BEFORE THE 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

In the Matter of 

Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

CG Docket No. 02-278; FCC 16-57

Comment of the Staff of the Federal Trade Commission’s

Bureau of Consumer Protection

June 6, 2016
1

I. INTRODUCTION

Federal Trade Commission staff1 thanks the Federal Communications Commission for 

this opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to its regulations implementing the 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”), as set forth in its May 2016 Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”). FTC staff recognizes the FCC’s efforts to uphold the vital 

consumer protection principles of the TCPA through its proposed rulemaking. 

The FTC is an independent administrative agency responsible for protecting consumers 

and promoting competition. The FTC has extensive experience related to debt collection and 

telemarketing, the areas affected by the proposed amendments, including through many debt 

collection cases involving violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”) and the 

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”),

2 and through promulgating and enforcing the 

Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”).3 For example, since 2010, the FTC has filed 43 cases 

alleging debt collection violations against more than 250 defendants, and obtained over $350 

million in judgments. Based on this experience, we submit the following recommendations and 

analysis for the FCC to consider as it finalizes its rule. 

The FTC’s experience shows that debt collection calls and robocalls raise significant 

consumer protection concerns and are often vehicles for abusive, deceptive, and unfair business 

practices. FTC staff recommends that the FCC proceed with caution, and only incrementally, 

with any expansion of permissible robocalling. We also recommend that the FCC attempt to 

harmonize its rules as much as possible with existing laws governing debt collection and 

telemarketing. In particular, these laws provide many crucial protections for consumers against 

unfair, deceptive, and abusive collection and telemarketing practices, prohibiting many specific 

practices, mandating disclosure of critical information, and granting important rights that 

consumers can use to protect themselves. Indeed, there is extensive law under the FDCPA and 

Section 5 of the FTC Act governing when and how debt collectors can call consumers to collect 

debts. Similarly, there is significant law governing telemarketing practices under the TSR, 

including the use of robocalls. To the extent possible, the FCC should create standards for the 

collection of government debt that are consistent with these existing laws. 

II. RULEMAKING BACKGROUND

On November 2, 2015, Congress amended the TCPA to permit robocalls4 made “solely”

to collect a debt “owed to or guaranteed by the United States,” even without the prior express 

 1 This letter expresses the views of staff of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. The letter does not 

necessarily represent the views of the Federal Trade Commission or of any individual Commissioner. The 

Commission has, however, voted to authorize the submission of these comments.

2 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p.

3 16 C.F.R. Part 310.

4 Under the TCPA and the FCC’s associated guidance, the term “robocalls” includes calls made either using an 

automatic telephone dialing system (“autodialer”) or with a prerecorded or artificial voice. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b); 

Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278, 

Declaratory Ruling and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 7961, 7694, ¶ 1 n.1 (2015) (“2015 TCPA Declaratory Ruling and 

Order”).
2

consent of the called party.5 Congress directed the FCC to prescribe implementing regulations 

for this amendment within nine months of enactment.

6

 The FCC published its NPRM pursuant 

to Congress’s mandate on May 6, 2016.

7

 

III. FTC EXPERIENCE WITH ROBOCALLS AND

DEBT COLLECTION, AND GENERAL COMMENTS

As the FCC rightly notes in its NPRM, robocalls present significant consumer protection 

challenges. The high number of consumer complaints the FTC receives about these and other 

similar calls highlight these challenges. In addition, robocalls raise special consumer protection 

challenges when used for debt collection purposes, such as increasing the chance of unlawful 

disclosures to third parties. 

The FTC’s consumer complaint data indicates that consumers are regularly barraged with 

unwanted calls. The FTC receives more complaints about unwanted calls than all other 

complaints combined, and a significant majority of these complaints are about calls that deliver a 

prerecorded message (a subset of what the FCC refers to as “robocalls” in its NPRM).

8

 From 

October 2014 to September 2015, for example, the FTC received almost 3.6 million “Do Not 

Call” consumer complaints, of which approximately 59% (177,165 per month) were complaints 

about robocalls.9

 And the volume of these complaints has increased significantly over the past 

several years, more than doubling since 2010.

10

Abusive calls also plague consumers in the specific context of debt collection. The FTC 

compiles “Do Not Call” complaints separately from all other kinds of complaints. Not including 

“Do Not Call” complaints,11 the FTC received over 900,000 consumer complaints in 2015 

relating to debt collection, more than any other industry or practice. Of these complaints over 

 5 Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (“Budget Act”), § 301, Pub. L. No. 114-74, 129 Stat. 584 (2015) (modifying 47 

U.S.C. § 227(b)).

6 Budget Act §§ 301(a)(1)(C), (b).

7 CG Docket No. 02-278; FCC 16-57, https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-57A1.pdf.

8 See Consumer Sentinel Network Data Book for January – December 2015 at 3 (Feb. 2016), https://www.ftc.gov/

system/files/documents/reports/consumer-sentinel-network-data-book-january-december-2015/160229csn2015databook.pdf and National Do Not Call Registry Data Book FY 2015 at 5 (Nov. 2015), https://www.ftc.gov/

reports/national-do-not-call-registry-data-book-fiscal-year-2015. 

9 See National Do Not Call Registry Data Book FY 2015 at 5.

10 In the fourth quarter of 2010, the FTC received approximately 69,000 robocall complaints per month. See

National Do Not Call Registry Data Book FY 2011 at 5 (Nov. 2011), 

https://www.ftc.gov/os/2011/11/111130dncdatabook.pdf. By the third quarter of 2015 (the most recent period for 

which we have published data), robocall complaints had hit nearly 190,000 per month. See National Do Not Call 

Registry Data Book FY 2015 at 5 (Nov. 2015).

11 Debt collection calls are not subject to the “Do Not Call” list restrictions of the TSR because they are not 

“conducted to induce the purchase of goods or services,” a prerequisite for coverage under the TSR. See 16 C.F.R. § 

310.2(gg); see also Statement of Basis and Purpose, TSR, Final Rule, 68 Fed. Reg. 4580, 4664 n.1020 (Jan. 29, 

2003). Nonetheless, some complaints about unwanted debt collection calls get categorized, based on submitter

designation, as “Do Not Call” complaints. Therefore, complaints about debt collection practices are even larger than 

reported as related to debt collection.
3

320,000 reported that the consumer was called repeatedly or continuously, over 306,000 

complained about getting calls after sending a “cease communication” request to the collector, 

and over 1,000 complained about being called before 8 AM or after 9 PM or at inconvenient 

times. Robocalling increases the number of possible collection contacts, and any expansion in 

their use likely will magnify consumer harms arising from debt collection calls. 

Government imposter frauds – where scammers pretend to be government officials to get 

you to send them money – are also increasing. In the past, consumer protection agencies have 

advised consumers that the federal government will not call without first sending a letter. This 

provided an easy-to-communicate and easy-to-follow bright-line rule that consumers could use 

to shield themselves from these scams. Because the TCPA amendments now allow robocalls to 

collect a debt owed to the U.S. Government, it will be more challenging for consumers to 

distinguish between legitimate debt collection calls and calls placed by scammers impersonating 

the government. To minimize this consumer confusion, FTC staff recommends the FCC 

consider measures to help consumers discern when a call may be a scam.

These consumer complaints suggest that the FCC should exercise caution and restraint in 

this robocall rulemaking. Congress has long recognized that consumers should be free from 

abusive telephone calls that impinge on consumers’ right to privacy,12 and consumer complaints 

demonstrate there is strong demand for measures that help curb the number of unwanted calls.

Robocalls also raise a number of distinct consumer protection issues when used for debt 

collection purposes. Indeed, in enforcing the FDCPA, Section 5 of the FTC Act, and the TSR, 

the agency has identified a number of concerns raised by autodialers and prerecorded calls that 

are implicated by the FCC’s rulemaking. Although the FTC believes that debt collectors 

generally should be allowed to use new and emerging technologies to contact consumers, these 

concerns should be considered as the FCC crafts its final rule. 

For example, in its public report on debt collection technologies, the FTC noted that an 

inevitable side effect of using autodialers to contact consumers is that a dialer will sometimes 

reach more consumers than can be connected to available collectors.13 In these situations, a 

predictive dialer either disconnects the call (resulting in a “hang-up” call) or keeps the consumer 

connected with no one on the other end of the line in case a collector becomes available 

(resulting in “dead air”).14 The “hang-ups” or “dead air” that can result from calls made using 

predictive dialer technology may violate Section 806 of the FDCPA, which broadly prohibits 

“any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person. . . .” 

Indeed, Section 806(5) specifically prohibits debt collectors from “causing a telephone to ring . . 

 12 See 15 U.S.C. § 6102(a)(3) (directing the Federal Trade Commission to include in the TSR provisions prohibiting 

telemarketers from “undertak[ing] a pattern of unsolicited telephone calls which the reasonable consumer would 

consider coercive or abusive of such consumer’s right to privacy”); see also 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a) (listing “invasions 

of individual privacy” among the purposes for which Congress enacted the FDCPA).

13 Fed. Trade Comm’n, Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change (Feb. 2009), https://

www.ftc.gov/reports/collecting-consumer-debts-challenges-change-federal-trade-commission-workshop-report.

14 TSR, Final Rule, Statement of Basis and Purpose, 73 Fed. Reg. 51164, 51165 (Aug. 29, 2008) (codified at 16 

C.F.R. § 310).
4

. repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called 

number.”15 Violations of this provision are particularly likely where calls are repeated (multiple 

calls over a short span of time) or continuous (a call immediately after a preceding call is 

terminated), or where the calls continue despite the consumer’s request that the debt collector 

stop calls entirely pursuant to the cease communication right under the FDCPA.

16 The FTC 

recently has pursued several law enforcement actions under these circumstances for alleged 

violations of the FDCPA.17

Contacting consumers using prerecorded calls also increases the chance of unlawful 

disclosures to third parties, because of the risk that someone other than the debtor may answer 

the call or hear a message. The FDCPA seeks to balance the distinct goals of providing 

information to consumers and preventing disclosure of a consumer’s private debt to third parties. 

Section 805(b) of the FDCPA prohibits collectors from revealing the existence of a debt to third 

parties.

18 This limitation recognizes that such disclosure could cause harm to the consumer, 

including the invasion of individual privacy.

19 But other provisions of the FDCPA, including 

Sections 806(6) and 807(11), require a debt collector, in every communication with a consumer

(which includes voicemails and other messages), to disclose that they are calling to collect a debt 

as well as other identifying information.20 Thus, if a collector chooses to use a pre-recorded 

message, there is a high risk of inadvertently disclosing a debt to a third party who may listen to 

the message, or of violating Sections 806(6) and/or 807(11) by not disclosing that they are a 

collector attempting to collect a debt. The FTC previously has examined this issue with regard 

to answering machines and voicemail systems.21 As with these other technologies, the use of 

prerecorded calls presents the possibility of a privacy harm that is at the core of the consumer 

protection principles of the FDCPA. 

Moreover, the “dead air” and “hang up” harms associated with autodialers and other 

forms of robocalling were among the primary drivers of the FTC’s 2008 amendments to the 

 15 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(5). Whether a debt collector violates this provision of the FDCPA is a fact-specific inquiry.

16 The FDCPA’s cease communication provision is located in Section 805(c). 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c).

17 See, e.g., FTC & CFPB v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, No. 0:15-cv-02064 (D. Minn. Apr. 21, 2015) (Complaint ¶¶

63, 124-28), https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/112-3008/green-tree-servicing-llc; FTC v. K.I.P., 

LLC, No. 1:15-cv-02985 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 6, 2015) (Complaint ¶¶ 20-22, 41), https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/casesproceedings/152-3048/kip-llc-payday-loan-recovery-group; FTC v. Expert Global Solutions, Inc., No. 3-13 CV 

2611-M (N.D. Tex. July 8, 2013) (Complaint ¶¶ 22, 50-53), https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/casesproceedings/1023201/expert-global-solutions-inc-nco-group-inc; FTC v. Goldman Schwartz Inc., No. 4:13-cv-00106 

(S.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2013) (Complaint ¶¶ 33, 64), https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/122-

3096/goldman-schwartz-inc.

18 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b); see also § 1692b(2) (prohibiting collector from stating that a consumer owes a debt if 

communicating with third parties for certain permitted purposes).

19 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a).

20 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d(6), 1692e(11). Court cases examining these dual requirements under the FDCPA are often 

referred to collectively as “Foti” cases, after one of the leading decisions in the area. Foti v. NCO Fin. Sys., Inc., 

424 F. Supp. 2d 643, 669 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).

21 Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change at 47-50. See also FTC v. Expert Global Solutions, Inc., 

No. 3-13 CV 2611-M (N.D. Tex. July 8, 2013) (Complaint ¶¶ 24, 44-46).
5

TSR, which prohibited prerecorded telemarketing calls without a consumer’s express written 

agreement to receive such calls.

22 Although the TSR does not apply to calls to collect debt,23 it

contains a provision similar to FDCPA Section 806(5), prohibiting as abusive a telemarketer 

“causing any telephone to ring, or engaging any person in telephone conversation, repeatedly or 

continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number.”24 The TSR 

further prohibits abandoned calls – i.e., telemarketing calls that do not connect to a sales 

representative within two seconds of the call recipient’s greeting.

25

In sum, robocall and debt collection complaints are among the largest categories of 

consumer complaints the FTC receives. These calls strike many consumers as abusive and 

harassing, particularly when they are frequent, and their use in debt collection threatens 

consumer privacy and poses significant compliance challenges under the FDCPA. FTC staff 

urges the FCC to adopt implementing regulations that mitigate as much as reasonably possible 

the risks of law violations and consumer harms associated with robocalls. 

IV. SPECIFIC COMMENTS REGARDING FCC RULEMAKING PROPOSALS

A. Scope of Covered Calls

The NPRM begins by seeking comments on how the FCC should interpret several key 

phrases from the Budget Act amendments in its implementing regulations. Foremost among 

them, the FCC asks for suggestions on how to interpret the phrase “solely to collect a debt.”26 

FTC staff proposes that the agency interpret this phrase to limit permitted robocalls: (1) to only 

those relating to debts in “default”; (2) to only those persons who actually owe the debts; (3) to 

only the collection of the government debt and not any other; and (4) for collection purposes 

exclusively. 

1. Default vs. Delinquency

First, FTC staff suggests “default” as the threshold for covered calls because default, 

rather than “delinquency,” is the touchstone for coverage under the FDCPA. The FDCPA 

excludes from coverage “any person collecting or attempting to collect any debt owed or due or 

asserted to be owed or due another to the extent such activity . . . (iii) concerns a debt which was 

 22 See 73 Fed. Reg. at 51,165.

23 See supra note 11.

24 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(i).

25 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(iv). “An outbound telephone call is ‘abandoned’ under this section if a person answers it 

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

completed greeting.” Id. The TSR creates a “safe harbor” for call abandonment if, among other things, a 

telemarketer “employs technology that ensures abandonment of no more than three (3) percent of all calls answered 

by a person,” and allows the telephone to ring for at least fifteen seconds or four rings before disconnecting an 

unanswered call. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(4)This TSR safe harbor allows the use of predictive dialers provided they are 

set to limit the percentage of abandoned calls that are placed. Id.

26 NPRM ¶ 8 (quoting Budget Act § 301(a)(1)(A)).
6

not in default at the time it was obtained by such person.”27 Thus, those collecting debts that 

were not “in default” when their agency obtained them are not considered “debt collectors”

under the act. The legislative history of the FDCPA frames the statute’s “in default” language as 

intended to exclude “mortgage service companies and others who service outstanding debts for 

others, so long as the debts were not in default when taken for servicing.”28 This 

servicing/default distinction is a key marker of what constitutes debt collection under the 

FDCPA. FTC staff proposes that the FCC adopt a corresponding position in its regulations, 

permitting payment demands via robocalls only when a consumer is already in default.29 Such 

an interpretation would harmonize these regulations with the primary consumer protection 

statute in the area of debt collection, and would appropriately minimize the consumer protection 

risks of robocalls that seek payment on a debt.

2. Calls to Third Parties

Second, as the FCC proposes, FTC staff recommends that covered calls be limited to 

calls directed at the person or persons obligated to pay the debt.30 As noted above, the FDCPA 

prohibits collectors from revealing the existence of a debt to third parties.31 Section 804 of the 

FDCPA allows a collector to contact a third party solely for the purpose of acquiring location 

information about the debtor. 15 U.S.C. § 1692b. But it imposes strict limits on such calls and 

prohibits collectors from stating that the consumer owes any debt. 

Congress considered avoiding third-party disclosure of debt collection information to be 

an “extremely important protection” of the FDCPA at its enactment.32 Congress identified 

collection calls to third parties as collection practices that are “not legitimate” and “result in 

serious invasions of privacy, as well as the loss of jobs.”33 

Robocalls—particularly prerecorded messages—already increase the possibility of 

unlawful third-party disclosures because the call may be answered by someone other than the 

alleged debtor. The FCC’s proposed limit here helps minimize this risk and advances the 

important privacy protections of the FDCPA. Should the need genuinely arise for a call to a 

third party in order to locate the debtor, collectors could still initiate such calls manually rather 

than using an autodialer. 

 27 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(F).

28 S. Rep. No. 382, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 3, at 3, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1695, 1696.

29 The FCC also seeks guidance on how to define “default” for purposes of its implementing regulations. “Default” 

is not a defined term under the FDCPA, and there is no single bright-line test that is applicable in all collection 

scenarios. Whether a debt is in default is generally controlled by the terms of the contract creating the indebtedness 

and applicable state or federal law, and in the absence of anything conclusive therein, a creditor’s reasonable and 

consistently-applied written guidelines may be helpful in determining when an account is in default.

30 NPRM ¶ 13.

31 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b); see also § 1692b(2) (prohibiting collector from stating that a consumer owes a debt if 

communicating with third parties for certain permitted purposes).

32 S. Rep. No. 382, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 3, at 4, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1695, 1699.

33 Id.
7

3. Solely for the Collection of Government Debt

Third, FTC staff recommends that the FCC limit the content of covered robocalls to 

collection of debts owed to or guaranteed by the United States (i.e., debts covered by the Budget 

Act amendments), and only those such debts the caller is authorized to collect. The NPRM notes 

that the FCC is considering allowing robocalls “concerning other debts or matters about which 

the caller may want to speak with the debtor.”34 FTC staff sees no justification for such an 

extension in the TCPA amendment enacted by Congress. As noted above, that amendment

permits collection robocalls “solely to collect” a covered debt or “solely pursuant to the 

collection” of a covered debt.35 Given the significant consumer protection concerns that 

robocalls present, and given the possibility that permitting a broader range of content could 

conflict with the FTC’s prohibitions on telemarketing-related robocalls,36 FTC staff urges the 

FCC to require that the content of covered calls be limited to covered debts. 

4. For Collection Purposes Exclusively

Finally, should the FCC choose to allow “debt servicing” robocalls, the FCC should limit 

the definition of “debt servicing” to exclude calls that solicit any fees or consideration for the 

goods or services offered and limit the definition to government debts.

37 FTC staff urges the 

FCC to prevent robocallers from using the collection of government debt as a Trojan Horse to 

 34 NPRM ¶ 12.

35 Budget Act §§ 301(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B) (emphasis added).

36 See, e.g., 16 C.F.R. § 310.4 (b)(1)(v) (prohibition under the TSR). 

37 Should the FCC permit robocalls that solicit any fees or consideration for the services offered, such calls may also 

be governed by the “debt relief services” amendments to the TSR (16 C.F.R. Part 310) as well as the Mortgage 

Assistance Relief Services Rule, recodified as Regulation O (“MARS Rule/Reg. O”) (12 C.F.R. Part 1015). Both 

rules protect consumers from unfair, or deceptive debt-related services offered in exchange for a fee or 

consideration. More specifically, these rules prohibit debt relief and MARS providers from collecting fees for 

services until a debt has been settled, altered, or reduced, require certain disclosures, and prohibit specific 

misrepresentations about material aspects of the services. The TSR defines debt relief service to mean: “any 

program or service represented, directly or by implication, to renegotiate, settle, or in any way alter the terms of 

payment or other terms of the debt between a person and one or more unsecured creditors or debt collectors, 

including, but not limited to, a reduction in the balance, interest rate, or fees owed by a person to an unsecured 

creditor or debt collector.” 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(o). In defining debt relief services, the FTC acknowledged that it was 

seeking to reach providers who charged a fee and was not attempting to cover creditors and collectors offering 

concessions to individual debtors; legitimate outreach and loss mitigation activities of creditors and their agents or 

affiliates; or routine communications between consumers and credit grantors or debt collectors about settling debts, 

restructuring debt terms, waiving fees, reducing interest rates, or arranging for other account changes. Amended 

TSR and Statement of Basis and Purpose (“TSR Amended Rule 2010”), 75 Fed. Reg. at 48458, 48466 (Aug. 10, 

2010). The TSR’s definition of debt relief services was limited to unsecured debts because the FTC was issuing the 

MARS Rule to specifically address problems in the area of mortgage assistance relief services. TSR Amended Rule 

2010, 75 FR at 48467.
8

engage in otherwise prohibited sales calls regarding additional products or services38 or engage 

in the collection of non-government debts. Any “debt servicing” robocalls calls made in whole 

or in part to sell services to consumers are prohibited under the TSR, unless express written 

consent for the robocall was obtained from the recipient prior to the call.39 This is because calls 

that include selling services to consumers constitute telemarketing under the TSR,40 and the TSR 

prohibits outbound telemarketing robocalls without first obtaining express written consent for the 

robocall from the recipient.41 FTC staff therefore urges the FCC not to undermine this preexisting prohibition.

B. Consumer Information Obtained During Covered Calls

Another threshold question being considered by the FCC is whether its implementing 

regulations should place any restrictions on the treatment of information obtained from 

consumers in the course of a covered robocall.42 FTC staff believes that the FCC should 

consider restrictions in two areas. 

First, the FCC rule should require covered callers to maintain reasonable security over the 

data they collect during covered calls, much of which may be highly personal and sensitive. The 

FTC’s recent law enforcement experience demonstrates the importance of reasonably securing 

the vast amount of sensitive personal information obtained and stored in the process of debt 

collection. For example, in two recent cases,

43 the Commission charged sellers of debt 

collection portfolios with improper handling of consumer information—often including such 

 38 The FTC has sued several debt collectors who have combined their attempts to collect a debt with sales offers. 

See, e.g., FTC v. CompuCredit Corp. and Jefferson Capital Sys., LLC, Civ. A. No . 1 :08-CV- 1976-BBM-RGV 

(N.D. Ga. 2008) (defendants allegedly combined debt collection attempts with an offer for a new credit card that 

would help rebuild credit), https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/062-3212/compucredit-corporationjefferson-capital-systems-llc; FTC v. Luebke Baker and Assocs., Inc., Civ. A. No. 112-cv-1145 (C.D. Ill. 2012) 

(debt collector allegedly upsold a debt relief service), https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/082-

3206/luebke-baker-associates-inc; FTC v. Pro Credit Group, LLC, Civ. A. No. 8:12-cv-00586 (M.D. Fl. 2012) (debt 

collector allegedly engaged in a scheme to defraud consumers by telemarketing a service that purports to lower the 

interest rates on consumers’ debts), https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/122-3051-x120037/procredit-group. 

39 While the TSR and the MARS Rule/Reg. O also regulate specific practices of certain debt service providers, the 

telemarketing of any service, including a debt service, is subject to all the general prohibitions and requirements of 

the TSR. 

40 The TSR defines telemarketing to include “a plan, program, or campaign which is conducted to induce the 

purchase of goods or services . . . by use of one or more telephones and which involves more than one interstate 

telephone call.” 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(gg).

41 16 C.F.R. § 310.4 (b)(1)(v). 

42 NPRM ¶ 12.

43 FTC v. Bayview Solutions, LLC, No. 1:14-cv-01830-RC (D.D.C. Apr. 21, 2015) (Stipulated Final Order for 

Permanent Injunction), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/150421bayviewstip.pdf; FTC v. 

Cornerstone and Company, LLC, No. 1:14-cv-01479-RC (D.D.C. Apr. 21, 2015) (Stipulated Final Order for 

Permanent Injunction), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/150421cornerstonestip.pdf; see also Press 

Release, FTC Alleges Debt Brokers Illegally Exposed Personal Information of Tens of Thousands of Consumers on 

the Internet (Nov. 12, 2014), http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/11/ftc-alleges-debt-brokersillegally-exposed-personal-information.
9

sensitive information as bank account and credit card numbers, birth dates, contact information, 

and employers’ names—that could put consumers at significant risk of identity theft or expose 

them to so-called “phantom” debt collection down the road.44 Although the FTC has authority to 

require these and other types of companies to maintain reasonable security, it has advocated for 

additional tools in this area, such as the authority to obtain civil penalties. Requiring covered 

callers to maintain reasonable security under the FCC’s implementing regulations should further 

deter unlawful conduct.

Second, the Rule should emphasize that the information obtained during a covered call 

should be used solely for purposes of collecting debts on behalf of the government and for no 

other purpose. Among other things, this would prevent covered callers from selling any 

consumer information obtained during a covered call to any third party. It would also prohibit 

covered callers from using any consumer information obtained during a covered call to collect on 

any non-government debt or to offer any other products or services.45 Such a use restriction is 

consistent with, for example, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which allows consumer reports to be 

used only for enumerated permissible purposes and no other. It is also consistent with both the 

scope of the amendment to the TCPA—which excepts from the TCPA’s consent requirement 

only those robocalls made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States—

and consumer expectations in this area. 

C. Other Parameters of Covered Calls

Other critical questions in the FCC’s NPRM seek comment on when robocalls should be 

allowed and under what circumstances they must stop. These questions include whether there 

should be restrictions on call hours, whether consumers should have a right to opt out of debt 

collection robocalls, and how to implement any such opt-out right.

FTC staff supports the FCC’s proposal to limit robocalls to between the hours of 8:00 

a.m. and 9:00 p.m, and to also restrict such calls during other times the collector knows or should 

know are inconvenient for the consumer.

46 The FDCPA and the TSR similarly limit debt 

 44 “Phantom” debt collection involves demanding payment on debts that consumer don’t actually owe, including 

debts that never existed. Phantom debt collectors frequently are able to convince consumers that they owe these 

non-existent debts because they have a lot of sensitive personal and financial information about the consumer—

often including the consumer’s address, date of birth, and social security number. The FTC has brought a number of 

enforcement actions against companies that pursue consumers for phantom debts, including a recent case against a 

company that allegedly sold fake debt portfolios. FTC & State of Illinois v. Stark Law, LLC, No. 1:16-cv-3463 

(N.D. Ill. Mar. 21, 2016) (Complaint ¶¶ 43-52, 59-64), https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/152-

3243/stark-law-llc-dba-stark-recovery.

45 For example, the FTC has filed several actions against debt buyers that supplemented information obtained from 

the original creditor with information, such as new address and identifying information, obtained through third party 

sources such as available commercial databases, including credit reporting databases (a process is known as “skiptracing”), where the supplemented information was incorrect or related to the wrong debtor. See, e.g., FTC v. Asset 

Acceptance, LLC, Civ. A. No. 812-cv-182-T-27EAJ (M.D. Fl. 2012), https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/casesproceedings/052-3133/asset-acceptance-llc; FTC v. Credit Bureau Collection Servs., Civ. A. No. 10-CV-169 (S.D. 

Ohio 2010), https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/062-3226/credit-bureau-collection-services. 

46 NPRM ¶ 19.
10

collection and telemarketing calls to this same timeframe.47 Because consumers may have 

schedules that vary significantly, the FDCPA additionally requires that a collector refrain from 

communicating at other times if the collector knows or should know that calls during those hours 

are inconvenient for the consumer.48 As with FTC staff’s suggestion to define covered calls with

regard to “default,” adopting this proposal would harmonize the TCPA’s requirements with the 

relevant FDCPA and TSR provisions.

FTC staff also supports the FCC’s proposal to allow consumers to stop robocalls at any 

time, and to require that consumers be informed of their proposed right to opt out of these calls. 

Exercising this right makes sense for some consumers; if a consumer cannot find a viable way to 

satisfy a debt collection demand, continued calls may simply serve to harass or abuse the 

consumer. Congress recognized the harm of being unable to stop collection calls in the context 

of the FDCPA, where it embedded a right for consumers to cease communications from debt 

collectors.

49 The FCC came to a similar conclusion in its 2015 TCPA Declaratory Ruling and 

Order, holding that consumers should be able to use “any reasonable method, including orally or 

in response to a text message” to opt-out of future calls.50 FTC staff supports the application of 

this principle here. FTC staff also supports the FCC’s proposal requiring a voice- and/or key 

press-activated opt-out mechanism to be included in the robocalls.51 This type of requirement is 

particularly important for robocalls because consumers may not interact with a live agent who 

can process the consumer’s request.

An opt-out right, however, is only effective if it is well-known. As the FTC indicated in 

its 2009 policy report on debt collection, consumers often do not appear to recognize that the 

FDCPA gives them the right to demand that collectors cease contacting them.52 Because of this, 

the FTC recommended that Congress amend Section 809(a) of the FDCPA to require that debt 

collectors inform consumers of their cease communication rights.53 Similarly, FTC staff 

recommends that the FCC adopt regulations that clearly inform consumers of their right to stop 

covered robocalls at any time. FTC staff supports expanding the opt-out mechanisms for 

 47 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(1). 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(c).

48 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(1)

49 FDCPA Section 805(c), 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c).

50 See NPRM ¶ 21 (citing 2015 TCPA Declaratory Ruling and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 7996, ¶ 64.

51 These requirements are consistent with the opt-out mechanisms required for telemarketing robocalls under both 

the TSR and the TCPA. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(v)(B)(ii)(A)-(B); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(b)(3). Protection of 

consumer privacy was a primary basis for both of these requirements. See TSR, Final Rule, Statement of Basis and 

Purpose, 73 Fed. Reg. at 51164 (Aug. 29, 2008) (“The [opt-out mechanism] amendment is necessary because the 

reasonable consumer would consider prerecorded telemarketing messages to be coercive or abusive of such 

consumer’s right to privacy.”); Report and Order, CG Docket No. 02-278, filed Feb. 15, 2012 at ¶ 48 (“. . . the 

automated, interactive opt-out mechanism we adopt will empower consumers to revoke consent if they previously 

agreed to receive autodialed or prerecorded telemarketing calls and stop receipt of unwanted, autodialed or 

prerecorded telemarketing calls to which they never consented.”) .

52 Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change 27. 

53 Id. Section 809(a) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a), requires debt collectors to inform consumers of other 

specific rights -- such as the right to dispute the debt and obtain verification -- within five days after their initial 

communication with the consumer.
11

telemarketing robocalls to the covered debt collection calls due to the similar significant impact 

on consumer privacy. 

The NPRM also seeks comments generally on what other actions should be considered to 

reduce unwanted debt collection robocalls to consumers,54 as well as on whether and how to 

encourage debtors to connect with a live agent for these purposes.55 Additionally, the NPRM 

states that the FCC has determined that an ability to stop unwanted calls is critical to the TCPA’s 

goal of consumer protection and that right is particularly important here, where consumers need 

not consent to the covered calls in advance.56 To further these goals, FTC staff suggests the FCC 

require covered debt collection callers to transmit Caller ID information that includes a caller 

number that connects to a live agent representing the debt collector.57 

In 2003, the FTC amended the TSR to require that telemarketers transmit their telephone 

numbers to Caller ID services.58 This requirement has enabled consumers to identify 

telemarketers, thus giving them a choice as to whether to accept the calls59 and the ability to file 

complaints with law enforcement officials against noncompliant telemarketers.

60 Further, 

requiring the Caller ID number to connect to a live agent has helped consumers request that the

calls stop.

Obligating debt collectors to transmit their telephone numbers to consumers’ Caller ID 

services could convey similar benefits to consumers. First, through Section 805(c) of the 

FDCPA’s requirement that debt collectors cease communication with a consumer upon written 

request,61 Congress recognized that consumers have the right to decide not to communicate with 

a debt collector. Mandating that debt collectors transmit their phone number to consumers’ 

Caller ID services assists consumers who decide that they do not want to answer the phone to 

communicate with the debt collector. Second, Section 806(5) of the FDCPA prohibits debt 

 54 NPRM ¶ 17. 

55 NPRM ¶ 18.

56 NPRM ¶ 20. 

57 Both the TSR and the TCPA require telemarketers to transmit the caller’s telephone number . See 16 C.F.R. § 

310.4(a)(8) and 47 C.F.R. 64.1601(e). Both provisions also permit telemarketers to substitute a customer service 

telephone number. A primary basis for both provisions is the protection of consumer privacy. See Statement of 

Basis and Purpose, TSR, Final Rule, 68 Fed. Reg. at 4623 (“. . . consumers will receive substantial privacy 

protection as a result of [transmission of caller identification] provision”); Rules and Regulations Implementing the

TCPA, 68 Fed. Reg. 44144, 44166 (July 25, 2003) (“Caller ID allows consumers to screen out unwanted calls and to 

identify companies that they wish to ask not to call again.”). Although the proposed covered debt collection calls 

are not telemarketing calls, permitting covered callers to use robocalls to reach consumer’s cellular telephone lines 

without consent raises similar consumer privacy concerns. As such, FTC staff recommends implementation of 

similar caller identification requirements for covered debt collection calls. 

58 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(8).

59 See Statement of Basis and Purpose, TSR, Final Rule, 68 Fed. Reg. at 4626-27 (codified at 16 C.F.R. Part 310). 

Another important reason for requiring telemarketers to transmit this information was to enable consumers to lodge 

an entity-specific “Do Not Call” request with the telemarketer pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(iii). Id.

60 Id. at 4627.

61 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c).
12

collectors from “causing a telephone to ring . . . repeatedly or continuously with the intent to 

annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number.”62 Mandating that debt collectors 

transmit their phone number to consumers’ Caller ID services assists consumers in identifying 

and complaining to law enforcement officials about collectors who engage in such conduct 

without having to pick up the phone. Finally, such a requirement would also advance the 

protections found in Section 806(6) of the FDCPA, which prohibits a debt collector from 

“plac[ing] telephone calls without meaningful disclosure of the caller’s identity.”63

V. CONCLUSION

FTC staff’s recommendations are based on its extensive law enforcement experience 

enforcing the FTC Act, the FDCPA, and the TSR. As noted throughout this comment, there are 

extensive debt collection protections under the FDCPA that extend to when and how debt 

collectors can call consumers to collect debts. In addition, the TSR addresses the appropriate use 

of prerecorded phone calls. FTC staff’s recommendations seek to harmonize the FCC’s 

rulemaking with these other bodies of law to the extent possible. We hope that these 

recommendations prove useful to the FCC’s rulemaking efforts and appreciate the FCC’s 

consideration of them. 

 62 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(5).

63 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(6).