Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 99069 

1 89 FR 26798 (Apr. 16, 2024). This document 

also concludes the ongoing Regulatory Review. 

2Public Law 103–297, 108 Stat. 1545 (1997) 

(codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. 6101–6108). 

3 15 U.S.C. 6102(a)(1). 

4See Statement of Basis and Purpose and Final 

Rule (‘‘Original TSR’’), 60 FR 43842 (Aug. 23, 1995). 

5See, e.g., 16 CFR 310.3(a); see also Original TSR, 

60 FR 43848–51. 

6See, e.g., 16 CFR 310.3(a)(1), 310.5; see also 

Original TSR, 60 FR 43846–48, 43851, 43857. 

7See Statement of Basis and Purpose and Final 

Amended Rule (‘‘2003 TSR Amendments’’), 68 FR 

4580 (Jan. 29, 2003) (adding Do Not Call Registry, 

charitable solicitations, and other provisions). The 

Telemarketing Act was amended in 2001 to extend 

its coverage to telemarketing calls seeking 

charitable contributions. See Uniting and 

Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate 

Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism 

Act (‘‘USA PATRIOT Act’’), Public Law 107–56, 

115 Stat. 272 (Oct. 26, 2001) (adding charitable 

contribution to the definition of telemarketing and 

amending the Act to require certain disclosures in 

calls seeking charitable contributions). 

8See Statement of Basis and Purpose and Final 

Rule Amendments (‘‘2008 TSR Amendments’’), 73 

FR 51164 (Aug. 29, 2008) (addressing the use of 

robocalls). 

9See Statement of Basis and Purpose and Final 

Rule Amendments (‘‘2010 TSR Amendments’’), 75 

FR 48458 (Aug. 10, 2010) (adding debt relief 

provisions, including a prohibition on 

misrepresenting material aspects of debt relief 

services in § 310.3(a)(2)(x)). The Commission 

subsequently published technical corrections to 

§ 310.4 of the TSR. 76 FR 58716 (Sept. 22, 2011). 

10See Statement of Basis and Purpose and Final 

Rule Amendments (‘‘2015 TSR Amendments’’), 80 

FR 77520 (Dec. 14, 2015) (prohibiting the use of 

remotely created checks and payment orders, cashto-cash money transfers, and cash reload 

mechanisms). 

11See Statement of Basis and Purpose and Final 

Rule Amendments (‘‘2024 Amendments’’), 89 FR 

26760 (Apr. 16, 2024). 

12See 16 CFR 310.6(b)(4) through (6). 

13 Id. 

14 Id. 

15 2024 NPRM, 89 FR 26798. 

16See FTC Consumer Sentinel Network Databook 

2023 at 87, available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/ 

files/ftc_gov/pdf/CSN-Annual-Data-Book-2023.pdf 

(last visited Sept. 5, 2024). 

17See, e.g., Prepared Statement of the Federal 

Trade Commission Before the United States Senate 

Special Committee on Aging on Combatting 

Technical Support Scams (‘‘Tech Support 

Testimony’’), at 3–5 (Oct. 21, 2015), available at 

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/ 

public_statements/826561/151021techsupport

testimony.pdf (last visited Sept. 5, 2024). 

18 Id. 

19 Id; see also Complaint, FTC v. Click4Support, 

LLC, No. 15–cv–05777–SD, at 9–10 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 

26, 2015), available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/ 

Continued 

[FR Doc. 2024–28937 Filed 12–9–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 310 

RIN 3084–AB19 

Telemarketing Sales Rule 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade 

Commission (‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) 

adopts amendments to the 

Telemarketing Sales Rule (‘‘TSR’’ or 

‘‘Rule’’) that extend the Rule’s 

applicability to inbound telemarketing 

calls in response to an advertisement 

through any medium or direct mail 

solicitation in which technical support 

products or services are offered for sale. 

DATES: The amendments are effective 

January 9, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Relevant portions of the 

record of this proceeding, including this 

document, are available at https://

www.ftc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Benjamin R. Davidson, (202) 326–3055, 

bdavidson@ftc.gov, or Patricia Hsue, 

(202) 326–3132, phsue@ftc.gov, Division 

of Marketing Practices, Bureau of 

Consumer Protection, Federal Trade 

Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW, Mail Stop CC–6316, Washington, 

DC 20580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document states the basis and purpose 

for the Commission’s decision to adopt 

amendments to the TSR that were 

proposed and published for public 

comment in the Federal Register on 

April 16, 2024, in a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (‘‘2024 NPRM’’).1 The 

Commission has carefully reviewed and 

considered the entire record on the 

issues presented in this rulemaking 

proceeding. The record includes 25 

public comments submitted by a variety 

of interested parties, none of which 

opposed the issuance of a final rule 

amending the TSR to cover technical 

support calls made by consumers in 

response to solicitations. The 

Commission has decided to adopt, with 

one modification, the proposed 

amendments to the TSR that are 

intended to address consumer injury 

from deceptive technical support scams. 

I. Background 

Congress enacted the Telemarketing 

and Consumer Fraud and Abuse 

Prevention Act (‘‘Telemarketing Act’’ or 

‘‘Act’’) in 1994 to curb abusive 

telemarketing practices and provide key 

anti-fraud and privacy protections to 

consumers.2 The Act directed the 

Commission to adopt a rule prohibiting 

deceptive or abusive telemarketing 

practices.3 Pursuant to the Act, the 

Commission promulgated the TSR on 

August 23, 1995.4

The Rule prohibits deceptive or 

abusive telemarketing practices, such as 

misrepresenting several categories of 

material information or making false or 

misleading statements to induce a 

person to pay for a good or service.5 The 

Rule also requires sellers and 

telemarketers to make specific 

disclosures and keep certain records of 

their telemarketing activities.6

Since 1995, the Commission has 

amended the Rule on five occasions: (1) 

in 2003 to create the National Do Not 

Call (‘‘DNC’’) Registry and extend the 

Rule to telemarketing calls soliciting 

charitable contributions (‘‘charity 

calls’’); 7 (2) in 2008 to prohibit 

prerecorded messages (‘‘robocalls’’) in 

sales calls and charity calls; 8 (3) in 2010 

to ban the telemarketing of debt relief 

services requiring an advance fee; 9 (4) 

in 2015 to bar the use in telemarketing 

of certain payment mechanisms widely 

used in fraudulent transactions; 10 and 

(5) in 2024 to modify the Rule’s 

recordkeeping requirements and 

prohibit deception in calls between 

businesses.11

II. Overview of the Proposed 

Amendments to the TSR 

The Rule exempts from its coverage 

certain calls that consumers make to 

telemarketers, known as inbound 

calls.12 The Rule generally exempts 

inbound calls that are: (1) not the result 

of any solicitation, (2) in response to 

certain advertisements, and (3) in 

response to a direct mail solicitation 

that contains certain information.13

However, the exemptions for inbound 

calls contain exclusions for certain 

types of calls that are often deceptive, 

such as inbound calls relating to 

investment opportunities, debt relief 

services, and prize promotions.14 In the 

2024 NPRM, the Commission proposed 

covering inbound telemarketing of 

technical support services (or tech 

support) in the Rule (i.e., adding it to 

the exclusions identified in § 310.6(b)(5) 

and (6)) because of the harm associated 

with telemarketing these products and 

services.15

A. Tech Support 

Tech support scams consistently 

generate large numbers of consumer 

complaints.16 The scams can begin in a 

variety of ways. Sometimes the scammer 

places an outbound call to consumers 

warning them that their computers have 

been infected.17 Other scammers use 

deceptive computer pop-up messages 

that claim the consumer’s computer has 

a problem and direct the consumer to 

call a phone number to fix the errors.18

Still other scammers place 

advertisements with search engines that 

appear when consumers search for their 

computer company’s tech support 

telephone number.19 And sometimes, 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
99070 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

files/documents/cases/151113click4

supportcmpt.pdf (last visited Sept. 5, 2024) 

(‘‘Click4Support’’). 

20See Complaint, FTC v. Inbound Call Experts, 

No. 9:14–cv–81935 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 19, 2014), 

available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ 

documents/cases/141119icecmpt.pdf (last visited 

Sept. 5, 2024) (‘‘Inbound Call Experts’’). 

21Tech Support Testimony at 3. 

22 ‘‘Woman loses $1,500 to fake Apple Customer 

Service Scam,’’ WCPO ABC 9, Cincinnati, (May 20, 

2022), available at https://www.wcpo.com/money/ 

consumer/dont-waste-your-money/woman-loses-1- 

500-to-fake-apple-customer-service-scam (last 

visited Sept. 5, 2024). 

23 ‘‘Computer scam costs 2 older Pittsburgh 

women thousands of dollars, police warn,’’ CBS 

News, Pittsburgh (Feb. 20, 2024) available at 

https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/ 

pittsburgh-scam-tech-support-bitcoin-olderresidents-targeted (last visited Sept. 5, 2024). 

24 ‘‘Don’t get Scammed by Fake Amazon Kindle 

and Fire Tablet Support Sites’’ (Feb. 22, 2016), 

available at https://blog.the-ebook-reader.com/ 

2016/02/22/dont-get-scammed-by-fake-amazonkindle-and-fire-tablet-support-sites/ (last visited 

Sept. 5, 2024). 

25Amazon.com, Inc. v. Pionera, Inc., No. 2:22– 

cv–1491 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2022). 

26FTC Consumer Sentinel Network Databook 

2023 at 87. 

27See https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/ 

federal.trade.commission/viz/shared/GW63DJFGP 

(last visited Sept. 5, 2024). 

28See 2023 Protecting Older Consumers Report at 

29, available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ 

ftc_gov/pdf/p144400olderadultsreportoct2023.pdf 

(last visited Sept. 5, 2024). In 2022, older 

consumers were five times as likely to report a 

financial loss to tech support scams. See 2022 

Protecting Oder Consumers Report at 31, available 

at https://www.ftc.gov/reports/protecting-olderconsumers-2021-2022-report-federal-tradecommission (last visited Sept. 5, 2024). In 2020, 

older consumers were six times as likely to report 

a financial loss to tech support scams as compared 

to younger consumers. 

29 Data Spotlight, Older adults hit hardest by tech 

support scams (March 7, 2019), available at https:// 

www.ftc.gov/news-events/data-visualizations/dataspotlight/2019/03/older-adults-hardest-hit-techsupport-scams (last visited Oct. 17, 2024); see also 

FTC Report to Congress, Protecting Older 

Consumers, 2018–2019 (‘‘2019 Protecting Older 

Consumers Report’’) at 5 (Oct. 18, 2019), available 

at https://www.ftc.gov/reports/protecting-olderconsumers-2018-2019-report-federal-tradecommission (last visited Sept. 5, 2024). In 2021, 

reports of online shopping frauds and business 

imposter frauds were the top fraud complaint for 

older consumers, with tech support scams dropping 

to third. 2022 Protecting Older Consumers Report, 

at 31. Older consumers, however, are 

disproportionately more likely to lose money to 

tech support scams. Id. 

30 ‘‘New tech support scammers want your life 

savings’’ (Mar. 7, 2024), available at https://

consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2024/03/newtech-support-scammers-want-your-life-savings (last 

visited Sept. 5, 2024). 

31 ‘‘How to Spot, Avoid, and Report Tech Support 

Scams’’ (Sept. 6, 2022), available at https://

consumer.ftc.gov/articles/how-spot-avoid-andreport-tech-support-scams (last visited Sept. 5, 

2024). 

32 ‘‘Keep tech support strangers out of your 

computer’’ (Mar. 7, 2019), available at https://

consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2019/03/keeptech-support-strangers-out-your-computer (last 

visited Sept. 5, 2024). 

33 ‘‘Fake Calls from Apple and Amazon Support: 

What you need to know’’ (Dec. 3, 2020), available 

at https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2020/ 

12/fake-calls-apple-and-amazon-support-what-youneed-know (last visited Sept. 5, 2024). 

34 ‘‘No gift cards for tech support scammers’’ 

(June 6, 2018), available at https://consumer.ftc.

gov/consumer-alerts/2018/06/no-gift-cards-techsupport-scammers (last visited Sept. 5, 2024). 

35 ‘‘FTC asking for access to your computer? It’s 

a scam’’ (Apr. 6, 2018), available at https://

consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2018/04/ftcasking-access-your-computer-its-scam (last visited 

Sept. 5, 2024). 

36See, e.g., AARP, ‘‘How to Get Good Tech 

Support’’ (Jan. 3, 2022), available at https://

www.aarp.org/home-family/personal-technology/ 

info-2021/tips-for-getting-tech-support.html (last 

visited June 23, 2023); Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau, ‘‘What you should do about tech 

support scams’’ (Jan. 21, 2021), available at https:// 

www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/whatyou-should-know-about-tech-support-scams/ (last 

visited Sept. 5, 2024). 

37Press Release, FTC and Federal, State and 

International Partners Announce Major Crackdown 

on Tech Support Scams (May 12, 2017), available 

at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/ 

2017/05/ftc-federal-state-international-partnersannounce-major-crackdown (last visited Sept. 5, 

2024). 

38Press Release, Justice Department Coordinates 

Largest-Ever Nationwide Elder Fraud Sweep (Mar. 

7, 2019), available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/ 

pr/justice-department-coordinates-largest-evernationwide-elder-fraud-sweep-0 (last visited Sept. 5, 

2024). 

39See, e.g., FTC v. Restoro Cyprus Ltd., No. 1:24– 

cv–754 (D.D.C. Mar. 14, 2024) (complaint alleging 

that tech support scammers took tens of millions of 

dollars from consumers through pop-ups and 

internet ads), available at https://www.ftc.gov/ 

system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/1-Complaintagainst

Restoro.pdf (last visited Sept. 5, 2024); United 

States v. Nexway SASU, No. 1:23–cv–900 (D.D.C. 

scammers pay computer security 

software companies so that when 

consumers call to activate their service, 

they reach the scammer and are pitched 

additional and unnecessary products 

and services.20 Once consumers connect 

with the scammer, whether through 

outbound telemarketing or inbound 

telemarketing, the scammers deceive 

consumers about a variety of problems 

with their computers and persuade 

consumers to purchase subscription 

tech support services or software that 

they do not need.21

Although tech support scams have 

typically targeted consumers looking for 

help with computers, tech support 

scams also target consumers looking for 

help with other electronic devices, such 

as cellular phones and smart home 

devices. News stories report on 

consumers encountering tech support 

scams when they search for help with 

their iPhones,22 receive pop-up 

messages on their iPads,23 or look for 

support for their Kindle tablets.24 In 

August 2022, Amazon filed a lawsuit 

alleging that a deceptive tech support 

operation targeted consumers who were 

seeking help with their smart home 

doorbells and streaming video 

services.25

Consumer complaints about tech 

support scams have increased 

dramatically over the last few years, 

ranging from approximately 40,000 

complaints in 2017 to more than 90,000 

complaints in 2023.26 In 2023, 

consumers reported losing 

approximately $242 million to these 

scams, with a median loss of $1,400.27

Moreover, tech support scams 

disproportionately harm older 

consumers. In 2023, consumers 60 years 

of age and older were six times more 

likely to report a financial loss to tech 

support scams compared to younger 

consumers.28 Analysis of consumer 

fraud reports confirm that a 

disproportionate number of older 

consumers have reported losing money 

to tech support scams. From 2015 to 

2018, older consumers filed more 

reports on tech support scams than on 

any other fraud category.29

The Commission has responded to 

tech support scams through consumer 

education and law enforcement actions. 

For consumer education, the 

Commission has issued guidance to 

consumers including ‘‘New tech support 

scammers want your life savings,’’ 30

‘‘How to Spot, Avoid, and Report Tech 

Support Scams,’’ 31 and ‘‘Keep tech 

support strangers out of your 

computer.’’ 32 The Commission has also 

responded to particular tech support 

campaigns with consumer education 

such as ‘‘Fake Calls from Apple and 

Amazon Support: What you need to 

know,’’ 33 ‘‘No gift cards for tech support 

scammers,’’ 34 and ‘‘FTC asking for 

access to your computer? It’s a scam.’’ 35

Other government agencies and 

consumer organizations have also 

issued guidance on tech support 

scams.36

In addition to consumer education, 

the Commission and other State and 

Federal law enforcement partners have 

brought a multitude of actions against 

tech support scammers. For example, on 

May 12, 2017, the Commission 

announced ‘‘Operation Tech Trap’’ 

which consisted of 29 law enforcement 

actions brought by the Commission and 

other law enforcement agencies against 

tech support schemes.37 On March 7, 

2019, the Department of Justice 

announced the largest-ever elder fraud 

sweep, which focused on tech-support 

scams and involved actions against 

‘‘more than 260 defendants from around 

the globe who victimized more than two 

million Americans.’’ 38 In addition, the 

Commission has filed numerous tech 

support cases outside the scope of such 

coordinated law enforcement sweeps.39


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 99071 

Apr. 3, 2023) (complaint alleging that Nexway 

provided payment processing services for several 

deceptive tech support operations), available at 

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/ 

nexway-complaint.pdf (last visited Sept. 5, 2024); 

FTC v. RevenueWire, Inc., No. 1:20–cv–1032 (D.D.C. 

April 21, 2020) (complaint alleging that companies 

to which RevenueWire provided payment 

processing services used pop-up dialog boxes that 

claimed to have detected computer infections and 

directed consumers to call a 1–800 number), 

available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ 

documents/cases/revcomp3.pdf (last visited Sept. 5, 

2024); FTC v. Boost Software, Inc., No. 14–cv– 

81397 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 10, 2014), available at https:// 

www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/ 

141119vastboostcmpt.pdf (last visited Sept. 5, 

2024); Click4Support; Inbound Call Experts. 

40Complaint, FTC v. PCCare247, Inc., No. 12–cv– 

7189 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2012) (‘‘PCCare247’’), 

available at https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/ 

documents/cases/2012/10/121003pccarecmpt.pdf 

(last visited Sept. 5, 2024) (‘‘PCCare247’’). 

41See 16 CFR 310.6(b)(5). Even if the consumer’s 

call was in response to an advertisement, the Rule 

would apply to instances of upselling included in 

the call. Id. at § 310.6(b)(5)(iii). If, for example, the 

consumer initiated a call for technical support with 

their computer and the consumer was pitched 

additional software products or computer services, 

that transaction would likely be an upsell under the 

Rule. 

42See Complaint, FTC v. Vylah Tec LLC, No. 17– 

cv–228–FtM–99MRM (M.D. Fla. May 17, 2017) 

(‘‘Vylah Tec’’), available at https://www.ftc.gov/ 

system/files/documents/cases/162_3253_vylah_tec_

llc_complant.pdf (last visited Sept. 5, 2024). 

43 In an abundance of caution, the Commission 

pursued its claim regarding the pop-ups under 

section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45. The 

Commission, however, does not believe such popup messages are exempt under the Rule. The 

exemption in § 310.6(b)(5) ‘‘applies to calls in 

response to television commercials, infomercials, 

home shopping programs, magazine and newspaper 

advertisements, and other forms of mass media 

advertising solicitation. . . . In the Commission’s 

experience, calls responding to general media 

advertising do not typically involve the forms of 

deception and abuse the Act seeks to stem.’’ 60 FR 

43860. The Commission also generally has not 

observed pop-up messages that contained the 

disclosures necessary to fall within the exemption 

for direct mail solicitations. 

44See AMG Cap. Mgmt., LLC v. FTC, 141 S. Ct. 

1341, 1352 (2021). 

45We cite public comments by the name of the 

commenting organization or individual. See Kilmer 

2024–27. 

46See EPIC and NCLC 2024–25 (‘‘EPIC and 

NCLC’’). 

47EPIC and NCLC at 4. 

48See Click4Support at 4. 

49See Inbound Call Experts at 11. 

50See Complaint, FTC v. Elite IT Partners, Inc., 

No. 2:19–cv–125 (D. Utah Feb. 25, 2019), available 

at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/ 

cases/elite_dkt_1_complaint_3-7-19.pdf (last visited 

Sept. 5, 2024) (‘‘Elite IT’’). 

51EPIC and NCLC at 4. 

52EPIC and NCLC at 4. 

53Complaint, FTC v. Pecon Software Ltd., No 12– 

cv–7186 (S.D.N.Y. Sep 24, 2012), available at 

https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ 

cases/2012/10/121003peconcmpt.pdf (last visited 

Sept. 5, 2024); Elite IT at 13. 

While the Commission has sued tech 

support scams for engaging in deceptive 

practices under the TSR where 

applicable, the Commission has also 

brought cases under the FTC Act alone 

if the telemarketer’s practices could 

arguably fall within an exemption to the 

TSR. In FTC v. PCCare247, for example, 

the Commission used the FTC Act to 

seek monetary relief from a tech support 

operation that placed deceptive online 

advertisements to induce consumers to 

place inbound calls.40 The calls at issue 

in PCCare 247 may have fallen outside 

of the Rule to the extent they were 

telephone calls initiated by a consumer 

in response to an advertisement.41

Similarly, in FTC v. Vylah Tec LLC, the 

Commission used the FTC Act to seek 

monetary relief from a tech support 

operation that lured consumers by 

placing deceptive pop-up messages 

warning consumers that their computers 

had been infected with viruses.42 The 

calls at issue in Vylah Tec may have 

fallen outside the Rule if a court were 

to have determined that pop-up 

messages are a form of advertisement or 

a direct mail solicitation under the 

Rule.43

Prior to April 2021, the Commission 

routinely relied upon section 13(b) of 

the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 53(b), to obtain 

monetary relief for consumers injured 

by conduct that fell outside the scope of 

the Rule, such as the conduct described 

in the preceding paragraph. The 

Supreme Court’s decision in AMG 

Capital Management, LLC v. FTC, held 

the Commission could not obtain 

monetary relief under section 13(b).44

As a result, the Commission is now 

constrained in its ability to redress 

consumers harmed by tech support 

scams whose deceptive business 

practices arguably fall beyond the reach 

of the Rule. Amending the Rule, by 

adding tech support services to the list 

of exclusions from the inbound call 

exemption, will clarify that all tech 

support scams are potentially subject to 

the Rule, and allow the Commission to 

redress consumer injuries under section 

19(a)(1) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 

57b(a)(1). 

B. Overview of Public Comments 

The Commission has carefully 

reviewed and analyzed the record 

developed in this proceeding. The 

Commission received 25 comments, 24 

of which were either from individual 

consumers or anonymous commenters. 

Of the individual and anonymous 

comments, one comment from a former 

tech support employee supported the 

proposal and noted that it does not 

burden employees.45 The rest of the 24 

individual and anonymous comments 

did not respond to the questions in the 

2024 NPRM. The comments ranged from 

requesting a complete ban of 

telemarketing, to consumers expressing 

frustration at the volume of unwanted 

telemarketing calls they receive. 

The Electronic Privacy and 

Information Center and the National 

Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its 

low-income clients) (‘‘EPIC and NCLC’’) 

submitted a comment that 

recommended several additional 

amendments to the Rule and requested 

several clarifications.46 First, EPIC and 

NCLC recommended that the definition 

of tech support be modified to explicitly 

include repair to software programs or 

applications in addition to electronic 

devices.47 The Commission’s definition 

of tech support, which applies to ‘‘any 

device on which code can be 

downloaded, installed, run, or 

otherwise used,’’ is intended to include 

problems with software or applications 

on those devices. The definition is not 

limited to the physical device itself, or 

the hardware components of the device, 

and the Commission’s law enforcement 

experience shows that tech support 

scammers often tell consumers that 

problems exist with the programs on 

their electronic devices. For example, 

some tech support scams tell consumers 

that particular software programs are 

malfunctioning.48 Other tech support 

scams warn consumers that they have 

inadvertently installed malicious 

programs on their computers.49 Still 

other scams begin with an offer to help 

consumers with software applications, 

such as help resetting email 

passwords.50 To avoid any potential 

confusion, the Commission will modify 

the definition to explicitly include 

software, as discussed below. 

Second, EPIC and NCLC suggested 

that the definition of tech support be 

modified to note that the term device 

‘‘specifically include[s] the performance 

or security of both hardware 

components and firmware used in 

conjunction with the device, even if the 

telemarketer does not reference the 

device through which those components 

may be used.’’ 51 The Commission does 

not believe that EPIC and NCLC’s 

proposed change is necessary because 

the unmodified term ‘‘device’’ includes 

all parts of the device such as hardware 

or firmware regardless of whether those 

components are specifically referenced. 

Third, EPIC and NCLC suggested that 

the definition of tech support be 

modified to include ‘‘offers for 

insurance, extended warranty, or similar 

plans for device software.’’ 52 Many tech 

support scams sell consumers long-term 

and continuity programs that will 

purportedly repair devices in the future 

if other problems arise.53 The definition 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
99072 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

54EPIC and NCLC also requested that the 

Commission make additional clarifications to the 

FTC’s Business Guidance, ‘‘Complying with the 

Telemarketing Sales Rule’’ available at https://

www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/ 

complying-telemarketing-sales-rule (last visited 

Sept. 5, 2024). The Commission will not respond 

to these suggestions because the content of the 

business guidance is not related to the ongoing 

rulemaking. 

55Tech support scammers sometimes obtain 

remote access to a computer or electronic device. 

‘‘Physical possession’’ does not include such 

remote access. 

56The Commission’s lawsuit against Office Depot 

is an exception to this pattern. See FTC v. Office 

Depot Inc., 9:19–cv–80431 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 29, 2019) 

(alleging that Office Depot and Support.com 

deceived consumers who brought their computers 

into Office Depot stores for support services). 

57 16 CFR 310.6(b)(3). 

58Original TSR, 60 FR 43860. 

59 16 CFR 310.6(b)(5) and (6). For ‘‘direct mail 

solicitations’’ to qualify for the exemption, the 

solicitations must ‘‘clearly, conspicuously, and 

truthfully disclose[ ] all material information listed 

in § 310.3(a)(1)’’ and contain ‘‘no material 

misrepresentation regarding any item contained in 

§ 310.3(d).’’ 

60Original TSR, 60 FR 43859. 

61 Id. 43860. 

62 Id. 

63 Id. 

64See supra, notes 37–39. 

65 16 CFR 310.6(b)(4). 

of tech support encompasses such 

products because it includes a ‘‘plan’’ or 

‘‘program’’ to ‘‘repair, maintain, or 

improve the performance or security of 

any device.’’ To the extent EPIC and 

NCLC suggest that the Commission 

explicitly extend the definition to cover 

insurance or warranty plans that replace 

the device rather than repair, maintain 

or improve the device, the Commission 

declines to do so. The Commission has 

not encountered tech support scams that 

sell only insurance or warranties to 

replace a device rather than repair a 

device. As such, the Commission does 

not believe the record supports such an 

extension or that one is necessary. The 

Commission notes, however, that the 

current definition does reach warranties 

or similar plans that are offered to 

repair, maintain, or improve the 

performance of devices.54

III. Final Amended Rule 

A. Definition of Technical Support 

Service 

The final rule defines technical 

support service as any plan, program, 

software, or service that is marketed to 

repair, maintain, or improve the 

performance or security of any device 

on which code can be downloaded, 

installed, run, or otherwise used, such 

as a computer, smartphone, tablet, or 

smart home product, including any 

software or application run on such 

device. This definition has one 

modification from the definition 

proposed in the 2024 NPRM. It adds the 

phrase ‘‘any software or application run 

on such device’’ to avoid any potential 

confusion as to whether tech support 

services or products that are related 

only to software or applications are 

covered by the Rule. 

This definition is drafted broadly 

because, in the Commission’s 

experience, tech support scams have 

evolved with changes in consumer 

behavior and technology, and will 

continue to evolve. While drafted to be 

flexible to evolving schemes, the 

definition’s focus on a type of plan or 

service marketed in a particular manner 

provides specificity regarding its 

coverage. 

The definition of tech support also 

excludes ‘‘any plan, program, software, 

or service in which the person 

providing the repair, maintenance, or 

improvement obtains physical 

possession of the device being 

repaired.’’ In the Commission’s 

experience, tech support scams 

typically do not involve situations 

where the repair includes physical 

interaction with the device, such as 

replacing a computer hard drive or 

repairing a broken phone screen.55

Whether this interaction involves faceto-face contact between the consumer 

and the person providing the repair, or 

the consumer shipping the device to the 

repair person and waiting for a return 

shipment, the Commission believes that 

tech support scams rarely involve 

physical repair of electronic devices.56

The Rule currently exempts calls in 

which payment is not required until 

‘‘after a face-to-face sales or donation 

presentation by the seller.’’ 57 In creating 

that exemption, the Commission 

explained that the ‘‘occurrence of a faceto-face meeting limits the incidence of 

telemarketing deception and abuse’’ 

because the ‘‘paradigm of telemarketing 

fraud involves an interstate telephone 

call in which the customer has no other 

direct contact with the caller.’’ 58 Here 

too, the ‘‘paradigm’’ of tech support 

scams involves consumers speaking 

with third parties with whom they have 

limited contact and often at a time when 

they have been misled to believe that 

they have a problem with their 

electronic device. Physical in-person 

repair does not involve the same 

pressures as remote tech support, and it 

is less conducive to scams. 

B. Requirements for Technical Support 

Telemarketing Calls 

The final rule adds ‘‘technical support 

services’’ to the categories of calls 

excluded from the TSR’s exemptions for 

inbound calls ‘‘in response to an 

advertisement through any medium’’ 

and inbound calls in response to ‘‘a 

direct mail solicitation,’’ including 

email.59 The Commission created these 

exemptions in the Rule based on its 

consideration of four factors: whether 

Congress intended certain types of sales 

activity to be exempt under the Rule; 

whether the conduct or business in 

question ‘‘already is regulated 

extensively by Federal or State law’’; 

whether the conduct ‘‘lends itself easily 

to the forms of deception or abuse that 

the Act is intended to address’’; and 

whether requiring business to comply 

the Rule would be ‘‘unduly burdensome 

weighed against the likelihood that 

sellers or telemarketers engaged in fraud 

would use an exemption to circumvent 

Rule coverage.’’ 60

The Commission decided to create 

exemptions from the Rule for calls in 

response to advertisements and direct 

mail solicitation because, in the 

Commission’s experience, calls in 

response to these solicitations ‘‘do not 

typically involve the forms of deception 

and abuse the Act seeks to stem.’’ 61 At 

the same time, the Commission 

recognized that ‘‘some deceptive sellers 

or telemarketers use mass media or 

general advertising to entice their 

victims to call, particularly in relation to 

the sale of investment opportunities, 

specific credit-related programs’’ and 

other areas.62 The Commission decided 

to exclude certain categories of calls 

from the exemptions given its 

‘‘experience with the marketing of these 

deceptive telemarketing schemes.’’ 63

The Commission’s experience with tech 

support schemes also supports 

excluding tech support calls from the 

exemptions for inbound calls in 

response to advertisements and direct 

mail solicitations.64

The final rule minimizes the burden 

on tech support businesses that do not 

engage in deceptive practices. First, tech 

support calls ‘‘that are not the result of 

any solicitation by a seller, charitable 

organization, or telemarketer’’ are still 

exempt under § 310.6(b)(5). Under this 

exemption, as long as the call is not 

solicited, a telephone call initiated by a 

consumer to the consumer’s computer 

manufacturer for technical support or a 

home security company about a 

disruption to their service due to a 

device malfunction would not be 

subject to the Rule unless, as part of that 

transaction, the company also engaged 

in an upsell.65

Second, excluding tech support where 

the person providing the service takes 

physical possession of the device will 

also limit the breadth of the Rule. For 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 99073 

66This PRA analysis focuses specifically on the 

information collection requirements created by or 

otherwise affected by the amendment. 

67See, e.g., Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; 

Extension. 87 FR 23179 (Apr. 19, 2022). 

68 Id. 

69See FTC, Consumer Sentinel Network Data 

Book 2023 at 9, 88. 

70House Committee on Government Operations, 

The Scourge of Telemarketing Fraud: What Can Be 

Done Against It, H.R. Rep. 421, 102nd Cong., 1st 

Sess. at 7 (Dec. 18, 1991). The Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI) believes that this estimate 

overstates telemarketing fraud losses as a result of 

its investigations and closings of once massive 

telemarketing boiler room operations. See FBI, A 

Byte Out of History: Turning the Tables on 

Telemarketing Fraud (Dec. 8, 2010), available at 

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/december/ 

telemarketing_120810/telemarketing_120810. See 

also internet Crime Complaint Center, 2020 Annual 

Report on internet Crime (citing $4.1 billion of 

losses claimed in consumer complaints for 2020), 

available at https://www.ic3.gov/Media/PDF/ 

AnnualReport/2020_IC3Report.pdf. 

71 Direct Marketing Association (DMA) 2013 

Statistical Fact Book (Jan. 2013) at 5 (providing 

projections up through 2016). 

72See National Do Not Call Registry Data Book for 

Fiscal Year 2023 (‘‘Data Book’’), available at https:// 

www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Do-Not-CallData-Book-2023.pdf (last visited Sept. 5, 2024). An 

exempt entity is one that, although not subject to 

the TSR, voluntarily chooses to scrub its calling 

lists against the data in the Registry. 

73 16 CFR 310.6(b)(5). 

example, consumer calls to a local 

repair shop or to the manufacturer of 

their device seeking physical repairs 

will not be subject to the Rule. 

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Rule contains various provisions 

that constitute information collection 

requirements as defined by 5 CFR 

1320.3(c), the definitional provision 

within the Office of Management and 

Budget (‘‘OMB’’) regulations 

implementing the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (‘‘PRA’’). 44 U.S.C. chapter 35. OMB 

has approved the Rule’s existing 

information collection requirements 

through April 30, 2027 (OMB Control 

No. 3084–0097). The amendment newly 

requires certain inbound tech support 

calls to comply with the Rule’s 

recordkeeping and disclosure 

requirements. This will increase the 

PRA burden for sellers or telemarketers 

as detailed below. Accordingly, FTC 

staff is simultaneously submitting this 

final rule and associated Supporting 

Statement to OMB for review under the 

PRA.66

A. Estimated Annual Hours Burden 

The Commission estimates the PRA 

burden of the proposed amendments 

based on its knowledge of the 

telemarketing industry and data 

compiled from the Do Not Call Registry. 

The annual hours of burden for sellers 

or telemarketers will consist of two 

components: the time required to make 

disclosures and the costs of complying 

with the Rule’s recordkeeping 

requirements. 

First the Commission estimates that 

the disclosure burden will take 18,318 

hours. The Commission uses the same 

methodology it has used in the past to 

calculate the disclosure burden for 

categories of calls that are excluded 

from the TSR’s exemptions for inbound 

calls.67 The Commission estimates that 

there are 63,900,000 inbound tech 

support calls per year. To arrive at this 

figure, the Commission estimates that 

there are 1.8 billion inbound 

telemarketing calls annually that result 

in sales.68 To estimate how many of 

those calls are for tech support, the 

Commission uses the ratio of tech 

support complaints to the total number 

of telemarketing complaints it receives, 

based on the assumption that the 

percentage of total complaints also 

reflects the percentage of total calls. In 

2023, there were 91,196 complaints 

about tech support and 2,566,261 fraud 

complaints.69 Thus the Commission 

estimates 3.55% of the inbound calls 

were related to tech support, i.e., 91,196 

÷ 2,566,261. That translates to 

63,900,000 inbound tech support calls, 

i.e., 3.55% of 1.8 billion. 

Staff assumes that there will be no 

disclosure burden for non-fraudulent 

calls because those calls likely already 

disclose the information required by the 

Rule. Thus, the Rule would create a new 

disclosure burden only on fraudulent 

calls. Staff estimates that 12.90% of 

telemarketing calls are fraudulent. This 

estimate is based on dividing a 

Congressional estimate of annual 

consumer injury from telemarketing 

fraud ($40 billion) 70 by available data 

on total consumer and business-tobusiness telemarketing sales ($310.0 

billion projected for 2016).71 Thus, staff 

estimates that 12.90% of the 63,900,000 

tech support calls are fraudulent, which 

amounts to 8,243,100 calls. Staff further 

assumes that the disclosures take 8 

seconds per call. Thus, the total burden 

is the number of fraudulent calls 

multiplied by the disclosure burden per 

call and converted to hours (8,243,100 

calls × 8 seconds per call ÷ 3,600 to 

convert to hours), or 18,318 hours. 

Second, the estimated recordkeeping 

burden is 92,250 hours. Estimating this 

burden requires estimating how many 

new telemarketing entities will be 

subject to the TSR when the amendment 

goes into effect. Staff first estimates the 

number of existing telemarketing 

entities that engage in tech support 

sales. In calendar year 2023, 10,350 

telemarketing entities accessed the Do 

Not Call Registry; however, 566 were 

‘‘exempt’’ entities obtaining access to 

data.72 Of the non-exempt entities, 6,318 

obtained data for a single State. Staff 

assumes that these 6,318 entities are 

operating solely intrastate, and thus 

would not be subject to the TSR. 

Therefore, staff estimates that 

approximately 3,466 telemarketing 

entities (10,350 ¥ 566 exempt ¥ 6,318 

intrastate) are currently subject to the 

TSR. To estimate the percentage of those 

entities that sell tech support products 

and services, staff again divides the 

number of telemarketing fraud 

complaints for tech support by the total 

number of telemarketing fraud 

complaints, i.e., 91,196 ÷ 2,566,261 = 

3.55%. Staff then multiplies that 

percentage by the number of 

telemarketing entities (3,466) to produce 

the estimate that 123 telemarketing 

entities sell tech support products and 

services. 

When the amendment goes into effect, 

additional businesses will likely be 

covered by the TSR. For example, tech 

support companies that advertise their 

products through general 

advertisements and do not engage in 

upselling may be subject to the Rule for 

the first time.73 On the other hand, 

companies that market through a 

combination of advertisements and 

outbound telemarketing are already 

subject to the Rule. Companies that 

receive inbound calls from consumers 

with questions about their products and 

that engage in upsells of technical 

support services are also already subject 

to the Rule. The Commission estimates 

that the amendment will increase the 

number of telemarketing entities that 

receive inbound tech support calls by a 

factor of 5, which would mean that an 

additional 615 entities (123 × 5) will be 

covered by the Rule. 

The Commission estimates that 

complying with the TSR’s current 

recordkeeping requirements requires 

150 hours for new entrants to develop 

recordkeeping systems that comply with 

the TSR, for a total annual 

recordkeeping burden of 92,250 hours 

(150 × 615). 

B. Estimated Annual Labor Costs 

The Commission estimates annual 

labor costs by applying appropriate 

hourly wage rates to the burden hours 

described above. The Commission 

estimates that the annual labor cost for 

disclosures will be $323,130. This total 

is the product of applying an assumed 

hourly wage of $17.64 for 18,318 hours 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
99074 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

74This figure is derived from the mean hourly 

wage shown for Telemarketers. See ‘‘Occupational 

Employment and Wages—May 2023,’’ U.S. 

Department of Labor, (Apr. 3, 2024) Table 1 

(‘‘National employment and wage data from the 

Occupational Employment Statistics survey by 

occupation, May 2023’’), available at https://

www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm (last visited 

Sept. 5, 2024). 

75This figure is derived from the mean hourly 

wage shown for Computer Support Specialists from 

the U.S. Department of Labor source set out in the 

prior footnote. 

76 5 U.S.C. 601 through 612. 

77 5 U.S.C. 605. 

78 15 U.S.C. 6102(a)(1). 79Telemarketers are typically classified as 

‘‘Telemarketing Bureaus and Other contact 

Centers,’’ (NAICS Code 561422). See Table of Small 

Business Size Standards Matched to North 

American Industry Classification System Codes, 

available at https://www.sba.gov/sites/sbagov/files/ 

2023-06/Table%20of%20Size%20Standards_

Effective%20March%2017%2C%202023

%20%282%29.pdf (last visited, Sept. 5, 2024). 

of disclosures.74 The Commission 

estimates that the annual labor cost for 

recordkeeping will be $2,947,388. This 

is calculated by applying a skilled labor 

rate of $31.95/hour 75 to the estimated 

150 burden hours for the estimated 615 

entities that will now be covered by the 

Rule ($31.95 × 150 × 615). 

C. Estimated Annual Non-Labor Costs 

The Commission estimates that the 

annual non-labor costs per entity for 

recordkeeping are $55 a year, which is 

derived from $5 for electronically 

storing audio files, and $50 for storing 

the required records. The Commission 

thus estimates that the annual non-labor 

costs will be $33,855 (615 entries × $55). 

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(‘‘RFA’’), as amended by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, requires that the 

Commission conduct an analysis of the 

anticipated economic impact of the 

amendment on small entities.76 The 

RFA requires that the Commission 

provide a Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (‘‘FRFA’’) with a final rule 

unless the Commission certifies that the 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities.77

The Commission believes that the 

final rule will not have a significant 

economic impact upon small entities, 

nor will it affect a substantial number of 

small businesses. In the Commission’s 

view, the final rule should not 

significantly increase the costs of small 

entities that are sellers or telemarketers. 

Therefore, based on available 

information, the Commission certifies 

that the final rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

and hereby provides notice of that 

certification to the Small Business 

Administration (‘‘SBA’’). Nevertheless, 

because the Commission included an 

IFRA in the NPRM, the Commission has 

also performed an FRFA below. 

A. Statement of the Need for, and 

Objective of, the Rule 

The legal basis for the amendment is 

the Telemarketing Act, which 

authorizes the Commission to issue 

rules to prohibit deceptive or abusive 

telemarketing practices.78 The 

Commission is issuing the final rule to 

expressly exclude tech support calls 

from the exemptions for inbound calls 

by consumers in response to 

advertisements and direct mail 

solicitations from tech support services. 

As described in section II of this final 

rule, the amendment is intended to 

address the widespread harm caused by 

deceptive tech support services, which 

disproportionately impact older 

consumers compared to younger ones. 

B. Statement of the Significant Issues 

Raised by the Public Comments in 

Response to the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, a Statement of the 

Assessment of the Agency of Such 

Issues, and a Statement of Any Changes 

Made in the Proposed Rule as a Result 

of Such Comments 

The agency did not receive public 

comments that responded to the initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis. 

C. The Response of the Agency to Any 

Comments Filed by the Chief Counsel 

for Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration in Response to the 

Proposed Rule, and a Detailed 

Statement of Any Change Made to the 

Proposed Rule in the Final Rule as a 

Result of the Comments 

The Small Business Administration 

did not file comments in response to the 

proposed rule. 

D. Description and Estimated Number of 

Small Entities to Which the Rule Will 

Apply 

The amendment to the Rule affects 

sellers and telemarketers that sell 

technical support services through 

inbound telemarketing calls that are 

made in response to advertisements and 

direct mail solicitations. As noted in 

section IV of this final rule (Paperwork 

Reduction Act), staff estimates that there 

are 615 such entities that would be 

covered by the Rule. For telemarketers, 

a small business is defined by the SBA 

as one whose average annual receipts do 

not exceed $25.5 million.79 Commission 

staff are unable to determine a precise 

estimate of how many sellers or 

telemarketers constitute small entities as 

defined by SBA. The Commission 

sought comment on this issue but did 

not receive any information from 

commenters. 

E. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, 

and Other Compliance Requirements, 

Including Classes of Small Entities and 

Professional Skills Needed To Comply 

The amendment will require sellers 

and telemarketers that sell technical 

support services through inbound 

telemarketing calls made in response to 

advertisements and direct mail 

solicitations to comply with the TSR’s 

disclosure and recordkeeping 

requirements. The small entities 

potentially covered by the amendment 

will include all such entities subject to 

the Rule. The Commission has 

described the skills necessary to comply 

with these recordkeeping requirements 

in section IV of this final rule 

(Paperwork Reduction Act). 

F. Significant Alternatives to the 

Amendment 

The Commission believes that there 

are no significant alternatives to the 

amendment. The Commission has over 

many years pursued alternatives to the 

amendment in the form of law 

enforcement and consumer outreach. 

The continued injury caused by these 

scams shows that the amendment to the 

Rule is necessary. See section II.A of 

this final rule for more details. 

Additionally, the final rule modified 

the scope of the definition of technical 

support services by adding the phrase 

‘‘any software or application run on 

such device,’’ in order to avoid any 

potential confusion as to whether tech 

support services or products that are 

related only to software or applications 

are covered by the Rule. This definition 

is still otherwise drafted broadly 

because, in the Commission’s 

experience, tech support scams have 

evolved with changes in consumer 

behavior and technology and will 

continue to evolve. But while drafted to 

be flexible to evolving schemes, the 

definition of technical support services 

focuses on a type of plan or service 

marketed in a particular manner 

provides specificity regarding its 

coverage. See section III.A of this final 

rule for more details. 

Lastly, the final rule minimizes the 

burden on tech support businesses that 

do not engage in deceptive practices. 

First, tech support calls ‘‘that are not the 

result of any solicitation by a seller, 

charitable organization, or telemarketer’’ 

are still exempt under § 310.6(b)(5). 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 99075 

1See Report, Fed. Trade Comm’n, Protecting 

Older Consumers 2023–2024, at 12–13, 15, 21 

(2024), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/ 

pdf/federal-trade-commission-protecting-olderadults-report_102024.pdf. 

2See id. at 15; see also Oral Remarks of 

Commissioner Melissa Holyoak, Open Commission 

Meeting, at 1 (Nov. 14, 2024), https://www.ftc.gov/ 

system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/holyoakocm111424remarks.pdf. 

3Report, supra note 1, at 12. 

4 Id. 

5 I thank the Commission’s Division of Marketing 

Practices for their efforts. 

6Cf., e.g., Remarks by President Trump in 

Roundtable Discussion on Fighting for America’s 

Seniors, The White House (June 15, 2020) 

(describing then-President Trump’s ‘‘ironclad 

commitment to protecting and caring for America’s 

seniors’’ and work to protect them from fraud), 

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefingsstatements/remarks-president-trump-roundtablediscussion-fighting-americas-seniors/. To my 

knowledge, no other Commissioner believes this 

amendment is poor policy or inconsistent with our 

legal authorities, or would do anything but help 

older Americans—including those that played a 

pivotal role in President-elect Trump’s recent 

victory. See, e.g., Susan Milligan, How Older Voters 

Powered Trump’s Election Engine, AARP (Nov. 7, 

2024), https://www.aarp.org/politics-society/ 

government-elections/info-2024/election-analysisolder-voters.html. 

7See, e.g., Dissenting Statement of Commissioner 

Melissa Holyoak, Joined by Commissioner Andrew 

N. Ferguson, In re the Non-Compete Clause Rule, 

Matter No. P201200 (June 28, 2024), https://

www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2024-6-28- 

commissioner-holyoak-nc.pdf. 

8See, e.g., Dissenting Statement of Commissioner 

Melissa Holyoak, Negative Option Rule, FTC Matter 

No. P064202 (Oct. 16, 2024), https://www.ftc.gov/ 

system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/holyoak-dissentingstatement-re-negative-option-rule.pdf; Dissenting 

Statement of Commissioner Melissa Holyoak, In re 

Pharmacy Benefit Managers Report, Matter No. 

P221200 (July 9, 2024), https://www.ftc.gov/system/ 

files/ftc_gov/pdf/Holyoak-Statement-PharmacyBenefit-Managers-Report.pdf. 

Second, excluding tech support where 

the person providing the service takes 

physical possession of the device will 

also limit the breadth of the Rule. See 

section III.B of this final rule for more 

details. 

VI. Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

designated these rule amendments as 

not a ‘‘major rule,’’ as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 310 

Advertising, Consumer protection, 

Telephone, Trade practices. 

For the reasons stated above, the 

Federal Trade Commission amends part 

310 of title 16 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 310—TELEMARKETING SALES 

RULE 

■ 1. The authority for part 310 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 6101–6108. 

■ 2. Amend § 310.2 by: 

■ a. Redesignating paragraphs (gg) 

through (ii) as paragraphs (hh) through 

(jj); and 

■ b. Adding new paragraph (gg). 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 310.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(gg) Technical support service means 

any plan, program, software, or service 

that is marketed to repair, maintain, or 

improve the performance or security of 

any device on which code can be 

downloaded, installed, run, or 

otherwise used, such as a computer, 

smartphone, tablet, or smart home 

product, including any software or 

application run on such device. 

Technical support service does not 

include any plan, program, software, or 

service in which the person providing 

the repair, maintenance, or 

improvement obtains physical 

possession of the device being repaired. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 310.6 by revising 

paragraphs (b)(5)(i) and (b)(6)(i) to read 

as follows: 

§ 310.6 Exemptions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(5) * * * 

(i) Calls initiated by a customer or 

donor in response to an advertisement 

relating to investment opportunities, 

debt relief services, technical support 

services, business opportunities other 

than business arrangements covered by 

the Franchise Rule or Business 

Opportunity Rule, or advertisements 

involving offers for goods or services 

described in § 310.3(a)(1)(vi) or 

§ 310.4(a)(2) through (4); 

* * * * * 

(6) * * * 

(i) Calls initiated by a customer in 

response to a direct mail solicitation 

relating to prize promotions, investment 

opportunities, debt relief services, 

technical support services, business 

opportunities other than business 

arrangements covered by the Franchise 

Rule or Business Opportunity Rule, or 

goods or services described in 

§ 310.3(a)(1)(vi) or § 310.4(a)(2) through 

(4); 

* * * * * 

By direction of the Commission, 

Commissioner Ferguson dissenting. 

April J. Tabor, 

Secretary. 

Note: The following appendix will not 

appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. 

Appendix A—Concurring Statement of 

Commissioner Melissa Holyoak 

Older American adults are squarely in the 

crosshairs of fraudsters that use technical 

support scams.1 So are our veterans.2

Unfortunately, these ‘‘older adults [are] 

disproportionately impacted by [technical 

support] scams and are five times more likely 

than younger adults to report losing money 

to them.’’ 3 And financial losses due to such 

scams have been increasing in recent years.4

I believe the Commission is at its best when 

it works to address such fraud—the central 

focus of our consumer protection mission, 

which will continue to be one of my key 

priorities while I serve at the Commission. 

And the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), as 

amended today, is an extension of the 

Commission’s focus on fraud and will ensure 

that we can protect some of America’s most 

vulnerable consumers through more robust 

enforcement. Because today’s amendment is 

sound and will help protect some of 

America’s most vulnerable consumers, I 

concur.5

Elections have consequences. But it is 

hardly novel policy to lawfully amend the 

long-standing, bipartisan TSR—which 

Congress, not the current Chair, decided the 

Commission should promulgate and 

enforce—to cover an ongoing and increasing 

threat to some of the most vulnerable in 

America. And even if this amendment were 

somehow novel policy, it is entirely 

consistent with President-elect Trump’s past 

aggressive anti-fraud policies, along with his 

‘‘relentless commitment to keep America’s 

seniors safe.’’ 6

Since joining the Commission, I have not 

hesitated to dissent when the Majority has 

gone beyond what Congress has authorized 

or otherwise acted wrongly,7 including when 

I have stood alone in articulating such 

concerns.8 While it is true that the current 

Majority has prioritized controversial and 

unlawful rulemakings over the last four 

years, as we turn the page I believe the 

Commission should redirect its efforts and 

resources toward enforcement against fraud 

and, only where appropriate, rulemakings 

that ensure the Commission can robustly 

prosecute fraud and provide consumers 

redress. Today’s amendment is consistent 

with this new direction I believe the 

Commission should chart. And it is sound 

policy that fits squarely within the 

Commission’s storied past and its mission to 

protect the American people from fraudsters 

and scammers. 

Dissenting Statement of Commissioner 

Andrew N. Ferguson 

I dissent from this rulemaking not because 

it is bad policy, but because the time for 

rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC is over. 

The American people have roundly rejected 

its regulatory assault on American business. 

They delivered a resounding victory for 

President Trump and a decisive mandate for 

his vision for the most pro-innovation, procompetition, pro-worker, and pro-consumer 

administration in the history of our country. 

The proper role of this lame-duck 

Commission is not to announce new policies, 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
99076 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

but to hold down the fort, conduct routine 

law enforcement, and provide for an orderly 

transition to the Trump Administration. I 

will vote against all new rules not required 

by statute, and any enforcement action that 

advances an unprecedented theory of 

liability until that transition is complete. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28399 Filed 12–9–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

22 CFR Part 42 

[Public Notice: 12446] 

RIN 1400–AF82 

Visas: Special Immigrant Visas—U.S. 

Government Employee Special 

Immigrant Visas for Service Abroad 

AGENCY: Department of State. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule makes updates 

to reflect a statutory change to the class 

of individuals who may qualify for 

Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs). 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

December 10, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jami 

Thompson, Senior Regulatory 

Coordinator, U.S. Department of State, 

Bureau of Consular Affairs, Visa 

Services, 600 19th Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20522, (202) 485–7586, 

VisaRegs@state.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Special Immigrant Visas for Certain 

Employees or Former Employees of the 

United States Abroad, and for the 

Surviving Spouses or Children of 

Certain Deceased Employees of the U.S. 

Government Abroad 

A. Legal Authority 

Section 203(b)(4) of the Immigration 

and Nationality Act (INA), as amended 

8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(4), generally provides 

that visas may be issued to qualified 

special immigrants described in INA 

section 101(a)(27). Among the 

individuals considered ‘‘special 

immigrants’’ as defined in this 

provision, INA section 101(a)(27)(D), 8 

U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(D), defines ‘‘special 

immigrant’’ to include employees, or 

honorably retired former employees, of 

the U.S. Government abroad, or of the 

American Institute in Taiwan, who have 

performed faithful service for a total of 

fifteen years or more, in addition to 

their accompanying spouse and 

children, and who have been 

recommended and approved for such 

status in accordance with enumerated 

criteria. 

Section 403(a) of the Emergency 

Security Supplemental Appropriations 

Act, 2021 (‘‘ESSAA’’), Public Law 117– 

31, 135 Stat. 309, 318, amended the 

definition of a special immigrant at INA 

section 101(a)(27)(D) to include a new 

subclause (ii). The new subclause 

includes in the definition of ‘‘special 

immigrant’’ the surviving spouse or 

child of an employee of the United 

States Government abroad: Provided, 

[t]hat the employee performed faithful 

service for a total of not less than 15 

years or was killed in the line of duty.’’ 

Under this provision, the qualifying 

surviving spouse or child of a U.S. 

Government employee is a principal 

applicant for special immigrant status, 

and consequently, their current spouse 

and minor child(ren) are entitled to SIVs 

as derivatives under INA section 203(d), 

8 U.S.C. 1153(d), if accompanying or 

following to join the qualifying 

surviving spouse or parent. Pursuant to 

section 403(d) of the ESSAA, these 

changes are effective June 30, 2021, and 

have retroactive effect. 

In addition to the qualifications for 

this group of ‘‘special immigrants,’’ INA 

section 204(a)(1)(G)(ii) governs the 

process through which an individual 

claiming status as a special immigrant 

under INA section 101(a)(27)(D) must 

file a petition with the Department of 

State, requiring that they first be 

recommended and approved for such 

status. 

B. Processing for Special Immigrants 

Under INA Section 101(a)(27)(D) 

Under INA sections 204(a)(1)(G)(ii) 

and 101(a)(27)(D)(i), acquisition of 

special immigrant status under INA 

section 101(a)(27)(D) requires multiple 

sequential steps. First, the principal 

officer of the U.S. embassy or consulate 

with jurisdiction over where the 

individual was employed must have 

recommended the granting of special 

immigrant status in exceptional 

circumstances, and the Secretary of 

State or appropriate designee must have 

approved the recommendation and 

found that it is in the national interest 

to grant such status. Second, under INA 

section 204(a)(1)(G)(ii), only after the 

approval of the recommendation, the 

applicant may submit a Form DS–1884, 

Petition to Classify Special Immigrant 

Under INA 203(b)(4) as an Employee or 

Former Employee of the U.S. 

Government Abroad, or the Surviving 

Spouse or Child of an Employee of the 

U.S. Government Abroad, to a consular 

officer at a foreign service post. Under 

Department regulations at 22 CFR 

42.34(b)(2), the date the applicant’s 

properly completed DS–1884 is 

accepted becomes the applicant’s 

priority date. Those same regulations at 

22 CFR 42.34(b)(4) provide that a 

petition from a qualifying individual is 

valid for six months from the date of 

approval or the date an immigrant visa 

number becomes available, whichever is 

later. 

C. What is the impact of the ESSAA? 

Prior to passage of the ESSAA, if the 

employee were to die before entering 

the United States using their immigrant 

visa, the surviving spouse or child 

would be ineligible for immigrant 

status. With the passage of the ESSAA, 

a surviving spouse and surviving 

child(ren), as a principal applicant, are 

eligible to seek qualification as a special 

immigrant. Additionally, in situations 

where the employee did not pursue 

special immigrant status prior to the 

employee’s death, their surviving 

spouse and/or child may now qualify to 

be approved for status. These changes 

apply retroactively, meaning that the 

surviving spouse or child of an 

employee who died prior to the effective 

date of the ESSAA may also seek to 

qualify. To be a surviving spouse, the 

spousal relationship must have existed 

at the time of the deceased employee’s 

death. To be a surviving child, the adult 

son or daughter of the deceased 

employee must have met the definition 

of ‘‘child’’ under INA section 101(b)(1) 

on the date of the employee’s death. 

II. Changes the Department Is Making 

A. 22 CFR 42.11 

This rule makes updates to the 

Department’s regulations at 22 CFR 

42.11 that list the symbols of the current 

immigrant visa classifications to 

conform with the new classifications 

added by the ESSAA. Specifically, 

under the ‘‘Employment 4th Preference 

(Certain Special Immigrants)’’ header, 

the Department is adding: The ‘‘SS1’’ 

symbol that will be used for issuance of 

SIVs to the surviving spouse or child of 

a U.S. Government employee; the ‘‘SS2’’ 

symbol that will be used for issuance of 

an SIV to the current spouse of an SS1 

who qualifies as a derivative under INA 

203(d); and the ‘‘SS3’’ symbol that will 

be used for issuance of an SIV to the 

minor child(ren) of an SS1 who meet(s) 

the definition of ‘‘child’’ under INA 

101(b)(1) and 203(h), and qualify(ies) as 

a derivative under INA 203(d). 

B. 22 CFR 42.34 

This rule makes changes to 

Department regulations at 22 CFR 42.34 

to conform with the expanded 

definition of ‘‘special immigrant’’ under 

the ESSAA. For the reasons explained 

below, the Department believes these (or 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES