligned to address the problems 

consumers are experiencing. 

Additionally, FCC is not analyzing the nature of the principal types of junk 

fax problems complainants are reporting. This information appears in a 

comment field, where CGB staff enter comments provided by 

complainants, but the information cannot be analyzed electronically. As a 

result, FCC may not be able to fully address concerns such as the 

percentages of complainants who reported that they were continuing to 

receive junk faxes after calling the opt-out number or who were receiving 

junk faxes in the middle of the night. Furthermore, FCC cannot identify and 

monitor trends in complaints and enforcement and, therefore, cannot 

target its resources to complainants’ greatest concerns or evaluate its own 

performance in addressing those concerns. Having information on the 

nature and frequency of problems with opt-out numbers and FCC’s success 

in addressing these problems is particularly important because Congress, 

in the 2005 Act, required the opt-out number to protect consumers from 

43See the Background section of this report for descriptions of all six TCPA-related 

violations.
Page 30 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

repeated unwanted faxes. FCC officials stated that these issues will be 

addressed once the new junk fax rules are implemented.

Without analysis, FCC cannot explore the need for, or implement, changes 

to its rules, procedures, or consumer guidance that might help deter junk 

fax violations or give consumers a better understanding of the junk fax 

rules. We found, for example, from our review of comments in CGB’s 

database from 2005, that many complainants seemed to believe the 

National Do-Not-Call Registry applies to fax numbers as well as their home 

telephone numbers. Repeatedly, complainants reported that they had asked 

to have their fax numbers placed on this list, and they did not understand 

why they were still receiving junk faxes. FTC, together with FCC, 

implemented this list in 2003 to protect consumers from unwanted 

telemarketing calls. FTC staff explained that the list does not apply to fax 

numbers—that is, telemarketers must consult this list before placing 

covered calls to consumers, but senders of fax advertisements are not 

required to consult the list before faxing. FTC has provided guidance to 

consumers that fax numbers are not covered under the National 

Do-Not-Call Registry. Despite the many comments in CGB’s database 

indicative of complainants’ misunderstanding, FCC has not considered this 

issue in a rulemaking context or revised all of its guidance to clarify 

whether the National Do-Not-Call Registry is applicable to fax advertising.44

Most important, without establishing performance goals and measures and 

without analyzing complaint and enforcement data, it is not possible to 

explore the effectiveness of current enforcement measures. Without first 

gaining an understanding of the effectiveness of current enforcement 

measures, it is similarly not possible to determine whether additional 

enforcement measures are necessary to protect consumers. 

Conclusions Consumer frustration with junk faxes is evident in the rapidly increasing 

number of complaints and in the time that consumers are willing to take to 

seek relief from this type of unsolicited advertising. FCC has provided 

consumers with several methods to submit their complaints about junk 

faxes and several sources of consumer information about junk faxes, and it 

44In March 2006, FCC revised its consumer call center script to advise callers that fax 

senders are not obligated to access the National Do-Not-Call Registry and “scrub” their fax 

number lists. However, other consumer guidance, including FCC’s junk fax “Fact Sheet,” has 

not yet been revised. 

“My number is a private residence number 

and is registered with ‘Do Not Call 

Registry’ but the company in charge of the 

fax solicitations ignores it.”

 -Consumer from Fuquay-Va, NC, 9/2005

“Unsolicited fax’s received at 2am and 

7am. This phone number...is listed on the 

National Do Not Call Registry.”

 -Consumer from Cape Cora, FL, 9/2005

“Despite being on the National do not call 

list, we continue to receive faxes from 

these people. Please prosecute as soon 

as possible.”

 -Consumer from Marmora, NJ, 9/2005

“These faxes are unwanted, unsolicited 

and very annoying. We have listed our fax 

number on the National and State Do Not 

Call List. I don’t know whether that does

any good or not.”

 -Consumer from Lawton, OK, 11/2005

Consumer Complaints: Confusion over

Do-Not-Call Registry

Source: FCC.
Page 31 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

promptly acknowledges receipt of most of the complaints. However, 

despite collecting thousands of junk fax complaints, including the 

information submitted with them, FCC has taken formal enforcement 

actions against relatively few junk faxers. More important, FCC is simply 

not considering the majority of complaints or any of the information 

contained in those complaints when making decisions about investigations 

and enforcement. 

We acknowledge that FCC cannot be expected to take enforcement action 

against every junk fax complaint received. The growth in complaints, 

together with limited resources, would make such an effort both 

impossible and impractical. However, FCC has put in place data collection 

and management processes that contain clear inefficiencies and limit its 

ability to target major alleged violators and repeat offenders. Overall, there 

has been limited collaboration between CGB and EB to ensure that FCC’s 

data processes are efficient, make the fullest use of the data collected, and 

fully support the needs of EB.

FCC is not making use of performance management tools to improve its 

junk fax enforcement. There are no goals or measures of success for 

handling complaints or for investigating them and taking enforcement 

action. More fundamentally, FCC has not done the analysis that would help 

it to establish such goals and measures. Without analyzing the complaint 

data, FCC does not know if it could be doing more to better target its 

limited resources to address the concerns of consumers, such as seeking 

out faxers that may be providing fake opt-out numbers or providing clearer 

guidance to consumers on the impact of time restrictions and the National 

Do-Not-Call Registry on junk fax concerns. FCC also has not established 

what it needs to do to be able to completely and accurately report the 

number of complaints it has received in carrying out its junk fax 

responsibilities as required under the 2005 Act. Because FCC’s junk fax 

enforcement efforts have data management issues, lack data analysis, and 

lack performance goals and measures, it is not possible to determine 

whether any additional enforcement measures would better protect 

consumers and businesses from receiving junk faxes. FCC simply cannot 

say whether its junk fax enforcement efforts are successful in combating 

junk fax advertising. However, the steady number of citations issued from 

year to year should be cause for concern in the face of the rising number of 

junk fax complaints. 
Page 32 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

FCC’s current consumer guidance does not alert consumers to the 

necessity, under FCC’s current practice, of submitting a copy of the junk 

fax(es) along with the complaint. Because this impacts the number of 

complaints that FCC takes into consideration when searching for major 

alleged violators and repeat offenders, we recommend that the Chairman 

of the Federal Communications Commission direct staff to take the 

following two actions:

• Revise consumer complaint guidance to make it clear to consumers that 

they need to include a copy of the fax in order to make it possible for 

any investigation or enforcement action to take place. This includes 

revising the wording of the Consumer Fact Sheet, the Internet complaint 

form (Form 475), the consumer center script, and any other junk fax 

guidance provided to consumers. 

• Revise the Form 475 so that it includes clear instructions for 

complainants on how to submit a copy of the fax. This may include 

developing procedures and instructions to let consumers know how to 

electronically attach a scanned copy of the fax so that it accompanies 

their complaint form.

FCC’s current data collection and management processes contain 

inefficiencies and adversely affect FCC’s procedures for targeting major 

alleged violators and repeat offenders. To begin to address these problems, 

we recommend that FCC take the following action:

• Direct consumer and enforcement staff to develop data management 

strategies to (1) make the consumer complaint database more usable for 

FCC’s staff and (2) mitigate the amount of time spent on manual data 

entry, as well as possible errors, resulting from this manual data entry. 

For example, these efforts could include, but not be limited to, revising 

the Form 475 so that consumers identify through checked boxes, or 

another similar method, the type of complaint they are filing. This could 

enhance accuracy and improve staff efficiency by eliminating the need 

for FCC staff to read a text box to identify the type of complaint and 

then enter that information into the database. In addition, staff should 

develop strategies that would enable enforcement staff to search all 

consumer complaint information contained in the database to identify 

major and repeat violators.
Page 33 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

Finally, FCC should introduce recognized performance management 

practices into its operations in order to improve the performance of its junk 

fax enforcement efforts. Toward this effort, FCC should take the following 

three actions:

• Establish goals and performance measures for receiving, 

acknowledging, investigating, and taking enforcement actions on junk 

fax complaints. 

• Use the information in the complaint database to analyze the nature and 

scope of the complaints. FCC can then begin to determine whether its 

current enforcement efforts are sufficient in combating junk faxers, and 

whether any additional enforcement mechanisms might be needed to 

protect consumers.

• Evaluate whether its staff and other resources are appropriately aligned 

to carry out its junk fax responsibilities. This could include, but not be 

limited to, evaluating the benefits of targeting staff resources to issue 

more citations that could prompt more violators to cease their offending 

behavior. 

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to FCC for comment. Senior officials 

from the commission’s Enforcement and Consumer & Governmental 

Affairs Bureaus provided oral comments. FCC generally concurred with 

our recommendations and noted that they have already begun taking steps 

to address our recommendations. For example, FCC officials stated staff 

have been working to implement a new data management system that will 

in part consolidate all inquiry and complaint data into a new database by 

May 2006. FCC officials said this new database will identify possible 

duplicate complaint records and increase the efficiency of processing junk 

fax inquiries and complaints. They also said discussions on developing 

additional modifications to the new database are now under way, including 

modifications that would eliminate the need for EB to have its own 

enforcement spreadsheet. In the interim, FCC officials said CGB and EB 

staff are planning to link the EB spreadsheet to the new database, but the 

officials could not provide a workplan describing how and when this 

linkage would be accomplished.

FCC officials said they take issue with our conclusion that FCC’s current 

process for prioritizing junk fax complaints for enforcement may not 

identify the major alleged violators and repeat offenders. FCC believes that 
Page 34 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

the number of complaints transferred to EB’s spreadsheet for review, 

although only a portion of the total number of complaints received, is large 

enough to identify the major alleged violators and repeat offenders. We 

reiterate that EB’s spreadsheet contains less than half of the total number 

of junk fax complaints received and contains almost none of the Internet 

complaints. FCC has done no analysis to determine whether the complaints 

that have been excluded from enforcement consideration involve the same 

entities they have identified as major alleged violators. Moreover, searching 

for repeat offenders (junk fax violators that have already been warned by 

FCC to cease their activities) using a subset of the complaints received is 

not as effective since even one additional violation makes the entity subject 

to further enforcement action, including monetary forfeiture.

Since FCC is beginning to explore changes to its database to eliminate the 

need for a separate EB spreadsheet, as previously noted, it is possible for 

FCC to also explore changes to the database that would improve EB’s 

ability to analyze all complaint data to better identify the major alleged 

violators, as we have recommended. Improved search functions within the 

database would also aid in identifying the repeat offenders. 

FCC officials also said the agency had included a consumer protection goal 

that covered junk fax issues in the agency’s 2004 performance summary. 

FCC officials also provided us with 2004 and 2005 CGB goals. However, 

after reviewing these documents, we maintain that FCC does not have 

goals or measures specifically related to junk fax enforcement. We reiterate 

that the introduction of recognized performance management practices 

into FCC’s operations could improve the performance of its junk fax 

enforcement efforts. FCC also provided technical comments that were 

incorporated throughout this report as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees and the Chairman, FCC. We will make copies available to 

others upon request. The report is available at no charge on GAO’s Web site 

at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please 

contact me on (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
Page 35 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report were Faye 

Morrison, Assistant Director; Kimberly Berry; Elizabeth Eisenstadt; Edda 

Emmanuelli-Perez; Chad Factor; Michele Fejfar; Mike Mgebroff; Josh 

Ormond; Terri Russell; and Mindi Weisenbloom. 

Mark L. Goldstein

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Page 36 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

Appendix I

Statutes Protecting Consumers from Apendxies

Unsolicited Advertisements ApendxiI

This appendix provides a brief description of how unsolicited 

advertisements provided through commercial telephone calls and e-mails 

are regulated and how the regulations are enforced. 

Regulating Unsolicited 

Telephone and E-mail 

Advertisements 

In response to consumer frustration and dissatisfaction with advertising via 

unsolicited telephone calls and e-mails, Congress has passed several 

statutes directing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the 

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to regulate unsolicited advertisements 

delivered by telephone or e-mail. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act 

of 1991 is FCC’s basic statutory mandate with respect to telemarketers and 

applies to unwanted telemarketing calls and facsimile (fax) solicitations.1

The Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act of 1994 

is FTC’s specific statutory mandate regarding telemarketing.2

 The 

Controlling Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography & Marketing Act of 2003 

(CAN-SPAM Act) provides FTC with the authority to regulate commercial 

e-mails whose “primary purpose” is the “commercial advertising or 

promoting of a commercial product or service.”3

 FCC has authority under 

the CAN-SPAM Act to regulate unsolicited commercial messages on 

wireless devices.4

 Thus, FCC’s and FTC’s enforcements are based upon 

different statutory authority. 

FCC’s enforcement efforts are generally accomplished through an 

administrative process. FTC’s enforcement actions are usually filed in 

federal district court and seek injunctive relief; consumer redress; and, in 

some circumstances, civil penalties. The latter actions are filed by the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) on behalf of FTC. Both commissions can 

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

FCC - The Telephone 

Consumer Protection Act of 

1991 

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) was created in 

response to consumer concerns about the growing number of unsolicited 

telemarketing calls to their homes and the increasing use of automated and 

1

Pub. L. No. 102-243, 105 Stat. 2394 (1991) (to be codified at 47 U.S.C. § 227).

2

Pub. L. No. 103-297, 108 Stat. 1545 (1994) (codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101 et seq.).

3

Pub. L. No. 108-187, 117 Stat. 2699 (2003) (codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 7701 et seq.).

4

Pub. L. No. 108-187, § 14 (2003) (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 7712).
Appendix I

Statutes Protecting Consumers from 

Unsolicited Advertisements

Page 37 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

prerecorded messages. FCC’s rules under that act prohibit telephone 

solicitation calls to homes between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. Also, 

under the rules, anyone making a call to a home, must provide his or her 

name, the name of the person or entity on whose behalf the call is being 

made, and a telephone number or address at which the person or entity 

may be contacted. These telemarketing rules do not apply to calls or 

messages placed with a consumer’s prior expressed permission, by or on 

behalf of a tax-exempt nonprofit organization, or from a person or 

organization with whom the consumer has an established business 

relationship (EBR). TCPA telephone solicitation violations are enforced in 

the same manner as TCPA junk fax violations. 

FTC - The Telemarketing 

and Consumer Fraud and 

Abuse Prevention Act of 

1994

The purpose of the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse 

Prevention Act of 1994 was to combat telemarketing fraud by providing law 

enforcement agencies with new tools and to give consumers new 

protections. The act directed FTC to issue a rule prohibiting deceptive and 

abusive telemarketing acts or practices, and specified, among other things, 

certain acts or practices FTC’s rule must address, including “...unsolicited 

telephone calls which the reasonable consumer would consider coercive or 

abusive of such consumer’s right to privacy.”5

FTC issued its original Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) in 1995. TSR 

requires certain disclosures and prohibits misrepresentations. Some of the 

provisions of the rule will include the following: (1) the rule restricts calls 

to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.; (2) the rule forbids 

telemarketers from calling consumers if they have been asked not to call; 

and (3) the rule requires certain prompt disclosures, prohibits certain 

misrepresentations and lying to get consumers to pay, and makes it illegal 

for a telemarketer to withdraw money directly from a checking account 

without the account holder’s specific, verifiable authorization. The TSR 

rule was amended in 2003. The amended TSR established the National 

Do-Not-Call Registry. In addition, the amended TSR places restrictions on 

unauthorized billing, reduces abandoned calls, and requires caller 

identification transmissions.6

5

15 U.S.C. § 6102(a)(3)(A). 

6

16 C.F.R. § 310.
Appendix I

Statutes Protecting Consumers from 

Unsolicited Advertisements

Page 38 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

Several types of calls are expressly exempted from TSR coverage, 

including calls initiated by consumers in response to direct mail (provided 

certain disclosures are made), calls initiated by consumers in response to 

advertisements in the general media (such as newspapers or media), and 

business-to-business calls.7

 Catalog sales calls also are exempt.

Under the statute, violations of TSR are treated as “unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices in violation of the FTC Act.”8

 FTC’s enforcement actions 

generally are accomplished by seeking injunctive relief and consumer 

redress. Under some circumstances (e.g., do-not-call violations), 

injunctions and sometimes civil penalties (up to $11,000 per violation) are 

sought. Actions seeking civil penalties are filed by DOJ on behalf of FTC 

and are less common. FTC itself files and litigates its actions seeking 

injunctive relief and consumer redress. 

States, through their attorneys general, may bring civil actions on behalf of 

their residents to enjoin the violation; enforce compliance with TSR; obtain 

damages, restitution, or other compensation on behalf of residents; and 

obtain such other relief as the court may deem appropriate.9

 Private parties 

may also bring a civil action within 3 years after discovery of the violation, 

if the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $50,000 in actual 

damages for each person adversely affected by such telemarketing. Such 

an action may be brought to enjoin such telemarketing, enforce compliance 

with any rule, obtain damages, or obtain such additional and other relief as 

the court may deem appropriate.10

7

Certain entities, including banks, credit unions, savings and loans, common carriers 

engaged in common carrier activities, nonprofit organizations, and companies engaged in 

the business of insurance regulated by state law, are not covered by TSR because they are 

specifically exempt from coverage under the Federal Trade Commission Act. 15 U.S.C. § 

45(a)(2). A number of entities, and individuals associated with them, that sell investments 

and are subject to the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission or the 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission are exempt from TSR. 15 U.S.C. § 6102(d)(2)(A); 

6102(e)(1).

8

15 U.S.C. § 57a. 

9

15 U.S.C. § 6103.

1015 U.S.C. § 6104.
Appendix I

Statutes Protecting Consumers from 

Unsolicited Advertisements

Page 39 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

The National Do-Not-Call 

Registry

In January 2002, FTC proposed a National Do-Not-Call registry. One year 

later, FTC amended its TSR to create the national registry and prohibit 

covered telemarketing calls to consumers who registered their telephone 

numbers. FCC revised its regulations pursuant to TCPA in June 2003, 

requiring telemarketers under its jurisdiction to comply with the 

requirements of the national registry. 

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

which authorized FTC to establish fees “sufficient to implement and 

enforce” the national registry.11 In September 2003, in response to legal 

challenges to the national registry and requirements, Congress passed 

additional legislation (1) expressly authorizing FTC to implement and 

enforce a National Do-Not-Call Registry under the Telemarketing and 

Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act and (2) ratifying the National 

Do-Not-Call Registry regulation as promulgated by FTC in 2002.12

Under FTC’s and FCC’s rules, the registry covers both traditional (wired) 

and mobile (wireless) telephones. The registry is national in scope, applies 

to all telemarketers (with the exception of certain nonprofit organizations), 

and covers both interstate and intrastate telemarketing calls. Commercial 

telemarketers are not allowed to call a consumer if his or her telephone 

number is on the registry, unless there is an EBR between the seller and the 

consumer or the consumer has given prior written consent to be called.13

Nontelemarketing calls, such as political fundraising, market research 

surveys, or debt collection, are not prohibited by the registry’s provisions. 

The national registry started accepting consumer telephone number 

registrations in late June 2003,14 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. 

11Pub. L. No. 108-10, 117 Stat. 557 (2003).

12Pub. 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 543 

US 812 (2004).

13Once a number is registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, telemarketers have up 

to 31 days (starting Jan. 1, 2005) to stop calling that number.

14Consumers can sign up for the National Do-Not-Call Registry at www.donotcall.gov. 
Appendix I

Statutes Protecting Consumers from 

Unsolicited Advertisements

Page 40 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

FTC and FCC have different but overlapping jurisdiction over the activities 

of entities that make telemarketing calls. FTC’s authority under its 

telemarketing law is limited to entities engaged in interstate telemarketing, 

while FCC’s authority covers both intrastate and interstate entities. In 

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

FTC jurisdiction but remain subject to FCC jurisdiction. These entities 

include common carriers, banks, credit unions, saving and loans 

institutions, airlines, nonprofit organizations, and insurance companies.

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 and persistence or duration of complaints filed against 

a telemarketer, the nature of the claims made by the telemarketer, and any 

past history of complaints or law violations—to determine whether to take 

action against a telemarketer for violations of the national registry 

provision.

The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 establishes requirements for those who send 

commercial e-mail, spells out penalties for spammers and companies 

whose products are advertised in spam if they violate the law, and gives 

consumers the right to ask e-mailers to stop spamming them.15 The law 

covers e-mail whose primary purpose is advertising or promoting a 

commercial product or service. A “transactional or relationship message” 

(e.g., an e-mail that facilitates an agreed-upon transaction or updates a 

customer in an EBR) may not contain false or misleading routing 

information, but otherwise is exempt from most provisions of the 

CAN-SPAM Act. State laws specifically related to commercial e-mail are 

preempted. However, state laws that are not specifically applicable to 

e-mail, such as trespass, contract, tort law, or state laws that relate to fraud 

or computer crimes, are not preempted.16

Under the CAN-SPAM Act’s major provisions, false or misleading header 

information is prohibited. An e-mail’s “From,” “To,” and routing information 

(including the originating domain name and e-mail address) must be 

accurate and identify the person who initiated the e-mail. The law prohibits 

15Pub. L. No. 108-187, 117 Stat. 2699 (2003) (codified at 15 U.S.C. 7701 et seq., 18 U.S.C. § 

1037, and 28 U.S.C. § 994).

1615 U.S.C. § 7707 (b).
Appendix I

Statutes Protecting Consumers from 

Unsolicited Advertisements

Page 41 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

deceptive subject lines and requires that the e-mail give recipients an optout method. Specifically, the sender must provide a return e-mail or 

another Internet-based response mechanism that allows a recipient to 

request that the sender not send future e-mails to the e-mail address. 

Senders must honor opt-out requests. Additionally, the act requires that the 

commercial e-mail be identified as an advertisement and include the 

sender’s valid physical postal address.

FTC (and various other agencies) is authorized to enforce the CAN-SPAM 

Act. Each violation is subject to fines of up to $11,000 per violation. FTC 

also responds to deceptive commercial e-mail as a violation of the FTC act. 

State attorneys general, state law enforcement agencies, and Internet 

service providers (ISP) may also bring suit under CAN-SPAM for statutorily 

set damages.17 In a December 2005 report to Congress, FTC stated that the 

commission had brought 20 cases alleging violation of the act.18 The report 

also noted that at the state level, three attorneys general have filed a total 

of three actions—one with FTC as a coplaintiff—in federal court, naming 

15 defendants under the CAN-SPAM Act. In addition, the report stated that 

ISPs have also filed CAN-SPAM Act suits initially against more than 100 

known defendants and more than 580 unknown (John Doe) defendants. 

DOJ has the authority to enforce the criminal penalties established under 

the act.19 Criminal penalties may include fines or imprisonment. According 

to the legislative history of the act, aggressive civil and criminal 

enforcement actions were needed to curb the growth of spam on all fronts. 

The criminal provisions were targeted to those who use fraudulent and 

deceptive means to send unwanted e-mail messages. The need for these 

criminal provisions was based, in part, on a study by FTC that found that 66 

percent of spam contained some kind of false, fraudulent, or misleading 

information, and one-third of all spam contained a fraudulent return e-mail

17The maximum per-violation statutory damage figures are $250 for state attorneys general 

and $100 for ISPs. 

18Federal Trade Commission Report, Effectiveness and Enforcement of the CAN-SPAM Act: 

A Report to Congress (December 2005) (FTC CAN-SPAM Report).

19In addition to FTC and DOJ, federal entities with enforcement authority under the act are 

FCC, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Commission, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the National Credit Union 

Administration, the Security and Exchange Commission, the Department of Transportation, 

the Department of Agriculture, and the Farm Credit Administration. 15 U.S.C. § 7706(b).
Appendix I

Statutes Protecting Consumers from 

Unsolicited Advertisements

Page 42 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

address that was included in the routing information, or header, of the

e-mail message.20

Section 4 of the CAN-SPAM Act criminalized five types of activities in 

connection with e-mail, set forth the maximum penalties for each type, and 

called for the U.S. Sentencing Commission to consider new sentencing 

guidelines.21 Specifically, the five types of activities are as follows:

• accessing a protected computer without authorization to send multiple 

commercial e-mail messages,

• using open relays with intent to deceive in sending multiple commercial 

e-mail messages,

• using materially false header information in sending commercial e-mail 

messages,

• falsely registering e-mail accounts or domain names in connection with 

sending multiple commercial e-mail messages, and

• falsely claiming to be the registrant of Internet protocol addresses for 

sending spam.22

The criminal penalties fall into three tiers. First, a 5-year statutory 

maximum applies when the CAN-SPAM violation is in furtherance of any 

felony under state or federal law, or when the defendant has previously 

been convicted of an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1037.23 Second, a 3-year 

maximum applies for convictions of hacking into a computer, or to use a 

computer system that the owner has made available for other purposes, as 

a conduit for bulk commercial e-mail or for other violations of

20149 Cong. Rec. S13028, 13029 (daily ed. June 18, 2002) (statement of Sen. Hatch).

21The Sentencing Guideline revisions applicable on November 1, 2004, implement the 

relevant CAN-SPAM provisions.

2218 U.S.C. § 1037(a)(1)-(5). 15 U.S.C § 7704(d) contains the only other criminal provisions in 

the CAN-SPAM Act, providing up to 5 years in prison for unlawful transmission of sexually 

oriented spam.

23A prior conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1030—a similar criminal section concerning fraud and 

related activity in connection with computers—may also lead to the 5-year statutory 

maximum. 18 U.S.C. § 1037(b)(1)(B).
Appendix I

Statutes Protecting Consumers from 

Unsolicited Advertisements

Page 43 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

18 U.S.C. § 1037 (a) when one of several additional conditions apply. The 

conditions relate to the measure of the economic gain or loss, the volume 

of e-mail sent, the number of false registrations used, or whether the 

defendant had a leadership role in the offense. Finally, a 1-year statutory 

maximum applies for any other violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1037. In addition, 18 

U.S.C. § 1037(c) allows DOJ to seek the criminal forfeiture of both property 

obtained from spamming profits and the computers used to send the spam. 

In December 2005, FTC reported to Congress that DOJ had brought four 

criminal prosecutions under the CAN-SPAM Act, and that numerous other 

nonpublic investigations were ongoing.24

Lastly, the CAN-SPAM Act supplements some consumer protections that 

were already established by TCPA for regulating unwanted text messages 

and e-mail on mobile devices. Together, the two laws impose limitations on 

both unsolicited telephone marketing calls and any other calls to a paging 

service, cellular telephone service, other radio common carrier service, or 

any service for which the person being called would be charged for the call. 

Under TCPA rules, a “call” includes text messaging if the messaging is sent 

to a telephone number rather than an e-mail account. Electronic messages 

can be sent to mobile devices using a variety of methods. The type of 

technology used to send the electronic message determines how the 

electronic message is regulated. 

The CAN-SPAM Act required that FCC adopt rules to protect consumers 

from receiving unsolicited mobile service commercial messages.25 Under 

the act, a mobile service commercial message is a commercial e-mail 

message that is transmitted directly to a wireless device that is utilized by a 

subscriber of commercial mobile service in connection with that service. 

The act defines an e-mail message as a message having a unique e-mail 

address that includes a reference to an Internet domain. FCC issued rules 

in August 2004.

FCC adopted a general prohibition on sending commercial messages to any 

address referencing an Internet domain name associated with wireless 

subscriber message services. To assist the senders of such messages in 

identifying those subscribers, FCC requires commercial radio service 

providers to submit those names to the commission, for inclusion on a 

24FTC CAN-SPAM Report, p. A-2.

2515 U.S.C. § 7712(b).
Appendix I

Statutes Protecting Consumers from 

Unsolicited Advertisements

Page 44 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

public list. FCC pursues violations of both CAN-SPAM and TCPA as it 

relates to wireless devices under its general enforcement authority. 

As part of our study, we considered whether additional enforcement 

measures might be necessary to protect consumers from junk faxes, and 

whether establishing junk fax penalties and enforcement actions for repeat 

violators or abusive violations similar to the criminal penalties under

CAN-SPAM would have a greater deterrent effect. As explained in the letter 

of this report, without FCC establishing performance goals and measures 

and analyzing complaint and enforcement data, it is not possible to explore 

the effectiveness of current enforcement measures. Without first gaining an 

understanding of the effectiveness of current enforcement measures, it is 

similarly not possible to determine whether additional enforcement 

measures are necessary to protect consumers. We did, however, ask federal 

government officials, representatives of the state attorneys general, 

consumer advocates, and business associations for their opinions 

regarding whether additional enforcement measures are currently 

necessary to enforce junk fax violations. Those with whom we spoke 

generally did not believe that additional measures were necessary at this 

time and did not support imposing criminal sanctions on junk fax violators 

similar to those imposed on spammers under CAN-SPAM.26 A few of those 

with whom we spoke thought that the role of the telephone companies 

might be expanded, similar to the role of ISPs under the CAN-SPAM Act, so 

that telephone companies could bring suit against junk faxers using their 

networks.

26One consumer advocate noted that criminal penalties could be beneficial, but that the real 

issue was enforcement of the junk fax rules.
Page 45 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

Appendix II

Scope and Methodology ApendxiI

The Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 required GAO to report to Congress 

on FCC’s enforcement of the junk fax laws. Accordingly, we answered the 

following questions: (1) What procedures have FCC established for taking 

action on junk fax complaints—including receipt, acknowledgment, 

investigation, and enforcement—and to what extent has it taken such 

action? (2) What are the strengths and weaknesses of FCC’s junk fax 

procedures? and (3) What challenges do FCC face in carrying out its junk 

fax responsibilities? 

To determine FCC’s procedures for taking action on junk fax complaints, 

we reviewed provisions of TCPA as well as FCC’s rules and procedures for 

implementing the provisions of the act. We interviewed officials from FCC’s 

Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB)—whose responsibilities 

include developing FCC rules and accepting and acknowledging 

complaints—and FCC’s Enforcement Bureau—whose responsibilities 

include junk fax enforcement. Additionally, we reviewed FCC’s guidance to 

complainants for submitting junk fax complaints as well as FCC’s 

procedures for receiving and documenting these complaints. Finally, we 

obtained and reviewed FCC’s procedures for determining which 

complaints would receive further investigative and enforcement actions. 

To determine the extent to which FCC has taken action on junk fax 

complaints, we obtained and analyzed FCC’s database for documenting 

junk fax complaints and the spreadsheet used for determining investigatory 

and enforcement actions. We obtained summary data on the number of 

complaints received from 2000 through 2005, by source and method. We 

also obtained detailed information on the amount of formal enforcement 

actions taken against junk faxers since the formation of FCC’s 

Enforcement Bureau. Further, to determine the type of concerns expressed 

by consumers and businesses, we reviewed some individual consumer and 

business comments submitted to FCC as part of the junk fax complaints 

and contained in FCC’s database. 

To assess the reliability of FCC’s complaint data, we interviewed FCC 

officials responsible for the database regarding data entry and control 

procedures and reviewed existing documentation about the system. We 

conducted limited electronic tests on 2005 data to determine missing data 

and duplicative complaint identification numbers; these tests revealed only 

minor problems. We also conducted manual reviews to identify any 

discrepancies in the database. For example, we reviewed a portion of the 

comment fields in the database and found that some complaints that were 

coded as junk fax complaints should not have been. Since this type of 
Appendix II

Scope and Methodology

Page 46 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

review requires reading the comments for each complaint entered, which is 

resource-intensive, we did not review all of the comments to determine the 

extent of this problem. CGB officials acknowledged limitations of the data, 

including reliability problems in previous years of tracking complaint 

information, possible inaccuracies in coding, and continual changes to 

more recent data as additional complaints are added. We determined that 

the data were sufficiently reliable to present overall trends and 

approximate figures. Specifically, we report only overall complaint 

numbers for 2000 through 2002, and approximate numbers at a more 

detailed level for complaints from 2003 through 2005.

To determine the strengths and weaknesses of FCC’s junk fax procedures, 

we analyzed these procedures, including those used to determine which 

junk fax complaints would be considered for further investigatory and 

enforcement actions. In addition, we reviewed business and consumer 

comments submitted to FCC during junk fax rulemaking and 

reconsideration of existing rules. We also analyzed all junk fax consumer 

complaint guidance provided by FCC to determine if the guidance was 

consistent with the enforcement procedures.

To determine the challenges FCC faces in carrying out its junk fax 

responsibilities, we reviewed provisions of the Government Performance 

and Results Act of 1993, as well as documents and records used by FCC to 

establish goals and performance measures—that is, budget justifications, 

performance summaries, and strategic plans. We also reviewed FCC’s 

quarterly complaint reports to determine the level of analysis being 

conducted on junk fax complaints. 

Finally, we used existing statutes and regulations to provide information on 

additional enforcement measures and penalties that have been established 

to protect consumers from other types of unsolicited advertising. We 

interviewed FTC staff, representatives from the National Association of 

Attorney’s General, and representatives from industry groups to obtain 

more information on different enforcement rules and actions. 

We conducted our work from November 2005 through March 2006 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 47 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

Appendix III

Consumer Complaints Reported to FCC ApendxiI

Table 3: Number of Complaints Reported Publicly by FCC, by Type, 2003-2005

Source: FCC.

Complaints, by calendar year

Type of complaints 2005 2004 2003

Cable and satellite services

Billing and rates 290 289 256

Cable modem services 148 93 113

Connections to cable TV system 0 0 0

Satellite home viewer improvement act 0 0 0

Accessibility issues 75 63 88

Programming issues 600 152 137

Service-related issues 264 145 425

Radio and television broadcasting

Accessibility issues 86 102 337

Loud commercial 0 0 24

Howard Stern commentary 0 20 0

Programming - general criticism 1,071 615 351

Programming - indecency/obscenity 233,471 1,405,419 166,683

Programming - religious 0 0 4

Other programming issues 106 136 260

Wireless telecommunications

Billing and rates 13,065 14,546 10,592

Carrier marketing and advertising 3,080 3,104 2,133

Contract - early termination 3,956 3,958 2,386

Cramming 0 0 0

Number portability 0 4,839 3,447

Equipment 1,832 0 633

Service quality 4,009 3,031 2,166

Wireline telecommunications

Billing and rates 13,562 14,775 17,956

Carrier marketing and advertising 433 1,952 2,834

Cramming 1,761 526 2,450

Service quality 2,093 1,487 470

Slamming 1,932 4,535 6,052

Telephone Consumer Protection Act 54,932 37,702 25,674
Appendix III

Consumer Complaints Reported to FCC

Page 48 GAO-06-425 Telecommunications

Figure 5: Percentage of TCPA Complaints Reported in FCC Quarterly Reports That 

Are Junk Fax Complaints, 2003-2005

2005

2004

2003

85.0%

70.3%

86.9%

16.3% TCPA complaints

2.5% TCPA complaints

10.5% TCPA complaints

Junk fax complaints

Junk fax complaints

Junk fax complaints

Source: GAO analysis of FCC CGB Quarterly Reports.

(543153)
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