The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) regulates robocalls. A robocall, also known as "voice broadcasting," is any telephone call that delivers a prerecorded message using an automatic (computerized) telephone dialing system, more commonly referred to as an automatic dialer or "autodialer." When the call is answered, the autodialer either connects the call to a live person or plays a prerecorded message. Both are considered robocalls. Some robocalls use personalized audio messages to simulate an actual personal phone call. As discussed in more detail below (in " Classification of Telemarketing Calls "), the TCPA prohibits robocalls to consumers' traditional landline numbers, consumers' Voice-over-Internet-Protocol (VoIP) landline numbers, and all mobile numbers. Robocalls to business landlines are not covered by the TCPA. Robocalls are popular with many industry groups, such as real estate, telemarketing, and direct sales companies. The majority of companies who use robocalling are legitimate businesses, but some are not. Those illegitimate businesses may not just be annoying consumers—they may also be trying to defraud them. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regularly cite "unwanted and illegal robocalls" as their number-one complaint category. These complaints, as well as complaints to congressional offices, have spurred Congress to take action in an effort to protect consumers. Congress has held hearings to investigate efforts to develop technical solutions to stop illegal robocalls and ways to update the TCPA to better protect consumers, especially seniors and other vulnerable groups (e.g., immigrants without a good understanding of English). Six bills have been introduced in the 115 th Congress to address this issue. Legislative efforts have included proposals to expand the definition of "spoofing" to include text messages and calls made from outside the United States, as well as to protect seniors from fraud perpetrated through robocalls. In addition to regulating robocalls, the TCPA authorized the National Do Not Call (DNC) Registry. The registry, which was created in 2003, allows consumers to "opt out" of receiving telemarketing calls on their landline and mobile phones, regardless of whether they are robocalls or not. As of September 30, 2017, the registry had nearly 230 million active registrations, up from about 226 million at the same time in 2016. The TCPA does not prohibit all robocalls, that is, not all robocalls are illegal. Legal robocalls are used by legitimate call originators for political, public service, and emergency messages, which are legal. Illegal robocalls are usually associated with fraudulent telemarketing campaigns, although an illegal robocall under the TCPA does not necessarily mean that the robocall is fraudulent. For example, it is illegal to make a marketing robocall to a cellphone without written consent. That call would not necessarily be intended to defraud the consumer. The TCPA also treats calls to mobile phones differently than calls to landlines and treats calls to consumers differently than calls to businesses. This report addresses robocalls that are both illegal under the TCPA and intended to defraud, not robocalls that are defined only as illegal. Robocalls to consumer landlines are illegal under the TCPA without prior written consent. An autodialer legally may be used to call a consumer landline, but only if the call does not use a prerecorded or artificial voice. The exceptions to the landline robocall prohibition are calls for emergency purposes, purely informational calls (e.g., school closings, flight delays), calls made for a noncommercial purpose (e.g., charities, political parties), and calls made by a business that do not include an advertisement or constitute telemarketing (e.g., product recall notices). Unlike the case for consumer landlines, nearly all sales calls to a business landline—including for a product or service from a telemarketer—are generally exempt from the DNC and robocall rules of the FTC. The two exceptions are if the caller is trying to make a sale to an employee at work that does not relate to work, in which case the caller must comply with the DNC and robocall rules for a consumer landline; and sale of "nondurable office or cleaning supplies" (e.g., printer ink), in which case the caller must comply with the robocall rules. Robocalls to both consumer and business mobile phones without written consent are generally illegal under the TCPA. Exceptions to this rule are public service and emergency messages, but political robocalls to mobile phones are illegal without prior consent. Consent for some other non-telemarketing calls does not need to be in writing, but even if a consumer has previously given consent, that consent may be revoked at any time. Subsequent calls would then be illegal. Despite the existence of the DNC Registry and the fact that most robocalls are illegal, the number of robocalls continues to grow in the United States. In 2016, YouMail reported an average of 2.4 billion robocalls being made each month. In May 2018, that figure rose to an all-time high of 4.1 billion robocalls, up sharply from the previous high of 2.9 billion robocalls in August 2017 (see Figure 1 ). YouMail states that this latest figure equals about 12 to 13 calls per person each month in the United States, up from just under 8 calls in January 2018. Consumer complaints continue to grow as well (see Table 1 ). The FTC received over 7.1 million complaints about robocalls in FY2017, up from 5.3 million complaints in FY2016. Both the FTC and the FCC, as well as individual states, have jurisdiction over robocalls and fraudulent calls; they can impose civil fines on those who break the law. In addition, in some instances, other federal agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of the Treasury, and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), may prosecute robocall-related cases under criminal law. The FTC regulates trade, including all telemarketing practices, regardless of how a call is initiated. The FTC's focus is on protecting consumers from scams and enforcing the rules associated with the DNC Registry. The FTC's primary concerns are the content of the call, whether that call was fraudulent, and whether the call was made to a number on the DNC Registry. The Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, which became law in 1994, authorized the FTC to regulate telemarketing calls. As required by the law, the FTC promulgated the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), which requires telemarketers to disclose certain information; prohibits misrepresentations by telemarketers; sets limits on the times of day that telemarketers may call consumers; prohibits calls to a consumer who has asked not to be called again; and sets payment restrictions for the sale of certain goods and services. The FTC rules apply only to interstate calls (calls that originate in one state and end in another), not intrastate calls (calls that originate and end in the same state), as the FTC does not have jurisdiction over intrastate trade activities. The FTC provides exemptions similar to those of the FCC, but the FTC specifically excludes any exemption for telemarketers calling on behalf of exempt entities. For example, a politician running for office cannot hire a contractor to make robocalls on behalf of the campaign. The FCC regulates communications, including all telemarketing calls, regardless of whether they are fraudulent or not. Its focus is on the call itself, rather than the content of the call. The FCC's authority to regulate robocalls comes from the TCPA and its rules apply to both interstate and intrastate calls (with exemptions for certain entities and certain types of calls, as noted previously). States have their own laws covering intrastate telemarketing calls. Many of the laws have exemptions, like those of the FCC and FTC. Plus, many states claim authority to apply their statutes to calls originating outside the state. The FTC has undertaken vigorous law enforcement efforts against those making illegal calls. The FTC has brought 131 law enforcement actions against more than 750 companies and individuals that the agency alleged were responsible for placing billions of fraudulent telemarketing calls to consumers in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The FTC has obtained more than $1.5 billion in judgments against these violators and banned many of them from making robocalls in the future. (See Appendix D for a summary of the cases and fines imposed by the FTC on individuals and companies for conducting fraudulent robocall campaigns.) In addition to enforcement actions against individuals responsible for making robocalls intended to defraud, the FTC is pursuing technical solutions to block robocalls, including its Robocall Challenge program. (Details of the individual challenges and the winners are included in Appendix B .) As of August 1, 2017, when consumers report DNC or robocall violations to the FTC, the robocaller phone numbers provided are released each day to telecommunications carriers and other industry partners that are implementing technical call-blocking solutions. The consumer complaint data are critical to achieving the goal of this initiative, as many existing call-blocking solutions rely on "blacklists." These blacklists are databases of telephone numbers that have received a significant number of consumer complaints. The data being provided include the date and time an unwanted call was received, the general subject matter of the call (such as debt reduction, energy, warranties, home security, etc.), and whether the call was a robocall. Using this information, carriers can better determine which calls should be blocked or flagged before they reach consumers' phones. To ensure the most complete databases can be compiled, the FTC has made it as easy as possible for consumers to report unwanted calls. This information is particularly helpful to law enforcement and industry. The data are posted to the FTC website every weekday (with Monday postings including weekend data) on the "Do Not Call Reported Calls Data" web page. Since 2016, the FCC has taken various actions to address the problem of illegal, fraudulent, and unwanted robocalls. The agency's most recent actions include convening a Robocall Strike Force and promulgating new rules that will empower telecommunications providers with new tools to stop robocalls. For a summary of the cases and fines imposed by the FCC on individuals and companies for conducting fraudulent robocall campaigns, see Appendix E . On July 26, 2016, then-Chairman of the FCC Tom Wheeler asked the telecommunications industry to "develop an action plan for providing consumers with robust robocall-blocking solutions." On August 19, 2016, a 60-day "Strike Force" convened and created four work groups: Authentication; Empowering Consumer Choice; Detection, Assessment, Traceback, and Mitigation; and Regulatory Support/Root Cause Removal. These work groups subsequently developed both short- and long-term plans to address the FCC Chairman's request. Highlights of their work are described below. Each work group contributed to the Strike Force report issued on October 16, 2016. Topics included the development of technical standards and consumer education plans and goals. Additionally, the Detection Work Group developed, implemented, and tested a Do Not Originate (DNO) Registry to stop unwanted calls from reaching customers. The intent of the DNO Registry is to block numbers that should never originate any call: invalid numbers, valid numbers that are not allocated to a voice service provider, and valid numbers that are allocated but not assigned to a subscriber. With the FCC's permission, the Strike Force performed a trial of this concept. The trial was considered a success by the Strike Force and the FCC, playing a significant role in reducing IRS scam calls by about 90% from September 2016 to February 2017. During the time that the Robocall Strike Force was convened, the FCC released a Public Notice clarifying one aspect of its robocall rules. Specifically, the FCC clarified that if a subscriber to a telephone number requests call blocking to prevent that telephone number from being spoofed, a voice service provider (regardless of the type of service: traditional landline, VoIP, or mobile) may block such calls so they do not reach the intended recipient consumer. The clarification was intended to encourage initiatives such as the DNO database. On November 4, 2016, the FCC held a "Twitter Town Hall" on robocalls. During the town hall, the FCC policy staff talked to the public about robocall policies, consumer tips, and concerning trends. A transcript of the event is available online using the hashtag #RobocallChat. On March 31, 2017, a company called "All About the Message" (AATM) filed a petition for a declaratory ruling requesting that the FCC declare the delivery of a voice message directly to a voicemail box does not constitute a call that is subject to the prohibitions on the use of an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice under the TCPA. In short, AATM requested that a robocall that goes directly to a consumer's voicemail not be categorized as an illegal robocall. Although there was some support for such a ruling, including from the Republican National Committee and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in the end, the company withdrew the petition. It may have done so because of the overwhelming amount of negative press coverage and comments filed in opposition to the petition. However, since the petition was withdrawn, the company is entitled to file it again. Stemming from the work of the Regulatory Support/Root Cause Removal Work Group, on March 23, 2017, the FCC released "Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls," a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and Notice of Inquiry (NOI). The NPRM sought comment on FCC-proposed rules regarding the DNO Registry and clarified guidance contained in the 2016 Public Notice. The FCC sought comment on a proposal that would authorize providers to block calls from three categories of numbers: invalid numbers, valid numbers that are not allocated to a voice service provider, and valid numbers that are allocated but not assigned to a subscriber. These are the same criteria used in the DNO Registry trial. In the Notice of Inquiry, the FCC sought input on possible standards that could be used to indicate to a reasonably high degree of certainty that a call is illegal, and whether to adopt a safe harbor provision to protect carriers in case they inadvertently violate the FCC's call completion requirements in blocking a suspected robocaller. The agency also asked for comments regarding ways that callers who make legitimate calls can guard against being blocked and to ensure that legitimate callers whose calls are blocked by mistake can prevent further blocking. The vast majority of participants in this proceeding supported the FCC's plans as laid out in the NPRM, specifically, to permit carriers to block outgoing calls at the request of a subscriber, as well as calls originating from invalid numbers, unallocated numbers, and allocated but unassigned numbers. They also supported enacting a broad safe harbor to protect carriers engaged in call blocking. The FTC also proposed expanding the coverage of the DNO Registry beyond robocalls to certain live calls. One of the largest categories of complaints to the DNC is about impostor calls, in which the caller pretends to be someone else, like an IRS agent. In about one-third of those cases, consumers have indicated the call was not a robocall. So, while 60% of monthly DNC complaints to the FTC are about robocalls, "live" calls also generate hundreds of thousands of complaints each month. The FTC believes that provider-based blocking would not be complete without the ability to block illegal "live" calls that target numbers registered on the DNC Registry. Commenters also broadly agreed that the FCC should avoid imposing burdensome processes or creating any complex new infrastructure, such as a "white list" (a set of numbers that may be called) or any centralized database or administrator. In November 2017, the FCC promulgated rules on the creation and use of the DNO Registry. The new rules explicitly allow service providers to block calls from two categories of number: (1) numbers that the subscriber has asked to be blocked, such as "in-bound only" numbers (numbers that should not ever originate a call); and (2) unassigned numbers, as the use of such a number indicates that the calling party is intending to defraud a consumer. The FCC also established safeguards to mitigate the possibility of blocking desired calls. The commission is also seeking further comment on additional mitigation techniques and comment on two issues related to the new rules. Additionally, the order contains a requirement that the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, in consultation with the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Consumer Protection, to prepare a report on the state of robocalling in the United States and to submit it to the commission within a year from publication of the order in the Federal Register . The new rules give voice service providers the option of blocking illegal robocalls in certain, well-defined circumstances, providing the telecommunications industry the flexibility to block illegal calls. The record showed broad support among consumer groups, telecommunications service providers, government, and callers for blocking DNO calls. The FCC did not accept the assertion of some commenters that any gains from blocking DNO numbers would be temporary, because those making illegal robocalls will simply choose other numbers to spoof when their calls are blocked. The FCC provided clarification that telecommunications providers may block calls when they receive a request from the subscriber to which the originating number is assigned. For example, "in-bound only" numbers to government agencies such as the IRS should not be originating calls. The commission found that where the subscriber did not consent to the number being used, the call was very likely made to annoy and defraud. The new order explicitly allows providers to block calls purporting to originate from a number that is unassigned, as use of such a number provides a strong indication that the calling party is spoofing the Caller ID to potentially defraud and harm a consumer. The commission identified three categories of unassigned numbers numbers that are invalid under the North American Numbering Plan (NANP); numbers that have not been allocated by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) or the Pooling Administrator (PA) to any provider; and numbers that NANPA or PA has allocated to a provider, but are not currently used. Providers are now allowed to block calls purporting to be from numbers that fall into any of these categories. In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), the FCC is seeking comment on potential mechanisms to ensure that erroneously blocked calls can be unblocked as quickly as possible and without undue harm to callers and consumers; and measure the effectiveness of the commission's robocall rules and the industry's technical efforts to block robocalls. In the Report and Order, the FCC encourages providers who block calls under approved criteria to identify and quickly rectify erroneous blocking. In the FNPRM, the commission is seeking comments on whether it should require providers who block calls to establish a formal challenge mechanism or appeals process. Some of the questions posed were Should we require blocking providers to establish a challenge mechanism by which callers can inform them of erroneous blocking and such blocking can quickly be fixed? What is the quickest way for callers to be informed of blocking, e.g., should providers send an intercept message to callers to notify them of the block with contact information by which a caller can report and rectify the situation? Should challenge mechanisms be different based on the scale of the blocking provider? What challenge mechanisms are blocking providers considering adopting, even absent a requirement? Is such a requirement necessary? Does our informal complaint process provide a mechanism to surface erroneous blocking to providers and correct it? Are there ways we could modify our informal complaint process to address the time-sensitive nature of erroneous call blocking? Are there other Commission processes that would provide an appropriate mechanism for rectifying erroneous blocking? The commission also asked, if it were to adopt a reporting obligation on all service providers, what information should be collected? Some of the questions posed were Should providers be required to report the quantity of false positives? Should this be a quarterly requirement or an annual requirement? In what ways could the information collected help the commission evaluate the effectiveness of our efforts as well as those of industry and/or support additional measures to combat illegal robocalls? What consumer benefits would come from requiring all voice service providers to publicly report the number of illegal robocalls blocked each day/month/year? What are the costs of requiring voice service providers to report this information? Should we consider different requirements for smaller providers? Alternatively, should the commission use data from the FCC's Consumer Complaint Data Center as a benchmark for determining the effectiveness of FCC and industry efforts? Are there other Commission or third-party data sources that the commission could use to assess the effectiveness of its efforts as well as industry's at targeting illegal robocalls? The FCC directed that the report should encompass both the progress made by industry, government, and consumers in combatting illegal robocalls, as well as the remaining challenges to continuing these efforts. It asked for a focus on quantitative data, including calling trends and consumer complaints. The intent of the report is to provide insight into the current state of the robocalling problem and how to target additional measures to help consumers. The DNO Registry, to be established through the FCC's November 2017 Order, has broad support from telecommunications service providers and consumer groups, but only conditional support for limited intervention from groups representing telemarketers and other legal call originators. Telecommunications service providers generally support the registry, but have expressed concern about the expected high cost to fully implement it and how those costs would be covered. The costs would likely vary based on the architecture and size of the network, as well as the solutions a company selects. Further, the registry would likely require continual upgrades to keep up with new methods developed by the robocallers. Telecommunications service providers ideally want a funding mechanism that could be used for onetime costs, short-term initiatives, and longer-term initiatives related to the registry. Part of a three-pronged solution proposed by the telecommunications industry is to ask Congress to appropriate funds for this purpose. The telecommunications industry has also recommended that Congress amend 47 C.F.R. Section 64.2105 to state that calls blocked to protect consumers from receiving illegal robocalls will not be considered when evaluating the long-distance call completion rates. Other changes to existing law could place more robocall scams under criminal jurisdiction rather than civil jurisdiction. Escalating the manner in which robocallers are punished by adding prison time to the fines imposed might have more effect than the fines alone seem to have—especially since most fines are suspended because the individual is unable to pay. Consumer groups have been unequivocal in their support for additional restrictions on robocalls and implementation of the DNO Registry. Together, the Consumers Union, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, National Association of Consumer Advocates, National Consumer Law Center, Public Citizen, and Public Knowledge submitted joint comments to the FCC's robocall proceeding, "Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls." These groups support the FCC's proposals, but also asked the FCC to explicitly permit and encourage the providers, where it can be done reliably and with the consumer's consent, to use additional tools, such as advanced analytics, to identify and block clearly illegal robocalls; clarify that providers should make available to consumers the option to block calls that fail to authenticate their Caller ID information (i.e., ensure the person calling is who they say they are); continue to press providers to offer effective, optional, comprehensive, and free call-blocking tools to all of their customers to help block legal but unwanted robocalls, which they already have permission to do; and revise the definition of "illegal robocall" for the purposes of these rules so that it is clear that it includes autodialed or prerecorded text messages and voicemails. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has long expressed a concern over congressional action related to telemarketing calls. In September 2016, the chamber wrote to the chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce asking that the committee not make any legislation overly broad. For example, it asked that companies not be penalized for contacting customers for informational calls regarding prescription reminders, low bank account balance alerts, etc. The Professional Association for Customer Engagement (PACE) is another industry group that has expressed concern specifically about the establishment of the DNO Registry and the potential harm to its members if their calls are misidentified. In response to this concern, PACE created the Communication Protection Coalition (CPC), a cross-industry group of stakeholders interested in mitigating the harm caused by blocking and mislabeling of legal calls. The CPC web page states As a result of the FCC's Robocall Strike Force initiatives, the carriers and their associated analytics companies are making decisions about your calls. These unregulated analytics companies apply their own algorithms to determine if a call should be blocked from ringing your customer's phone or replace your Caller ID with a label such as "Scam Likely", "Robocaller", "Fraud Call", "Telemarketer" or "Debt Collector." The issue that is very concerning to PACE and our members is that the algorithms do not take into account legal entities delivering legal calls for which consent has been provided. The analytics companies are merely applying their algorithm without knowing all the facts regarding the call. On September 20, 2017, PACE held the first CPC meeting. It was attended by carriers, analytics companies, PACE members, industry associations, and federal regulators, including two industry members of the Robocall Strike Force. The initial meeting ended with consensus on the need for cooperation from all parties to develop best practices and a proposal to consider inviting consumer groups to participate in future meetings. The next meeting was scheduled for January 2018. In the 115 th Congress, 12 bills aimed at curtailing robocalls and protecting c onsumers have been introduced ( Table 2 ). Most of t hese bills are focused on the larger issue of spoofing, as well as curtailing robocalls for debt collection and politica lly oriented messages ; two bills are aimed at protecting seniors from predatory robocalls intended to defraud them. Three hearings have been held on robocalls in the 115 th Congress "Do Not Call: Combating Robocalls and Caller ID Spoofing" House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection April 27, 2018. Information about this hearing, including video and testimony, can be found online at https://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/do-not-call-combating-robocalls-and-caller-id-spoofing . "Abusive Robocalls and How We Can Stop Them" Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation April 18, 2018. Information about this hearing, including video and testimony, can be found online at https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?ID=E0EB17D2-A895-40B4-B385-F94EA2716957 . "Still Ringing Off the Hook: An Update on Efforts to Combat Robocalls" Senate Special Committee on Aging October 4, 2017. Information about this hearing, including video and testimony, can be found online at https://www.aging.senate.gov/hearings/still-ringing-off-the-hook-an-update-on-efforts-to-combat-robocalls . Based on their long history, scammers appear determined to continue their attempts to defraud consumers. Robocalls make these efforts easier. The FTC asserts that law enforcement on its own cannot completely solve the problem of robocalls. Technological solutions, including robust call-blocking technology, likely will also be required. The DNO Registry, a technology solution that has been proven to significantly decrease robocalls, is supported by most stakeholders, but concerns remain with legitimate telemarketers who fear it may negatively impact them. The FCC intended to address these concerns in 2018. The impacts of the FTC initiatives on fraudulent robocalls, and the resulting impacts in the telemarketing industry, may continue to be oversight issues for Congress. Appendix A. Options for Responding to Unwanted Robocalls Because robocalls to consumers and businesses are not treated the same under existing laws and regulations, consumers and businesses have different options for responding to robocalls. Both the FTC and FCC have published consumer guidance for how to deal with unwanted calls Stop Unwanted Calls and Texts , Federal Communications Commission; and Blocking Unwanted Calls , Federal Trade Commission. Cutting down on unwanted robocalls most likely will reduce consumer exposure to fraudulent ones, along with every other type of unwanted robocall. Reporting a Violation (Consumers) Consumers can file a complaint with both the FCC and FTC. The agencies choose which robocallers to pursue for legal or regulatory enforcement based partly on these complaints. Complaints can be filed with the FCC at https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/requests/new?ticket_form_id=39744 (Under "Phone Issues," select "Unwanted Calls.") Complaints can be filed with the FTC at https://complaints.donotcall.gov/complaint/complaintcheck.aspx . Prior to filing a complaint, consumers should confirm that their number is in the DNC Registry. This can be done at https://donotcall.gov/confirm/conf.aspx . Reporting a Violation (Businesses) Businesses have limited legal recourse against robocallers, but they can still take steps to curtail them. If a business receives a call that falls into one of the two exceptions above—sale to an employee at work that does not relate to work or sale of "nondurable office or cleaning supplies"—the business can report it to the FTC using the same website listed above for consumers. Blocking Robocalls (Consumers and Businesses) Both consumers and business can take advantage of a number of technical options for blocking robocalls. Third-Party Blocking Services for Landlines Blocking services provided by commercial firms can be used by individual consumers, small businesses, and large businesses. For VoIP services, some of these options may be "cloud-based," meaning they are managed from a remote location rather than on-site. Consumers and businesses with a small number of lines may employ a third-party blocking service. One such example is Nomorobo, a winner of the 2013 Robocall Challenge hosted by the FTC. (See Appendix B for information about the Robocall Challenge.) Nomorobo is a cloud-based solution that uses "simultaneous ringing," which routes incoming calls to a second telephone line managed by Nomorobo. In the Nomorobo solution, this second line would identify and hang up on the illegal robocall before it can ring through to the user. Nomorobo uses a database of known robocallers compiled with the help of the FTC, user reports, and its own "honeypots." If a call gets a match in the Nomorobo database, the call is not allowed to reach the intended recipient. If there is not a match, the call is allowed to go through. One example of an enterprise-wide service for large businesses is Pindrop, which provides robocall solutions to secure phone communications. The company developed and deploys patented "Phoneprinting" technology that can identify, locate, and authenticate phone devices just from the call audio, thereby detecting fraudulent calls as well as verifying legitimate callers. The service is used globally by banks, insurers, brokerages, and retailers. The company states that its service succeeds in detecting over 80% of fraud—even against first-time callers. Third-Party Mobile Phone Applications Both consumers and businesses can download software applications ("apps"), often free, to their mobile phones to filter out calls from unidentified callers and/or numbers not in the person's contact list. One app is YouMail. While YouMail is primarily used for voicemail transcriptions, it also provides protection against robocalls. The data the company collects through the app is used to calculate the Robocall Index. Another app requires a caller to enter the first two letters of the recipient's last name for the call to go through. Users of Apple's iPhone can download and use the Nomorobo app for a monthly fee. An Android-compatible Nomorobo app is expected to be available soon. CTIA, the wireless industry association, has a web page that lists existing Android apps. Telecommunications Carrier Services Traditional landline, internet-based (i.e., VoIP), and mobile telephone carriers provide customers with various options for blocking robocalls. Table A-1 , Table A-2 , and Table A-3 contain details of the offerings of each type of provider, as reported by Consumer Reports. An October 2016 Consumer Reports examination found that the quality of these services varied greatly among carriers. Overall, this examination found that consumers using internet-based phone services have the best call-blocking options and that most phone companies are not providing strong protection to their traditional landline and wireless customers. Call-Blocking Devices Businesses and consumers can install devices to stop robocalls. These devices work with traditional and VoIP landlines with Caller ID. There are at least four such devices available. These devices generally use a "blacklist" or a "whitelist." The former blocks all calls in the list (all others are allowed), while the latter only allows calls that are on the list (all others are blocked). Some devices use both types of lists. One example of a device that uses both a blacklist and a whitelist is the Digitone Call Block Plus (see Figure A-1 ). This device, like the others, is installed between the telephone wall jack and the telephone. Appendix B. Recent Law Enforcement Actions Against Robocallers One of the most enduring and harmful methods used in an attempt to defraud people is the "IRS Scam." It has been perpetrated by numerous entities since about 2013. This scam involves callers who claim to be employees of the IRS, using fake names and bogus identification. The callers may even know details about their targets and they usually use spoofed telephone numbers. Potential victims are told they owe money to the IRS and are threatened with arrest. They are also told that the amount owed must be paid immediately using gift cards or a wire transfer. Potential victims may not even be safe if they do not answer the phone: if the phone isn't answered, the scammers often leave an "urgent" message demanding a return call. Some scammers have even used video relay services to try to scam deaf and hard of hearing individuals. In another variation of the scam, recent immigrants with limited knowledge of English are approached in their native language. In these cases, victims are threatened with deportation. Phone scams of this kind have been on the IRS's "Dirty Dozen" list of scams since 2014. The IRS believes that the scam is responsible for over $54 million in losses to victims. Appendix C. The FTC's Robocall Challenge Program In response to the significant growth in complaints about robocalls from consumers, the FTC held four Robocall Challenges, discussed below. The Original Robocall Challenge The original FTC challenge, held in 2013, asked participants to develop a solution to block illegal robocalls on landlines and mobile phones. There were two winners: Aaron Foss for Nomorobo and Serdar Danis for "Robocall Filtering System and Device with Autonomous Blacklisting, Whitelisting, Graylisting and Caller ID Spoof Detection." Both winning entries work by intercepting and filtering out robocalls using technology to blacklist robocaller phone numbers and whitelist numbers associated with acceptable incoming calls. Both proposals also filter out unapproved robocallers by employing a CAPTCHA-style test to prevent illegal calls from ringing through to a user. Zapping Rachel The second challenge, held in 2014, was called Zapping Rachel. In this challenge, security experts were asked to build tools that investigators could use to track and minimize illegal robocalls. The challenge had three phases: The Creator Phase challenged contestants to build a honeypot that identifies inaccurate information in incoming calls, such as spoofed caller IDs, or determines which calls are likely robocalls. The winning entry used a combination of an audio CAPTCHA filter, call detail analysis, and recording and transcription analysis to determine the likelihood that an incoming call was a robocall. The Attacker Phase challenged contestants to circumvent an existing honeypot and prevent it from collecting information on incoming calls. The winning entry, "Droid Rachel," circumvented the honeypot by employing a four-step targeting process that screened out phone numbers potentially connected to a honeypot, and optimized Droid Rachel's ability to send robocalls using unsuspecting consumers' Android phones. The Detective Phase challenged contestants to analyze call data from an existing honeypot and develop algorithms to predict which calls were likely robocalls. The winning solution focused on metrics such as the number of calls made, whether the number called was a toll-free number, and the time of the call to identify likely robocalls. Robocalls: Humanity Strikes Back The third challenge, Robocalls: Humanity Strikes Back, was held in 2015. Contestants were asked to create tools people could use to block and forward robocalls automatically to a honeypot. The winner of this contest was RoboKiller, created by Ethan Garr and Bryan Moyles. DetectaRobo As part of the National Day of Civic Hacking in June 2015, the FTC challenged the public with DetectaRobo, the agency's fourth contest. Participants were asked to analyze call data and create algorithms that could predict which calls were likely robocalls. Three of the 19 teams that registered were selected as demonstrating superior functionality, accuracy, innovation, and creativity. The winning team in this challenge was "Team HaV" (Ved Deshpande and M. Henry Linder). The two runners-up were— "Team Milibo" (Sridhar Ramakrishnan and Shuping Liu) and "Team RDAC" (Charles Julian Knight, Taylor Kelley, Ian Moraes, Rohan Smith, Will Mavis, John Cowhig, Sean Browning, James Albert Snow, and Pablo River). Appendix D. Fines Imposed on Robocallers by the FTC, 2017 The Federal Trade Commission has successfully concluded four cases against fraudulent robocallers, summarized below. Justin Ramsey On April 13, 2017, the FTC obtained a settlement order with Justin Ramsey, the ringleader of telemarketing operations that bombarded consumers with illegal robocalls and called phone numbers listed on the National DNC Registry. The order banned Ramsey and his company, Prime Marketing LLC, from, among other things, placing robocalls to individuals to sell goods or services and initiating sales calls to numbers listed on the DNC Registry. Ramsey and Prime Marketing were also fined a $2.2 million civil penalty, to be suspended upon payment of $65,000. According to the FTC's January 2017 complaint, in 2012 and 2013 Ramsey and several codefendants made millions of robocalls to consumers and also placed millions of calls to phone numbers listed on the DNC Registry. In just one week in July 2012, the complaint states, the defendants made more than 1.3 million illegal robocalls to consumers nationwide, 80% of which were to numbers listed on the DNC Registry. From 2014 through 2016, Ramsey continued his unlawful telemarketing through his new company, Prime Marketing. During April and May of 2016, Ramsey and Prime Marketing initiated at least 800,000 calls to numbers in the DNC Registry. The other defendants in the case, except Ramsey and Prime Marketing, settled the commission's charges at the same time the agency filed its complaint. Aaron Michael Jones and Steven Stansbury On June 2, 2017, a federal district court judge in California approved default judgments proposed in January 2017 by the FTC against Aaron Michael Jones, Steven Stansbury, and nine associated companies for making billions of illegal telemarketing robocalls to consumers. The FTC estimated that more than 100 million illegal robocalls per year were made to numbers listed on the DNC Registry. In addition to permanently banning Jones, Stansbury, and their companies from all telemarketing activities, including initiating robocalls, the order imposed a $2.7 million penalty against each of them, payable to the FTC. Seven of the nine individual defendants, and corporate defendant Local Lighthouse Corp., agreed to court orders that settled the FTC's charges in January. All Us Marketing LLC There were numerous defendants in this case, together doing business as All Us Marketing LLC (previously known as Payless Solutions). These individuals were responsible for thousands of calls to consumers nationwide making false claims about bogus debt relief services. After convincing consumers to provide their credit card information, the defendants charged them between $300 and $4,999 up front, but provided nothing in return. In some cases, the defendants used consumers' personal information to apply for new credit cards. The complaint also charged the defendants with making many calls to consumers whose phone numbers were on the DNC Registry, along with several other violations of the TSR and Florida's Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Act. This large case, involving 15 defendants, was settled on June 5, 2017, with eight orders entered by a federal district court against Orlando-based individuals and companies. The order imposed financial judgments on 12 of the defendants that totaled $4,890,797. The orders also permanently ban most of the defendants from robocalling, telemarketing, or providing so-called "debt relief" services. The orders against three other defendants were for lesser amounts: two were fined $389,915 and one was fined $640,747. Caribbean Cruise Lines In February 2017, the FTC, along with nine states and the Tennessee Valley Authority settled with the remaining defendants who assisted Caribbean Cruise Lines, Inc. (CCL), a Florida-based cruise line company, in running an illegal telemarketing campaign that made billions of robocalls. Most defendants had settled their charges in 2015. In settling the final charges, CCL's owner Fred Accuardi was barred from robocalling and illegal telemarketing, as well as helping anyone else make such calls. The settlement order also includes a judgment of $1.35 million, which is to be suspended after the defendants pay $2,500. The CCL robocall campaign ran from October 2011 through July 2012 and averaged approximately 12 million to 15 million illegal sales calls a day. Consumers who answered these calls typically heard a prerecorded message telling them they had been selected to participate in a 30-second research survey, after which they would receive a "free" two-day cruise to the Bahamas. In reality, the calls were designed to market CCL's cruises and various up-sell packages. The illegal robocalls generated millions of dollars for CCL. Appendix E. Fines Imposed on Robocallers by the FCC, 2017 Changes in technology have made it easier and cheaper for robocallers to manipulate caller ID information. To address this problem, the Federal Communications Commission has focused both on enforcement actions and on pursuing policies to help consumers and their service providers block malicious robocalls. Adrian Abramovich In June 2017, the FCC took its first enforcement action under the 2009 Truth in Caller ID Act. It proposed a $120 million fine—its largest ever—on a Florida-based robocaller, Adrian Abramovich. Abramovich is believed to have been responsible for 96 million spoofed robocalls over the final three months of 2016. Of those calls, about 90% were made to mobile phones and 10% to landline phones. The calls used "neighborhood spoofing" technology that uses the local area code and the first three digits of the recipient's own phone number to encourage people to answer the calls. If the call was answered, recipients would hear a recorded message asking them to press one to hear about vacation deals from travel companies such as Marriott, Expedia, Hilton, and TripAdvisor. Callers would then be transferred to call centers in Mexico, where live operators would try to sell them vacation packages at Mexican timeshare facilities not affiliated with the companies in the recorded messages. Philip Roesel The FCC proposed a fine of $82 million on robocaller Philip Roesel in August 2017. This robocaller, doing business as Wilmington Insurance Quotes, reportedly made more than 21 million spoofed robocalls in violation of the Truth in Caller ID Act. Based on subpoenaed records, the FCC verified that 82,106 health insurance telemarketing calls were made from October 2016 through January 2017 using falsified caller ID information. The fine was based on these verified calls, which were found to target vulnerable consumers, including the elderly, the infirm, and low-income families. Appendix F. Proposed Legislation, 109 th -114 th Congresses Both the House and the Senate introduced legislation during this timeframe aimed at protecting consumers from fraudulent robocalls. House of Representatives One bill related to robocalls has passed the House since 2005 ( H.R. 5175 , the "Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections" (DISCLOSE) Act, in the 111 th Congress). The DISCLOSE Act contained one relatively narrow provision related to public safety, prohibiting robocalls to public service access points (911 call centers). Other legislation proposed in the House of Representatives during this timeframe would have expanded the ability of the FCC to impose forfeiture penalties; expanded the statute of limitations and increased the maximum penalty for certain violations; expanded prohibitions on providing inaccurate caller ID data to apply to persons outside the United States if the recipient of the call is within the United States; directed providers of spoofing services to take such steps as the FCC may prescribe to verify that users do not engage in caller ID information violations; expanded the definition of "caller identification information" to include text messages; amended the federal criminal code to make it a crime to knowingly initiate a commercial robocall from within the United States or to a recipient within the United States; directed the FTC to establish an office within the Bureau of Consumer Protection to advise the FTC on the prevention of fraud targeting seniors; and directed the FTC to revise the DNC Registry provisions of the TSR to prohibit politically oriented recorded message telephone calls to telephone numbers listed on that registry. Senate Legislation proposed during this timeframe would have directed the FTC to establish an office within the Bureau of Consumer Protection to advise on the prevention of fraud targeting seniors; authorized the FCC to impose forfeiture penalties, without first sending a citation regarding the charged violation, against persons not licensed by the FCC who violate prohibitions on the use of robocall equipment; and amended the federal criminal code to make it a crime to knowingly initiate most commercial robocalls, without the prior written consent of the recipient, from within the United States or to a recipient within the United States. The Senate has not passed any bills related to robocalls since 2005.

Summary: The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) regulates robocalls. A robocall, also known as "voice broadcasting," is any telephone call that delivers a prerecorded message using an automatic (computerized) telephone dialing system, more commonly referred to as an automatic dialer or "autodialer." Robocalls are popular with many industry groups, such as real estate, telemarketing, and direct sales companies. The majority of companies who use robocalling are legitimate businesses, but some are not. Those illegitimate businesses may not just be annoying consumers—they may also be trying to defraud them. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regularly cite "unwanted and illegal robocalls" as their number-one complaint category. The FTC received more than 1.9 million complaints filed in the first five months of 2017 and about 5.3 million in 2016. The FCC has stated that it gets more than 200,000 complaints about unwanted telemarketing calls each year. These statistics, as well as complaints to congressional offices, have spurred Congress to hold hearings and introduce legislation on the issue in an effort to protect consumers. Congressional policymakers have proposed a number of changes to existing law and regulations to address the problem of illegal robocalls under the TCA, many of which are intended to defraud. These changes would, for example, expand the definition of what a robocall is, increase penalties for illegal spoofing, and improve protection of seniors from robocall scams. As yet, none of these proposals has become law. On August 19, 2016, a 60-day Robocall "Strike Force" convened, culminating in the testing of a Do Not Originate (DNO) Registry to stop unwanted calls from reaching customers. The intent of the registry is to block fraudulent calls before they can reach a consumer. With the FCC's permission, the Strike Force performed a trial of this concept. The trial was considered a success by the Strike Force and the FCC, reducing calls associated with one particular scam by about 90% in the third quarter of 2016. In November 2017, the FCC promulgated rules on the creation and use of the DNO Registry. The new rules explicitly allow service providers to block calls from two categories of number: (1) numbers that the subscriber has asked to be blocked, such as "in-bound only" numbers (numbers that should not ever originate a call), and (2) unassigned numbers, as the use of such a number indicates that the calling party is intending to defraud a consumer. Notwithstanding the efforts above, based on their long history, scammers appear determined to continue their attempts to defraud consumers. Robocalls make these efforts easier. The FTC asserts that law enforcement on its own cannot completely solve the problem of robocalls. Technological solutions, including robust call-blocking technology, likely will also be required. The DNO Registry, a technology solution that has been proven to significantly decrease robocalls, is supported by most stakeholders, but concerns remain with legitimate telemarketers who fear it may negatively impact them. The FCC intended to address these concerns in 2018. The impacts of the FTC initiatives on fraudulent robocalls, and the resulting impacts in the telemarketing industry, may continue to be oversight issues for Congress. In the 115th Congress, three hearings have been held, and 13 bills aimed at curtailing robocalls and protecting consumers have been introduced. Most of these bills are focused on the larger issue of spoofing, as well as curtailing robocalls for debt collection and politically oriented messages; two bills are aimed at protecting seniors from predatory robocalls intended to defraud them.