Archives for September 2019

Editor’s note: This article is provided through a partnership between insideARM and Squire Patton Boggs LLP, which provides a steady stream of timely, insightful and entertaining takes on TCPAWorld.com of the ever-evolving, never-a-dull-moment Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Squire Patton Boggs LLP—and all insideARM articles—are protected by copyright. All rights are reserved. 

Although there have been a couple of notable exceptions, most multi-million dollar TCPA settlements go sailing through approval. When they do get hung up, it is usually because the dollars aren’t quite multi-million enough.

But in a new decision out of Washington a district court has rejected a class settlement because the class definition was not based on clearly-defined objective criteria—specifically, it included reference to the TCPA’s amorphous “automated telephone dialing system” definition.

In Pine v. A Place for Mom, C17-1826 TSZ, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164560 (W.D. Wa. Sept. 25, 2019) the Court was presented with a $6MM settlement for approval, representing a potential resolution of ATDS telemarketing calls regarding a retirement home. The class definition included individuals that had received calls from a device: “characterized by the plaintiff as an automated telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice.” In the Court’s view this was a non-starter: “the Court declines to define a class using a disputed term of art. The proposed class definition, which relies solely on plaintiff’s characterization of an ATDS, rather than an ascertainable fact, lacks the clarity required to determine who is in the class.”

Indeed, the definition adopted in this case was very unusual, and makes me wonder what in the world Defendant was thinking. What good is a release tied to the characterizations of a different Plaintiff regarding whether equipment is an ATDS? Seems to me like the Court bailed the Defendant out, but what do I know.

The settlement was denied on other grounds as well, however. Interestingly the court found that the claims made process for the settlement was per se unacceptable because the pro rata payment to opted in class members creates an incentive to keep the number of opt ins low. This is an odd holding as claims made settlements are very common in TCPA class actions where identifying injured class members is often-times impossible.

The Court also took issue with class counsel’s failure to identify an upper limit of fees and costs for notification purposes, and questioned whether the Alzheimer’s Research Foundation was an acceptable cy pres recipient.

As insideARM predicted, yesterday’s House Fin. Servs. Committee Hearing was a lively debate regarding debt collection in general, with a special focus on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB’s) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). It will come as no surprise that there was a healthy dose of strong, partisan opinions in the room.

Witnesses included [click names for PDFs of each of the witnesses’ testimony]:

• John Bedard (Bedard Law Group)
• Sarah Auchterlonie (Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck)
• Dalié Jiménez (University of California, Irvine School of Law)
• April Kuehnhoff (National Consumer Law Center)
• Bhairavi Desai (New York Taxi Workers Alliance)
• Dr. Cassandra Gould (Quinn Chapel A.M.E. Church and Missouri Faith Voices)
• Honorable Rohit Chopra (Federal Trade Commission)

Below are summaries of some of the significant topics highlighted.

Electronic Communications

Electronic communications were front-and-center of the conversation, specifically as they relate to the proposed requirements outlined in the NPRM. Auchterlonie mentioned the many consumer benefits of a meaningful conversation with debt collectors, including the ability to settle for less than the full balance and to enter into assistance programs for those experiencing hardships. Auchterlonie and Rep. McHenry (R-NC) both acknowledged that without electronic communications, there is a barrier to reaching younger generations of consumers who prefer electronic communications channels and don’t answer the phone.

As noted by Bedard, electronic communications are more secure and more likely to prevent third-party disclosure. In fact, Chopra mentioned the issue of third-party disclosure is present when a communication is sent to the wrong email address or phone number, but when pressed by McHenry, he implied that a phone number provided by a consumer should be safe.

Consumer advocates, such as Kuehnhoff, and certain Committee members, such as Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) repeated the common saying that the NPRM will allow debt collectors to send unlimited text messages and emails to consumers. 

Rep. Zeldin (R-NY) described this as opening “the floodgates to abusive emails and text messages from the debt collection industry.” Auchterlonie reminded the Committee that, “The text of the FDCPA prohibits abusive communications on all communications—not just telephone, but all communication. So we’ve got that inherently built into the statute. But in addition to that, we also have the specific rules the CFPB implemented that require opt-out mechanisms, and these are the same sorts of opt-out mechanisms you get with commercial and store emails and so on. There’s an opportunity for consumers to choose the medium in which they communicate with their collection agency.”

When asked by Rep. Rose (R-TN) if there was ever a scenario where a consumer in collections would benefit from a call or email, Bedard answered in the affirmative:  “Yes, especially for those consumers who may not even know that they have an account that is delinquent or in default. A text message, email, or a phone call is welcome to those consumers who are concerned about their accounts and they are interested in keeping abreast of what’s happening on their credit.”

Time-Barred Debt

There was a lively discussion about the ability to collect time-barred debts, referenced as “zombie debt” throughout the hearing. Many of the consumer advocates were strongly against the collection of this debt. The strongest voice in the room on the issue was Jiménez, who argued it is often the creditor—not the debt collector—responsible for the problems with time-barred debts due to poor documentation management when debts are sold.

Jiménez also mentioned that the law is currently too complicated. It is difficult to determine who can repay and who can’t. There are exemption laws and nuances to statute of limitations laws on the state-level that add complexity. The biggest problem, according to Jiménez, is that in order to take advantage of these rights, consumers have to actually show up in court, which they often do not.

Jiménez advocated for a uniform national statute of limitations for the collection of debt and enforcement of a judgment, each being 7 years long.

Rep. Garcia (D-IL) later spent most of his five-minute speaking time on the topic of “zombie debt”—specifically his concerns about the phrase “known or should have known” as used in the NPRM. In response, Kuehnhoff’s position is that debt collectors have “a strict liability standard for being held responsible, rather than a ‘you should or should have known.'” Kuehnhoff sees “known or should have known” as a faulty standard by which to regulate time-barred debt: “If there is documentation that the debt collector didn’t bother to obtain…that would have shown that the debt was time-barred before they sued, they should be held responsible because they should have known because they should have obtained that documentation.”

Cottage Industry of Plaintiffs’ Counsel and Regulation by Enforcement

Industry representatives—as well as certain members of the Committee—called a spade a spade and highlighted the issues caused by the cottage industry of plaintiffs’ counsel and regulation by enforcement.

Auchterlonie and Bedard called out how debt collectors are fearful to use newer channels of communication or make other adjustments in their practices, for fear of endless litigation by a cottage industry of plaintiffs’ counsel. Bedard mentioned that currently there is a patchwork of requirements due to jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction interpretations of the law, meaning neither debt collectors nor consumers have a uniform standard to expect. Auchterlonie stated that her clients don’t write letters for the least sophisticated consumer; they write letters for the sophisticated plaintiff’s lawyer. When asked whether the $1,000 statutory damages award in the FDCPA was enough, Auchterlonie called out that plaintiff’s counsel are demanding much more than that.

Bedard referenced how regulation by enforcement is a wrong and illegal practice.

Editor’s Note: One common misconception is that ending regulation by enforcement ends enforcement actions against bad actors. That is not the case. Regulation by enforcement is the specific practice of a regulator punishing a company for something and writing rules through enforcement actions for something that was not clarified as being wrong or illegal prior to the enforcement action. In other words, punishment without notice.

[article_ad]

Debt Collection Impact on Access to Credit

One common thread emphasized by Auchterlonie was the impact of debt collection on consumer access to credit, stating that without healthy collections, available credit decreases. There is a clear relationship between impaired debts and access to credit. This is particularly true for small businesses, who rely on the ability to collect accounts in order to have the cash flow to keep the doors open and continue offering services today for payment in the future. Many small businesses rely on third-party debt collectors because they do not have the infrastructure in-house to collect.

Auchterlonie also mentioned that the consumers most in need of credit are the first to see an impact of decreased access to credit. Jiménez countered that these consumers—who have the lowest likelihood to repay their obligations—arguably should be prevented from accessing credit since they are the ones who fall into the most problematic situations if they cannot pay.

insideARM Perspective

One interesting thing that came from yesterday’s hearing is how blatantly certain Committee members and consumer advocates categorize all debt collection—including practices that have passed muster in the courts—as “predatory.” For example, the majority of states and courts permit the collection of time-barred debt so long as there are clear disclosures about the impact of payments or acknowledgments of the debt, yet it’s “predatory.” There is already a natural limit on how many communications—electronic or not—a debt collector may send due to the prohibition against harassment and abuse, yet the common echo yesterday was that lack of a cap on electronic communications will allegedly allow endless emails and texts, which would be “predatory.”

The other interesting observation is that many consumer advocates attributed the CFPB’s NPRM to Kraninger, when in fact—as mentioned by Auchterlonie—the rule was many years in the making under multiple directors.

insideARM spoke with Bedard about his overall impression of the hearing. He said:

The Committee was clearly divided on the appropriate legislative approach to solving perceived problems in the collection industry and on whether the Bureau’s proposed rules go far enough to accomplish that goal.  Nonetheless, there are many Representatives who understand the issues, appreciate the challenges, and are looking toward a fair and balanced approach to regulation.

How much authority does the President of the United States have over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) and its director? This question has seen a steady rise and fall up the judicial ladder, but it appears we may soon get a final answer from the U.S. Supreme Court in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, Docket No. 19-7. The Supreme Court has not yet granted a writ of certiorari—its permission to hear the case—but it seems this particular case might stand a better chance than prior cases due to its focused, single-question request.

insideARM previously published an article summarizing the Seila petition and all of the different amicus briefs filed supporting the Supreme Court’s review of the case. Most recently, the CFPB filed its brief on the petition for writ of certiorari, which supports the petitioner’s argument that the Bureau’s current structure is problematic.

The opening of the discussion in the CFPB’s brief states that “[t]his case presents a suitable vehicle for the Court’s review of the question.” The brief outlines that the President’s removal power for the Director is currently similar to the removal power the President has over an FTC commissioner, falling into a narrow exception laid out by the Supreme Court in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935). However, this exception—according to the brief—applies to multi-member commissions and should not apply to a single-headed agency that “lacks the critical structural attributes that were thought to justify the ‘independent’ status for the multi-member commission.” To summarize, two of the arguments presented were that a single-headed agency better mirrors an executive structure, rather than the judicial structure of a multi-member commission; and there is a higher risk that a single-headed agency could move forward with conduct that is inconsistent with the President’s executive policy, whereas a multi-member commission requires “deliberation and collaboration.”

The Supreme Court’s 2019 term begins on October 7, which means the Court’s answer on whether it will hear the case should be coming soon.

One of the most oft-cited circuit court decisions, if not the most oft-cited, is Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981), in which the newly formed Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all prior precedent of the former Fifth Circuit, including many landmark Civil Rights rulings. The case continues to be of major importance 38 years later, from continued application of Civil Rights rulings to routine matters of circuit procedure.

Marks v. Crunch does not appear destined for the same fate, as two more district courts in Florida and Texas dismissed TCPA cases for lack of a random or sequential number generator. See Johnson v. Capital One Servs., No. 18-cv-62058, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159633 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 16, 2019); Reed v. Quicken Loans, No. 3:18-cv-3377, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159935 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 3, 2019).

In Johnson, one of the defendant’s agents told the plaintiff on a recorded conversation that the defendant contacted her via an “auto dialer.” But the Southern District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, because a stray statement on the use of an “auto dialer” does not prove that the defendant’s phone system had the capacity to generate random or sequential numbers and then dial them. The court also held that even if a allegations of a “click,” “pause,” or “dead air” are enough to survive a motion to dismiss, they are not enough to survive summary judgment.

Reed is significant in that it is the second Texas federal court in a few months to hold that a random or sequential number generator is required for a system to be an ATDS. But unlike Adams, the Johnson court actually granted the motion to dismiss, as the plaintiff relied solely on legal conclusions rather than allegations of fact. The court thus reaffirmed both the statutory definition and the post-Iqbal need to allege actual facts, not just bare legal conclusions to survive a motion to dismiss.

There you have it, folks. Two more district courts reject Marks a year after it was decided and apply the plain, unambiguous statutory definition of an ATDS. As always, we will continue monitoring ATDS-related developments, and keep you informed.

—

Editor’s note: This article is provided through a partnership between insideARM and Squire Patton Boggs LLP, which provides a steady stream of timely, insightful and entertaining takes on TCPAWorld.com of the ever-evolving, never-a-dull-moment Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Squire Patton Boggs LLP—and all insideARM articles—are protected by copyright. All rights are reserved. 

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. — LiveVox Inc., a leading provider of cloud contact center solutions, announced that LiveVox General Counsel, Mark Mallah, will join Michele Shuster of Mac Murray and Shuster LLP, and Reid Houser of Sitel Operating Corporation, to provide insight into the current regulatory landscape and how it is impacting contact center engagement strategies in today’s digital age.  LiveVox will also share how its Human Call Initiator (HCI) is providing contact centers with a successful approach to overcoming difficult TCPA compliance challenges, with attendees at the two-day event. 

On the event, Mark Mallah, General Counsel, LiveVox, states, “I am excited to be joining industry leaders at this dynamic event hosted by PACE.  As new legal and regulatory developments continue to impact contact center operations, it is important to stay ahead of the curve on compliance-focused strategies.  We are proud to sponsor this important event and I look forward to sharing more on this topic with attendees this week.”  

About the event:

• Event: 2019 PACE Washington Summit

• Session: Compliance Officers Forum: Updates on Federal and State Legislation Affecting the Industry

• Date/Time: September 23rd at 1:15pm ET

• Location: InterContinental Washington DC

• To register: click here.

[article_ad]

About LiveVox, Inc.

LiveVox is a leading provider of enterprise cloud contact center solutions, managing more than 12+ billion interactions a year across a multichannel environment. With over 15 years of pure cloud expertise, we empower contact center leaders to drive effective engagement strategies on the consumer’s channel of choice. Our leading-edge risk mitigation and security capabilities help clients quickly adapt to a changing business environment. With new features released quarterly, LiveVox remains at the forefront of cloud contact center innovation. Supported by over 450 employees and rapidly growing, we are headquartered in San Francisco with offices in Atlanta, Bangalore, and Colombia. To learn more, visit www.LiveVox.com or email us at Info@LiveVox.com.

About Professional Association of Customer Engagement (PACE)

The Professional Association for Customer Engagement (PACE) is the only non-profit trade association dedicated exclusively to the advancement of companies that engage with customers via the contact center.  We promote our members’ ability to provide outstanding customer service and sales solutions delivered via omni channel communication including voice, email, chat, text and social media.

ROCKVILLE, Md. — On September 18, 2019, the Consumer Relations Consortium (CRC) filed its comment on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for debt collection. The NPRM set out to provide clarity to the outdated Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and bring debt collection from the era of fax machines and telegrams to the modern era of electronic communications. CRC’s comment provides a comprehensive analysis of the Bureau’s proposal, covering what it got right, issues overlooked, and proposed amendments to make the final rule a workable solution.

“CRC members strive to collect the right debt, from the right person, in the right way and our comment reflects this common principle,” said Stephanie Eidelman, CRC Executive Director. 

CRC’s comment contains a detailed analysis—and proposed amendments where applicable—on specific issues in a section-by-section overview (e.g., email and text messaging procedures, call frequency limits, validation requirements, and the model validation notice). The analysis ties into a common set of themes:

• Establishing clear expectations and guardrails for the host of activities associated with debt collection benefits consumers and the collection industry alike.
• Safe harbors foster consistency and predictability, reducing consumer uncertainty about the debt collection process.
• Certain parts of the debt collection process should produce a consistent consumer experience regardless of the type of debt. 
• Consumers should have the ability to control how they communicate with debt collectors.
• Rules should protect the least sophisticated and most vulnerable consumers without limiting those in the mainstream.
• Technology has evolved—and continues to evolve—in ways that are out of the debt collector’s control.
• Information overload is not unique to a consumer’s experience in debt collection, and the overarching goal of any processes and disclosures should be to “be clear and brief.”
• Debt collectors and creditors are partners in the recovery process, and any regulatory rules should reflect this.

Some of the proposals offered by CRC include establishing safe harbor reasonable processing times for consumer requests similar to those outlined in the CAN-SPAM Act, a “right to cure” similar to that of California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and an alternate model validation notice structure that includes safe harbor text blocks that can be moved around the form as necessary for the debt collector to comply with the requirements of its creditors and vendors. 

Led by an editorial review committee, CRC members and their partners in the iA Innovation Council collaborated in the preparation of this comment. The editorial committee included the following: Leslie Bender (BCA Financial Services, Inc.), Andrew Blady (NCB Management Services, Inc.) Michael Kraft (The CCS Companies), Katie Grzechnik Neill (the iA Institute), and John Rossman (Moss & Barnett). 

You can download the final CRC comment letter here.

About the Consumer Relations Consortium

The Consumer Relations Consortium (CRC) is an organization comprised of more than 60 national companies representing the diverse ecosystem of debt collection including creditors, data/technology providers and compliance-oriented debt collectors that are larger market participants. Established in 2013, CRC is evolving the debt collection paradigm by engaging stakeholders—including consumer advocates, Federal and State regulators, academic and industry thought leaders, creditors and debt collectors—and challenging them to move beyond talking points and focus on fashioning real-world solutions that actually improve the consumer experience. CRC’s collaborative and candid approach is unique in the market.  CRC is managed by The iA Institute.

Learn more at www.crconsortium.org.

[article_ad]

About the iA institute

The iA institute (iA) is a media company that produces handcrafted news, events, and education for the consumer and commercial debt industry. The iA team believes that the value of your investment in our content should be undeniable, so we thoughtfully design everything we do with a focus on the details that make a difference. iA initiatives bring a range of stakeholders to the table in candid and intimate environments to inform, to collaborate, to innovate, and to make profitable connections. The iA institute, under the name insideARM LLC, is a certified woman-owned and woman-controlled business (WBE).

Learn more at www.theiainstitute.com. 

Yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) announced that its consumer complaint database will remain published and accessible to the public. However, the Bureau plans to include certain enhancements to put the data into perspective, as a result of input from last year’s Request for Information regarding its controversial database (which, as mentioned in the current announcement, yielded almost 26,000 comments).

The enhancements will include certain front-end information for consumers before submitting their complaints. Such information includes answers to common financial questions as well as information about how to contact the company directly to answer specific questions.

For users of the database, the Bureau plans to provide information and disclosures that help put the complaint data in context. For example, the database will “more prominently display disclosures making it clear that the Consumer Complaint Database is not a statistical sample of consumers’ experiences in the marketplace.”

The Bureau also plans on expanding tools for analyzing the data within the database, such as including dynamic visualization tools and features that will allow aggregated analysis. The announcement explains these tools.

[article_ad]

insideARM Perspective

The Bureau is answering some of the more significant concerns raised by companies about the consumer complaint database. Specifically, companies are concerned that the CFPB lumps together general inquiries or requests with complaints and the fact that, when looking at debt collector’s interactions with consumers as a whole, complaints make up a very small minority of such interactions. Unaddressed, these two issues resulted in the Bureau’s period complaint snapshot report painting a slanted, doomsday-like picture of the industry. We will see whether future snapshot reports address these issues, but at least the complaint portal itself will contain certain tools that aim to solve these problems.

CINCINNATI, Ohio — Slovin & Associates has announced that Brad Council, an attorney with the creditor’s rights law firm, has been promoted to partner. Since joining the law firm in 2007, Council’s practice has covered all areas of commercial litigation, creditor’s rights including compliance with federal and state consumer credit and collection laws, and landlord-tenant matters. He regularly represents and advises national banking associations, medical service providers, debt-buyers and other credit grantors on creditor’s rights and account receivables management. Council is adept at helping clients maintain compliance with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), UDAAP, and similar state law acts and regulations. Additionally, he has also represented manufacturers, sub-contractors and material suppliers involving actions under the Uniform Commercial Code relating to sales, leases and secured transactions. 

“It is my privilege to announce that Brad has been promoted to partner with Slovin & Associates,” said founding partner Randy Slovin. “He is an exceptional lawyer who has continuously achieved results for our clients over his 12-year tenure with the firm.”

In addition to his law practice, Council serves as chairman of the Midwest Region for the Commercial Law League of America creditor’s rights organization and is a member of the Executive Council of the Commercial Law League’s Young Members Section. Council is also co-chair of the Ohio Legislative Committee for Receivables Management Association International, the nation’s premier trade association for companies that purchase receivables on the secondary market. 

Council holds a Doctor of Law from the Salmon P. Chase College of Law at Northern Kentucky University (Highland Heights, Ky.), and a Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts and Sciences/ Criminal Justice from the University of Illinois at Chicago (Chicago, Ill.). 

[article_ad]

About Slovin & Associates

Slovin & Associates law firm aims to achieve the highest rating for creditor’s rights law firms in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana by obtaining expeditious and cost-efficient results in a professional and low-maintenance environment for our clients in the fields of collections, commercial and consumer litigation, bankruptcy, leasing and landlord-tenant law, and Fair Debt consulting.

Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released its latest edition of Supervisory Highlights. While debt collection contained one reference, a large portion of the Highlights revolved around the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and credit reporting disputes.  

In regards to debt collection, the report focused on the collection of interest. According to the report, “[o]ne or more debt collectors claimed and collected from consumers, interest not authorized by the underlying contracts between the debt collectors and the creditors.” The entity (or entities) in question will conduct a full accounting of the problematic interest collected—including for accounts already resolved accounts—for remediation to consumers.

Another observation in the report—against a creditor, but which is relevant to debt collection—was using false or misleading statements in order to recover an account. Specifically, the Bureau noted that a credit card issuer threatened to repossess a consumer’s vehicle or foreclose on a consumer’s home while collecting on a credit card account. Such statements, according to the report, could mislead a consumer since the issuer does not repossess vehicles or foreclose on homes for such account, such practices go against its internal policies.

Credit reporting had its fair share of real estate within the report, with many of the observations revolving around disputes. The Bureau’s examiners found the following issues:

• Failing to investigate disputes within the timeframe proscribed by the FCRA, or at times not investigating disputes altogether.
• Failing to report results of dispute investigations to all credit reporting companies.
• Failing to promptly correct previously-furnished information that an investigation found to be inaccurate.
• Failing to mark the account as disputed after receiving a consumer’s dispute.
• Failure to have adequate policies procedures regarding the integrity of the information furnished to the credit bureaus.

[article_ad]

The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Consumer Advisory Committee met yesterday with an agenda that included “Consideration of Robocall Blocking Recommendation.” Brian Young of the National Consumers League, a co-chair of the Robocall Blocking Working Group, made the presentation.

The Committee’s unanimous recommendations called on the Commission to ensure that consumers are clearly informed of what types of calls will be blocked and will be able to easily identify erroneously blocked calls.

As for the Critical Calls List – the list of calls that consumers might want to ensure are not blocked so long as authenticated – the Committee adopted a narrow recommendation, focused on emergency and government-related communications – which was the FCC’s “starting point” in its ongoing Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CG Docket No. 17-59. The FCC had also asked for comment on whether other types of calls, such as calls from schools, doctors, alarm companies, flight alerts, recall centers, and fraud and weather alerts should be included. Some of these options had been supported by those who had commented in the rulemaking proceeding. No such support by the Committee.

Although the schedule had allocated a half hour for the presentation and discussion, the Committee unanimously adopted the following recommendations without question or discussion:

• Telecommunications providers should clearly disclose to consumers what types of calls will be blocked and that there is a risk that legitimate calls will be blocked. 

• Any blocking program should have clear opt out instructions and consumers should be able to manage their blocking preferences through an easy to use online portal, through customer service representatives on the phone and in-person at retail stores.

• Consumers should be notified when a call is blocked and have access to a log of all blocked calls.

• Consumers should be able to easily identify erroneously blocked calls.

• The FCC should work with the Federal Trade Commission, state attorneys general and consumer groups to educate the public about the opt-out program.

• The Critical Calls list (calls that will not be blocked) should remain narrow and only involve government numbers and focus on emergency communications, government benefits, and government services. The FCC should review the list periodically and keep in mind that the larger the list becomes, the higher the likelihood of erroneous blocking or fraud.

These recommendations will go to the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau and Commission itself, which are considering, among other things, the Critical Calls List issue, in the ongoing rulemaking.

—

Editor’s note: This article is provided through a partnership between insideARM and Squire Patton Boggs LLP, which provides a steady stream of timely, insightful and entertaining takes on TCPAWorld.com of the ever-evolving, never-a-dull-moment Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Squire Patton Boggs LLP—and all insideARM articles—are protected by copyright. All rights are reserved.