Biennial 

Report 

to Congress 

Under the Do Not Call Registry 

Fee Extension Act of 2007 

Federal Trade Commission 

December 2021
1

Do-Not-Call Registry Fee Extension Act of 2007 

Federal Trade Commission 

Biennial Report to Congress

Reporting on Fiscal Years 2020-2021

I. Report Overview

In February of 2008, Congress passed the Do-Not-Call Registry Fee Extension Act of 

2007 (“Fee Extension Act”),1

 requiring this biennial report on the National Do Not Call Registry 

(“Registry”). In compliance with the Fee Extension Act, this Report contains a summary of the 

current operations of the Registry, the impact on the Registry of new telecommunication 

technologies, and the impact of the established business relationship exception in our 

enforcement efforts. 

The Registry currently has over 244 million active registrations. During FY 2021, the 

Registry increased by more than 2.8 million phone numbers. Over 12,000 sellers, telemarketers, 

and exempt organizations subscribed to access the Registry in FY 2021, and 2,000 of those 

entities paid fees totaling nearly $13 million. 

II. Introduction

The Registry has been in operation since the summer of 2003.2

 Consumers continue to 

register their telephone numbers, verify registration of numbers, and submit complaints of 

suspected violations at a high rate. During the last 18 years, the Registry has also successfully 

served businesses, as they accessed the Registry, and law enforcement, as they investigated 

violations of the Do Not Call rules. The FTC continues to look for and make improvements to 

the system to better serve consumers, telemarketers, and law enforcers while maintaining the 

efficient management and accuracy of the Registry. FTC staff continues to work closely with the 

contractor overseeing the Registry to ensure that the integrity of the Registry is maintained. 

The Fee Extension Act required the FTC, in consultation with the Federal 

Communications Commission (“FCC”), to first report to Congress on the Registry by December 

31, 2009, and biennially thereafter. Specifically, the Fee Extension Act requires that the FTC’s 

report provide the following information: 

 the number of consumers who have placed their telephone number(s) on the 

Registry; 

 the number of persons paying fees for access to the Registry and the amount of 

such fees; 

 the impact on the Registry of 
2

o the five-year re-registration requirement; 

o new telecommunication technology; 

o number portability and abandoned telephone numbers; and 

 the impact of the established business relationship exception on businesses and 

consumers. 

This biennial Report provides an overview of the operation of the Registry for FY 2020 and 

2021. 

III. Number of Consumers Who Placed Their Telephone Numbers on the National 

Registry 

Americans continue to utilize the Registry in very high numbers. In the first four days 

following the launch of the Registry on June 27, 2003, more than 10 million numbers were 

registered. As of September 30, 2003, a total of 51,968,777 telephone numbers had been 

registered. With each fiscal year, the number has steadily increased. By the end of FY 2020, the 

number of active registrations was 241,483,968. As of September 30, 2021, the Registry had 

244,302,202 active registrations.3

 

IV. Number of Entities Paying Fees for Access to the National Registry 

In FY 2020, a total of 1,952 entities paid fees totaling $12,461,638 for access to the 

Registry. In FY 2021, a total of 2,000 entities paid fees totaling $12,927,876 for access to the 

Registry.4 In addition, certain entities can access data from the Registry without having to pay a 

fee. These include entities that access five or fewer area codes of data in a year, as well as 

exempt organizations (such as charitable organizations) that are not required to access the 

Registry to comply with do-not-call requirements under federal law, but voluntarily access the 

Registry to avoid calling consumers who do not wish to receive calls.5 In FY 2020, 10,420 

entities subscribed to access five or fewer area codes at no charge, and 556 entities claiming 

“exempt organization” status obtained free access. In FY 2021, 9,595 entities subscribed to 

access five or fewer area codes at no charge, and 512 entities claiming “exempt organization” 

status obtained free access. 

V. Impact on the National Registry of the Five-Year Re-Registration Requirement, 

New Telecommunications Technology, and Number Portability and Abandoned 

Telephone Numbers 

A. Five-Year Re-Registration Requirement 
3

When the Registry was first implemented in 2003, registrations were scheduled to expire 

after five years. Out of concern that the expiration of numbers on the Registry would be 

detrimental to consumers, the FTC, in the fall of 2007, pledged not to drop any numbers from the 

Registry, pending final Congressional action.6

 The following February, Congress passed the Do 

Not Call Improvement Act of 2007 (“DNCIA”), eliminating the automatic removal of numbers 

from the Registry.7 

At the time the DNCIA was passed in February 2008, no registrations had yet expired, 

because the first registrations were made in late June 2003, less than five years earlier. 

Consequently, no consumers ever had to re-register their numbers. The FTC continues to believe 

that eliminating the re-registration requirement has not decreased the accuracy of the Registry, 

but that it has enabled consumers to maintain their right to privacy without interruption and made 

it possible to avoid the cost associated with educating consumers about the need to re-register. 

B. New Telecommunications Technology 

The FTC also continues to track how technology affects the Registry and the consumers 

and telemarketers who access it. Advancements in technology have increased the number of 

illegal telemarketing calls made to telephone numbers on the Registry. For example, Voice over 

Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology allows callers, including law-breakers, to make higher 

volumes of calls inexpensively from anywhere in the world. In 2019 and 2020, the FTC brought 

its first two cases against interconnected VoIP service providers for assisting and facilitating 

abusive telemarketing calls. The FTC will continue to enforce the Telemarketing Sales Rule 

against VoIP service providers, as appropriate.8

Technological developments also allow illegal telemarketers to easily fake, or “spoof,” 

the caller ID information that accompanies their calls, which allows them to conceal their 

identity from consumers and law enforcement. Further, many telemarketers use automated 

dialing technology to make calls that deliver prerecorded messages (commonly referred to as 

“robocalls”), which allow violators to make very high volumes of illegal calls without significant 

expense. The net effect of these technological developments is that bad actors who refuse to 

comply with the Registry or other telemarketing laws, are able to make more cheap and illegal 

telemarketing calls using methods that make it difficult for the FTC and other law enforcement 

agencies to find them. As a result, consumer complaints about illegal calls—especially 

robocalls—have increased significantly. In the fourth quarter of 2009, the FTC received 

approximately 63,000 complaints about illegal robocalls each month. That number has more 

than quintupled—in the first three quarters of FY 2021, the FTC received an average of more 

than 300,000 robocall complaints per month. The FCC also receives complaints about unwanted 

calls and received approximately 155,000 unwanted call complaints in FY 2020, and 

approximately 175,000 in FY 2021. 

To help end caller ID spoofing, among other purposes, Congress passed the PalloneThune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act (TRACED Act) at 

the end of 2020.9

 To combat illegal caller ID spoofing, and as directed by the TRACED Act, the 
4

FCC required that voice service providers implement the STIR/SHAKEN caller ID 

authentication framework in their Internet Protocol (IP) networks and take reasonable measures 

to implement a caller ID authentication solution for non-IP networks by June 30, 2021. 

Consistent with the TRACED Act, the FCC extended the deadline for STIR/SHAKEN 

implementation for small and other eligible voice service providers until June 30, 2023; but the 

agency recently shortened the small voice service provider extension for those providers the FCC 

determined are most likely to be the source of illegal robocalls. Once full implementation of 

STIR/SHAKEN is complete, it should be much more difficult for illegal callers to spoof caller 

IDs on calls transiting IP networks. Non-IP legacy networks do not support STIR/SHAKEN, but 

pursuant to the TRACED Act and FCC regulation, providers with non-IP networks must 

participate in efforts to develop a non-IP caller ID authentication framework. Any provider that 

has not yet implemented STIR/SHAKEN also must engage in other forms of robocall mitigation. 

More information on the FCC’s implementation of the TRACED Act appears below in this 

Report’s update on the FCC’s response to new telecommunications technology. 

To combat the technologies that telemarketers use to make illegal calls, FTC staff has 

undertaken a number of initiatives, described below, designed to spur the development and 

availability of technology that will protect consumers from illegal calls. FTC staff have worked 

closely with industry groups, academic experts, and counterparts at federal, state, and 

international government bodies to encourage the development of new technologies and 

telecommunications standards to combat illegal calls. 

The FTC has held four public challenges designed to spur private sector development of 

technological solutions that will stop illegal telemarketing calls. The FTC held its first public 

challenge in conjunction with its 2012 Robocall Summit, offering a $50,000 prize to the 

individual or small team who proposed the best technological solution that blocks robocalls on 

consumers’ landlines and mobile phones. After reviewing 798 submissions, the FTC announced 

three winning solutions on April 2, 2013.10 One of the winners, “NomoRobo,” was on the 

market and available to consumers by October 2013—just 6 months after being named one of the 

winners. NomoRobo also reports blocking nearly 2.4 billion calls, is being offered directly to 

consumers by a number of telecommunications providers, and is available as an app on iPhones 

and Android phones.11 Following on the success of the first challenge, the FTC conducted its 

second contest, “Zapping Rachel,” in August 2014, where it awarded $17,000 in prizes to five 

winners who developed solutions that improved telephone honeypots—a system of phone lines 

that collect information and data about illegal calling patterns.12 In 2015, the FTC conducted 

two more challenges: “DetectaRobo” and “Robocalls: Humanity Strikes Back.” The FTC held 

“DetectaRobo” in conjunction with the 2015 National Day of Civic Hacking in June 2015, and 

asked contestants to create predictive algorithms that can identify robocalls.13 “Robocalls: 

Humanity Strikes Back” followed, in August 2015, and challenged contestants to build solutions 

that not only block robocalls from reaching consumers, but enable consumers to forward those 

unwanted robocalls to a crowd-sourced honeypot so that law enforcement and industry 

stakeholders can use the data collected.14 Winners for the 2015 challenge were announced on 

August 17, 2015.15 
5

The challenges contributed to a shift in the development and availability of technological 

solutions in this area, particularly call-blocking and call-filtering products. All of the major 

voice service providers now offer call-blocking or call-filtering products to some or all of their 

customers.16 In addition, there are a growing number of free or low-cost apps available for 

download on wireless devices that offer call-blocking and call-filtering solutions.17

 The FTC has taken additional measures to support analytics companies and voice service 

providers with their call-blocking and call-filtering efforts. In August 2017, the FTC began 

releasing a daily list of Do Not Call and robocall complaints, including the caller ID number, the 

date and time the unwanted call was received, the topic of the call, and whether the call was a 

robocall. Several analytics firms and call blocking companies report that this daily data release 

improved their ability to identify abusive and fraudulent calls.18

The FCC has taken a multi-pronged approach to combating illegal calls, including those 

made by telemarketers. 

First, like, the FTC, the FCC has looked to call blocking as a means of combating illegal 

robocalls. The FCC has encouraged voice service providers (including terminating voice service 

providers and intermediate providers) to block robocalls in certain instances and protected those 

providersfrom liability under the FCC’s rules if they block in error. 

The FCC, in 2017, took a clear, bright-line approach by authorizing voice service 

providers, including intermediate providers, to block calls that purport to be from invalid, 

unallocated, or unused numbers without first obtaining customer consent. The FCC also 

permitted blocking of calls using a do-not-originate list, which includes numbers that should 

never be used to originate calls. The FCC determined that, along with calls originating within 

the United States, these rules apply to foreign-originated calls that purport to originate from U.S. 

North American Numbering Plan (NANP) numbers on the grounds that many illegal calls 

originate from call centers abroad. 

Subsequent FCC action ensured that terminating voice service providers can respond to 

the evolving tactics of bad actors. In 2019, the FCC made clear that terminating voice service 

providers may block calls based on reasonable analytics so long as consumers are given the 

opportunity to opt out of such blocking. In 2020 the FCC adopted a safe harbor from violations 

of the Act and the FCC’s rules for terminating voice service providers that block based on 

reasonable analytics designed to identify unwanted calls, so long as the analytics take into 

account caller ID authentication information and consumers are given the opportunity to opt out. 

The FCC also established a safe harbor for voice service providers (including intermediate 

providers) to block calls from a bad-actor upstream provider that fails to effectively mitigate 

illegal traffic after being notified of such traffic by the FCC. At the same time, the FCC took 

steps to reduce the risk of erroneous blocking. 

In December 2020 the FCC expanded the safe harbor for blocking based on reasonable 

analytics to include certain network-level blocking, without consumer opt out, designed to 
6

identify calls that are highly likely to be illegal. The safe harbor is available to terminating voice 

service providers that disclose to consumers that they are engaging in such blocking. The FCC 

also adopted enhanced transparency and redress requirements for voice service providers that 

block calls. 

Beyond blocking, the FCC has established three affirmative obligations that apply to 

voice service providers (including intermediate providers). First, voice service providers must 

respond to all traceback requests from the FCC, law enforcement, or the industry traceback 

consortium, fully and timely. Second, voice service providers must take steps to effectively 

mitigate illegal traffic when notified of such traffic by the FCC. Finally, voice service providers 

must adopt affirmative, effective measures to prevent new and renewing customers from using 

the network to originate illegal calls. 

The FCC authorized creation of a Reassigned Numbers Database that launched on 

November 1, 2021. The database enables callers to determine whether numbers they wish to call 

have been disconnected since they obtained consent, and therefore whether the consent they have 

to call each number remains valid. 

In addition, the FCC has pushed industry to develop and deploy the STIR/SHAKEN 

caller ID authentication standards, a protocol to verify that the person dialing the call has 

authority to use the displayed caller ID number. STIR/SHAKEN are acronyms for the Secure 

Telephony Identity Revisited (STIR) working group of the Internet Engineering Task Force, 

which developed several protocols for authenticating caller ID information and the Signaturebased Handling of Asserted information using toKENs (SHAKEN) specification produced by the 

Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions and the SIP Forum, which standardizes how 

the protocols produced by STIR are implemented across the industry. 

Deployment of STIR/SHAKEN will help reduce caller ID spoofing and assist 

telecommunications and analytics companies determine which calls they should block. 

However, it should be noted that this protocol applies exclusively to calls that are originated and 

delivered using Internet Protocol (IP) technology; existing technology does not permit 

STIR/SHAKEN to work with calls delivered using non-IP technology, including traditional timedivision multiplexing technology. The FCC required voice service providers to implement 

STIR/SHAKEN on their IP networks by June 30, 2021, subject to some extensions. Voice 

service providers that received an extension are required to perform robocall mitigation on calls 

they originate until they have implemented STIR/SHAKEN. 

Throughout 2019, several of the larger telecommunications companies issued press 

releases stating that they had begun beta testing and a phased-in implementation.19 Although 

SHAKEN/STIR will not be a panacea, both the FTC and FCC believe that it will be another 

useful tool for improving trust in the telephone network and reducing the number of spoofed 

calls. 
7

The FTC and the FCC also share information to help facilitate technological solutions, 

such as call blocking, and have taken steps to increase the quality and quantity of shared 

information. To that end, on September 28, 2016, the FTC updated its Do Not Call complaint 

intake process to provide a drop-down list of possible call categories for consumers to choose 

from to make it easier for consumers to report the topic of the call and to help the FTC and FCC 

identify trends. In FY 2020 and the first three quarters of FY 2021, the top five topics selected 

by consumers for unwanted call complaints were: 

 Imposters (calls pretending to be government, businesses, or family and 

friends) 

 Warranties and protection plans 

 Reducing debt (credit cards, mortgage, student loans) 

 Medical and prescriptions 

 Computer and technical support 

C. Number Portability and Abandoned Telephone Numbers 

According to FCC regulations, people changing service providers are able to retain their 

phone number.20 As the FTC developed procedures to identify numbers to remove from the 

Registry, the FTC considered how to identify these ported numbers and differentiate them from 

abandoned or disconnected numbers. To increase the likelihood that ported numbers are not 

removed but abandoned numbers are, the FTC’s contractor first identifies the numbers that have 

been designated as new connections in the compiled disconnection and reassignment data. A 

number is designated as disconnected and reassigned for purposes of removing it from the 

Registry only if neither the name nor the address for the new account match the name or address 

associated with the previous account for that number. 

Consequently, the only numbers removed from the Registry are those that have been 

disconnected (or abandoned) and then reconnected to a different account holder at a different 

address. This process, which is performed monthly, ensures that numbers that have been ported 

are not removed, but numbers that truly have been abandoned are deleted. 

VII. Impact of Established Business Relationship Exception on Consumers and 

Businesses 

The Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) and the FCC’s rules contain exemptions that permit a seller 

or telemarketer to call a person who has listed his or her telephone numbers on the Registry if the 

call is to a person with whom the seller has an “established business relationship.”21 An 

established business relationship under the TSR and the FCC rules is a relationship based on 1) 

the consumer’s purchase, rental, or lease of the seller’s goods or services, or a financial 

transaction between the consumer and seller, within the 18 months immediately preceding the 

date of a telemarketing call; or 2) a consumer’s inquiry or application regarding a product or 

service offered by the seller within the three months immediately preceding the date of a 
8

telemarketing call.22 This exception allows sellers and their telemarketers to call customers who 

have recently made purchases or made payments, and to return calls to prospective customers 

who have made inquiries, even if their telephone numbers are on the Registry. Consumers have 

the option to request to be put on the seller's company-specific-do-not-call list. Such a request 

terminates the established business relationship with that seller for purposes of making 

telemarketing calls even if the consumer continues to do business with the seller. On November 

18, 2015, the FTC amended the TSR to make clear that sellers and telemarketers have the burden 

of proof to demonstrate the existence of an established business relationship.23 Under the TSR, 

the relationship must be directly “between a seller and a consumer.”24

Many businesses rely on this exemption to conduct telemarketing campaigns directed at 

recent or long-time customers, or consumers who have expressed an interest in becoming 

customers. Many consumers, however, perceive telemarketing calls that fall within this 

exemption to be inconsistent with the Registry because the consumers are unaware of the 

exception or do not realize that they have a relationship with the seller that falls within the 

definition of an established business relationship. 

Such perceptions by consumers are especially likely when the relationship between the 

consumer and the seller arises from a brief, one-time transaction, or when the seller identified in 

the telemarketing call and the seller with whom the consumer has a relationship are part of the 

same legal entity, but are perceived by consumers to be different because they use different 

names or are marketing different products. Both the FTC and the FCC have stated that the issue 

of whether the exemption applies to calls by or on behalf of sellers who are affiliates and 

subsidiaries of an entity with which a consumer has an established business relationship depends 

on consumer expectations. The FTC characterizes the issue as follows: “would consumers likely 

be surprised by that call and find it inconsistent with having placed their telephone number on 

the national ‘do-not-call’ registry?”25

For both the FTC and the FCC, the factors to be considered in this analysis include 

1) whether the subsidiary’s or affiliate’s goods or services are similar to the seller’s, and 2) 

whether the subsidiary’s or affiliate’s name is identical or similar to the seller’s name. The 

greater the similarity between the nature and type of goods or services sold by the seller and any 

subsidiary or affiliate and the greater the similarity in identity between the seller and any 

subsidiary or affiliate, the more likely it is that the call will fall within the established business 

relationship exemption.26 

Some businesses, seeking to circumvent the Registry, have sought to exploit the 

established business relationship exemption by making calls to persons who have not had the 

requisite contact with the seller. For example, some marketers claiming a business relationship 

have improperly placed telemarketing calls to consumers after acquiring the consumers’ 

telephone numbers from others. So-called “lead generators” collect information on consumer 
9

interests through web advertising, by offering coupons or samples, or simply by “cold calling” 

consumers in order to determine whether the consumer has any interest in a particular product or 

service, such as debt relief or home alarms. Lead generators responsible for these so-called “call 

verified,” “permission-based,” or “opt-in” leads often fail to remove numbers listed on the 

Registry before calling consumers. Lead generating companies that have engaged in this type of 

“cold calling” have agreed to pay civil penalties to settle charges that their calls violated the 

TSR.27 At the same time, some telemarketers and sellers have acquired leads from lead 

generators and used them in telemarketing campaigns without screening the numbers to remove 

those listed on the Registry. In this way, a single sales pitch can produce multiple illegal calls, 

generating one or more calls from both the lead generators and the telemarketer. 

Telephone calls from telemarketers to phone numbers provided by lead generators 

generally do not fall within the established business relationship exception because, while the 

consumers may have a relationship with the lead generator, they do not have an established 

business relationship with the seller who has purchased the leads. Unless the consumer inquired 

into the services of a specified seller, or the lead generator made disclosures that would alert the 

consumer that he or she should expect telemarketing calls from the seller as a result of his or her 

communications with the lead generator, the seller cannot claim that it has a relationship with the 

consumer such that it can ignore the consumer’s request not to receive telemarketing calls. In 

several enforcement actions, businesses that made telephone calls to consumers on the Registry 

after acquiring the consumers’ names from a lead generator, agreed to pay civil penalties to settle 

charges that their calls violated the TSR.28

Other businesses have sought to circumvent the Registry by utilizing sweepstakes entry 

forms as a way to exploit the established business relationship exemption, arguing that the 

submission of a sweepstakes entry form creates an established business relationship for purposes 

of the TSR. The TSR, however, does not permit companies to circumvent the Registry in this 

manner because a sweepstakes entry form does not create an established business relationship for 

purposes of the TSR. Companies have agreed to pay civil penalties for making illegal calls that 

relied upon sweepstake entry forms as a basis for making telemarketing calls.29 

VIII. Conclusion 

The Registry exists to provide consumers a choice whether to receive most telemarketing 

calls. It is important that the FTC and FCC work to keep it accessible and effective for 

consumers and telemarketers. As new technology provides new challenges, both agencies 

actively seek to address and confront these challenges. This includes encouraging private 

industry, other government entities, academia, and other interested parties to work towards 

solutions and create new strategies. 

We publish an Annual Do Not Call Registry Data Book that gives a substantial amount of 

detail regarding registration numbers and other statistical information regarding the Registry. 

The 2021 Data Book can be found at https://www.ftc.gov/reports/national-do-not-call-registrydata-book-fiscal-year-2021. We have also created a new way to view the DNC data that is 
10

updated quarterly, and it is accessible at FTC.gov/exploredata. Our Tableau Public page allows 

consumers to explore the data interactively, including drilling down to the information about 

their state or county.30 FTC staff continues to work closely with the contractor overseeing the 

Registry to ensure that the integrity of the Registry is maintained and that consumers’ 

preferences not to receive most telemarketing calls are honored. 

 
11

ENDNOTES

1. Pub. L. No. 110-188, 122 Stat. 635 (2008) as codified at 15 U.S.C. § 6154. 

2. On January 29, 2003, the FTC issued the final amendments to the Telemarketing Sales 

Rule (“TSR”) that, inter alia, established the National Do Not Call Registry. 16 C.F.R. § 310. 

3. These totals exclude those telephone numbers that have been deleted by consumers or 

eliminated as part of the FTC’s process for removing disconnected and reassigned numbers from 

the Registry. A telephone number that was registered more than once between FY 2003 - FY 

2021 is counted only once in these totals. 

4. As established by the Fee Extension Act, in FY 2021, the annual fee per area code was 

$66 (with the first five area codes provided at no cost) with the maximum annual fee for 

accessing the entire Registry being $18.044. 

5. Such “exempt” organizations include entities that engage in outbound telephone calls to 

consumers that do not involve the sale of goods or services, such as calls to induce charitable 

contributions, to raise funds for political purposes, or to conduct surveys. They also include 

entities who are engaged solely in calls to persons with whom they have an established business 

relationship or from whom they have obtained express written agreement to call, pursuant to the 

Amended TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) or (2), and who do not access the Registry for 

any other purpose. 

6. See FTC Press Release, FTC Pledges Not to Drop Any Numbers From Do Not Call 

Registry, Pending Final Congressional or Agency Action on Whether to Make Registration 

Permanent (Oct. 23, 2007), available at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/10/dnctestimony.shtm. 

7. Pub. L. No. 110-187, 122 Stat. 633 (2008). 

8 See Press Release, Globex Telecom and Associates Will Pay $2.1 Million, Settling FTC’s 

First Consumer Protection Case Against a VoIP Service Provider (Sept. 22, 2020), available at 

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2020/09/globex-telecom-associates-will-pay-21-

million-settling-ftcs-first (discussing FTC v. Educare Centre Services, Inc., No. 3:19-cv-00196 

(W.D. Tex. Am. Compl. filed Dec. 2, 2019)); Press Release, FTC Takes Action Against Second 

VoIP Service Provider for Facilitating Illegal Telemarketing Robocalls (Dec. 3, 2020), available 

at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2020/12/ftc-takes-action-against-second-voipservice-provider (discussing FTC v. Alcazar Networks Inc., No. 6:20-cv-2200 (M.D. Fla. filed 

Dec. 3, 2020)). 

9. Pub. L. No. 116-105, 133 Stat. 3274 (2019). 
12

10. See Press Release, FTC Announces Robocall Challenge Winners; Proposals Would Use 

Call Filter Software to Reduce Illegal Calls (Apr. 2, 2013), available at

http:/www.ftc.gov/opa/2013/04/robocall.shtm. 

11. See https://www.nomorobo.com/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2021). 

12. See Press Release, FTC Announces Winners of “Zapping Rachel” Robocall Contest 

(Aug. 28, 2014), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/08/ftcannounces-winners-zapping-rachel-robocall-contest. 

13. See Fed. Trade Comm’n, DetectaRobo, https://www.ftc.gov/detectarobo (last visited Oct. 

27, 2021); Press Release, FTC Announces New Robocall Contests to Combat Illegal Automated 

Calls (Mar. 4, 2015), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/03/ftcannounces-new-robocall-contests-combat-illegal-automated. 

14. See Fed. Trade Comm’n, Robocalls: Humanity Strikes Back, 

https://www.ftc.gov/strikeback (last visited Oct. 27, 2021); Press Release, FTC Announces New 

Robocall Contests to Combat Illegal Automated Calls (Mar. 4, 2015), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/03/ftc-announces-new-robocall-contestscombat-illegal-automated. 

15. Press Release, FTC Awards $25,000 Top Cash Price for Contest-Winning Mobile App 

That Blocks Illegal Robocalls (Aug. 17, 2015), available at https://www.ftc.gov/newsevents/press-releases/2015/08/ftc-awards-25000-top-cash-prize-contest-winning-mobile-appblocks. 

16. For example, in late 2016 AT&T launched “Call Protect,” which is a product available to 

many AT&T wireless customers that blocks fraud calls and flags others as potential “spam.” See

http://about.att.com/story/att_call_protect.html (last visited Oct. 27, 2021). T-Mobile first 

offered its wireless customers two free products, “Scam ID” and “Scam Block”, that flag and 

block unwanted calls; it now offers an integrated product, “ScamShield.” See https://www.tmobile.com/customers/scam-shield (last visited Oct. 27, 2021). Verizon offers a product called 

“Call Filter” to its wireless customers that also attempts to flag and block unwanted calls. See

https://www.verizon.com/solutions-and-services/call-filter/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2021). In 

addition, a number of carriers make Nomorobo available to their VoIP or cable line customers. 

See, e.g., https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/stop-unwanted-robocalls-and-texts (listing 

available call blocking resources from a number of wireline providers) (last visited Oct. 27, 

2021). 

17. The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) maintains a list of some 

of the available call blocking apps, both for iOS devices (https://www.ctia.org/consumerresources/how-to-stop-robocalls/ios-robocall-blocking/) and for Android devices 

(https://www.ctia.org/consumer-resources/how-to-stop-robocalls/android-robocalls-blocking/) 
13

(last visited Oct. 27, 2021). 

 

18 See Pairing Government Data with Private-Sector Ingenuity to Take on Unwanted Calls, 

available at https://strategy.data.gov/proof-points/2019/06/21/pairing-government-data-withprivate-sector-ingenuity-take-on-unwanted-calls/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2021). 

19 See, e.g., https://about.att.com/story/2019/anti_robocall.html; 

https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/14/20805276/att-t-mobile-caller-verified-shaken-stir-callauthentication-fcc-robocalls-spam.

20. 47 C.F.R. § 52.21(m) and § 52.23. 

21. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B)(2) and § 310.2(q). The FCC’s rules similarly include an 

exemption for live-voice calls to consumers with whom the seller has an established business 

relationship. See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2), (f)(5), and (f)(15)(ii). These exemptions do not 

apply if the person has asked to be on the seller’s “entity-specific” do-not-call list by telling the 

seller or its representatives that he or she does not wish to receive telemarketing calls from the 

seller. See id.§ 64.1200(f)(5)(i). The FCC eliminated the established business relationship 

exemption that applied to prerecorded telemarketing calls to residential lines, effective October 

16, 2013. See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 

1991, CG Docket No. 02-278, Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 1830, 1845-47, paras. 35-43 

(2012). 

22. See United States v. Columbia House Co., Civ. No. 05C-4064 (N.D. Ill. filed July 14, 

2005). In this case, the company agreed to a settlement after the FTC’s analysis found that its 

telemarketers continued to call former customers after the 18-month period provided by the 

established business relationship exemption had expired. 

23. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B)(2). 

24 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(q). 

25. See Statement of Basis and Purpose for Final Amended Telemarketing Sales Rule, 68 

Fed. Reg. 4580, 4594 (Jan. 29, 2003). See also 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(5)(ii) (under the FCC’s 

rules, a consumer’s “established business relationship with a particular business entity does not 

extend to affiliated entities unless the [consumer] would reasonably expect them to be 

included”). 

26. See Complying with the Telemarketing Sales Rule, at https://www.ftc.gov/tipsadvice/business-center/guidance/complying-telemarketing-sales-rule. Similarly, the FCC has 

stated that “affiliates fall within the established business relationship exemption only if the 

consumer would reasonably expect them to be included given the nature and type of goods or 
14

services offered and the identity of the affiliate.” Rules and Regulations Implementing the 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278, Report and Order, 18 FCC 

Rcd 14014, 14082-83, para. 117 (2003). 

27. See U.S. v. Consumer Education.info, Inc., 1:16-cv-02692 (D. Col. filed Nov. 1, 2016), 

available at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/152-3081/consumereducationinfo-inc. 

28. See FTC v. Career Education Corp. et al., No. 1:19-cv-05739 (N.D. Ill. filed Aug. 27, 

2019); United States v. Versatile Mktg. Sols., Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-10612-PBS (D. Mass. filed 

Mar. 10, 2014); United States v. Central Florida Investments, Inc., Civ. No. 6:09-cv-00104-PCFGJK (M.D Fla. filed Jan. 15, 2009); United States v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company, Civ. No. 

8:07-cv-01304-CJC-MLG (C.D. Cal. filed Nov. 6, 2007). 

29. See United States v. Electric Mobility Corporation, No. 1:11-cv-2218-RMB-KMW 

(D.N.J. filed April 19, 2011); United States v. All in One Vacation Club, L.L.C., No. 6:09-cv103-Orl-31DAB (M.D. Fla. filed Jan. 14, 2009); United States v. Craftmatic Industries, Inc., 

2:07-cv-04652-LDD (E.D. Pa. filed Nov. 6, 2007). 

30. https://public.tableau.com/profile/federal.trade.commission#!/vizhome/ 

DoNotCallComplaints/Maps.
Federal Trade Commission 

ftc.gov