Last week The Hill published a post by opinion contributor Beau Brunson, director of policy and regulatory affairs at Consumer’s Research. Titled, “The CFPB’s debt collection proposal empowers consumers,” is the most balanced public statement I’ve seen from a representative of a consumer group.

[article_ad]

According to its website, the mission of Consumer’s Research, a non-profit founded in 1929, is to increase the knowledge and understanding of issues, policies, products, and services of concern to consumers and to promote the freedom to act on that knowledge and understanding. In 1981 the organization expanded from its original product focus to one that “considers the effects laws, regulations, and government programs have on consumers.” The group says it is committed to unbiased, fact-based analysis.

This is very interesting to me. Working to provide input into the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) process of debt collection rulemaking over the last six years, I have often wrestled with whether regulations should be driven by the needs of outliers or the needs of the majority. I say this without judgment that the word “outlier” may seem to imply.

Part of my job is to facilitate dialogue between industry and consumer groups. Real dialogue, off the record, not in front of an audience. This is the only way to get beyond talking points – on both sides (something there is precious little of in our society as a whole, not just as it relates to debt collection…but I digress). I have greatly appreciated the willingness of all parties to come to this table. After hosting many of these dialogue sessions, I’ve come to appreciate that, by definition, 100% of the debt collection cases consumer advocates see are negative. After all, why would someone who had a positive experience seek out an advocate? So, I can see why many consumer groups feel strongly that any rules should strictly limit contact with consumers.

On the other hand, legitimate debt collectors see a full range of circumstances, including the vast majority of consumers — who want to resolve accounts, a smaller percentage of consumers — whose intention is to game the system, and those who – for a variety of reasons — truly can’t pay.

This different view of the landscape is a real disconnect which has led to a very complicated situation for those tasked with sorting it out — and, in my humble opinion, is in part why debt collection rulemaking has taken so many years.

Regulations should absolutely protect those most vulnerable; they also should not create an undue impediment for the majority.  This is a balance most consumer advocates or legislators will not say out loud in public.

Brunson, however, articulated this idea in writing and pushed past the talking points to explain how he views the proposed rules. He notes that in a recent hearing where CFPB Director Kathleen Kraninger testified, “numerous members of Congress expressed deep concern that the proposal would neglect consumer interests in favor of debt collectors.” Indeed, this is a widely-reported position. He continues, “Rhetoric, however, doesn’t match reality. The CFPB’s proposal empowers borrowers by putting them in control of how their debt is collected. This is good policy, and consumers should benefit from it.”

He goes on to debunk a number of assumptions about how the proposed rule would bring untold harassment down on consumers. He also notes,

“Unintended consequences are the scourge of consumer protection regulations. Typically, we can trace their origin to a narrow understanding of consumer harm, one that focuses too much on the immediate loss of money or time, while neglecting other kinds of harm.”

The full article is worth a read.

In the spirit of the holiday, I’ll send thanks to Mr. Brunson for his willingness to step out and share some unpopular, yet balanced, facts about this complex and nuanced topic.

Well it has been a long time coming but Congress just released the compromise bill that appears highly likely to pass both chambers and will modify the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) to make it even more important.

The TCPA has long afforded a private right of action allowing consumers to recover up to $1,500.00 per call. The new bill, however, exalts the TCPA further, strengthening the FCC’s right to pursue penalties against violators and introduces new requirements around anti-spoofing authentication frameworks and require annual reports to Congress from the FCC regarding the scope of robocall complaints.

It also creates an interagency working group that will review whether additional TCPA enforcement by regulators should be authorized, including a grant of enforcement authority to the CFPB, the DOJ, and other agencies.

The biggest news (to be thankful for!):

• The bill does not appear to include any new criminal enforcement provisions but it does require certain reporting to the DOJ regarding fraudulent calls for possible prosecution under existing laws;
• The bill does NOT modify the definition of ATDS and it does not appear to mandate any deadline for the FCC to rule on the pending TCPA Public Notice proceeding as the House bill would have done;
• The bill does NOT define the phrase “called party” as the original House bill would have done; and
• The bill does NOT deem contractual consent revocable, as the original House bill would have done.

[article_ad]

We here at TCPAWorld.com will digest over the weekend and provide definitive guidance early next week.  For now, however, you can find the text of the bill here: COMPROMISE TRACED ACT

—

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. 

insideARM has been following the lawsuit filed by Ad Astra Recovery Services, Inc. against Lexington Law alleging the firm is engaged in “in a fraudulent credit-repair scheme designed to bombard debt collectors with false credit dispute letters with the intention of deceiving debt collectors…and frustrating their efforts to collect legitimate debts.” There have been some developments related to discovery in this case that are worth noting.

[article_ad]

As a brief recap, Ad Astra filed this suit in June 2018. Back in April of this year, the court compelled Lexington Law to produce communications from its clients that resulted in the generation of the credit dispute letters that were to be sent to Ad Astra under the consumer’s signature. The court ultimately found that these communications were not protected by the attorney-client privilege.

The first development is that at a discovery conference, the court denied Lexington Law’s motion to quash and motion for a protective order—both are tools to prevent providing certain information in the litigation discovery process. Not too much should be read into this denial, as it was based purely on failure to follow court rules rather than on the merits, and thus the court allowed Lexington Law to re-file its requests.

The second development is that Ad Astra filed a motion for sanctions against Lexington Law for the spoliation of evidence, which is a fancy legal phrase for the destruction of evidence due to negligence or bad faith. The motion alleges that Lexington Law knew that it had a duty to preserve the evidence—in this case, copies of the credit dispute letters it sent—when this and another lawsuit were filed against it as well as under Utah’s Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys.  According to the motion:

Defendants maintain that copies of the 594,117 letters1 sent to Plaintiff do not exist, despite witness testimony and Defendant documents that reflect otherwise. Given Defendants’ current representations that these letters no longer exist, the only logical conclusion is that the letters were destroyed in bad faith to prevent Plaintiffs from establishing that Defendants prepared and sent the letters. 

The court has a hearing on the motion for sanctions scheduled for December 3. insideARM will follow the progress and provide updates.

insideARM Perspective

The pressure is on Lexington Law for its practices, and not just from this lawsuit. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) filed a lawsuit against Lexington Law back in May of this year for problematic marketing practices. Lexington Law moved for dismissal of the CFPB suit, arguing that the firm is not liable for acts of third-parties (the ones who engaged in the marketing practices alleged in the suit) and also arguing that the CFPB’s structure is unconstitutional. The hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for December 13.

In a separate lawsuit filed by The CBE Companies and RGS Financial, a jury recently found that Lexington Law’s scheme of mailing mass volumes of credit dispute letters was fraudulent. The jury awarded to the debt collectors a little over half a million dollars in damages and expenses, as well as a whopping $1,948,317 in exemplary damages. That case is still awaiting the court’s entry of judgment against Lexington Law.

Overall, not a great outlook for Lexington Law, but some justice for debt collectors who have been flooded by fraudulent credit dispute letters from this and other credit repair organizations.

As the student loan crisis progresses, fingers are pointed in all directions to determine who should be doing more to solve the problem. Programs meant to aid borrowers seem to fail spectacularly, such as the public service loan forgiveness program (PSLF), under which only 1,216 out of 102,051 applications for loan forgiveness have been granted—roughly 1.2%. As borrowers look to regulators for help, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Department of Education (ED) have had a hard time determining which one is in charge. 

[article_ad]

Student Debt Crisis, a nonprofit student loan organization, places the onus on the CFPB and ED to undo the mess. The organization filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory relief by asking the court, among other things, to order vacate the CFPB’s position that it only has supervisory authority over private student loan servicers and order the CFPB to resume its supervision over federal student loan servicers. The suit seeks no monetary damages, only action.

According to the lawsuit, despite the CFPB’s mandate under the Dodd-Frank Act to regulate and supervise larger market participant student loan services, the CFPB allegedly issued a silent supervisory rule where it decided that it only has supervisory powers over private student loan servicers, not federal student loan servicers. This “new rule” allegedly seeks to unlawfully amend the CFPB’s Student Loan Servicing Supervision Rule that was obtained through a public rulemaking process. 

The lawsuit is critical of the CFPB’s appointment of Robert Cameron as its new student loan ombudsman. Cameron is a former executive at a federal student loan servicing company that was recently the subject of a congressional inquiry about its mismanagement of the PSLF program. This appointment follows the very vocal resignation of Seth Frotman, who resigned from the role due to his belief that the CFPB was failing student loan borrowers, and a year-long vacancy in the role. 

The lawsuit also calls for the CFPB and the Department of Education to timely issue a Memorandum of Understanding regarding their coordination on student loan issues, which is required by Dodd-Frank.

insideARM will follow the progress of this lawsuit and provide updates as they occur.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) confirmed in its Fall 2019 Semiannual Regulatory Agenda that it intends to take final action on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for debt collection in 2020. The most recent edition of the Regulatory Agenda, which is not yet available on the Federal Register, was posted on the CFPB’s website.

According to the NPRM’s Federal Register tracking page, the docket lists an ominous “Other” scheduled for “01/00/2020.” We’ve seen this type of “non-date” in the Federal Register from the CFPB before as we awaited the release date of the NPRM. 

The Fall 2019 Regulatory Agenda also describes the CFPB’s testing of time-barred debt disclosures, for which the CFPB submitted a notice in February of this year. The Regulatory Agenda states that the testing was not the focus of the NPRM, but that agency will determine whether it needs to supplement the NPRM after the testing is concluded. Any further supplementation to the NPRM would have a comment period.

insideARM Perspective

The road to the final debt collection rule has been long, and it’s surreal to think that we are almost at the end of it. With that said, it’s hard not to take the timeline with a grain of salt. As mentioned above, we’ve seen the ominous “non-date” in the Federal Register and heard many notices from the CPFB claiming that the NPRM would be released at a certain point, only to have it be delayed multiple times. 

[article_ad]

It would be ideal if the final rule was issued earlier in 2020 in order to avoid overturning through the Congressional Review Act, which might be made more likely depending on the outcome of the 2020 election. After all, it wasn’t too long ago that we saw the death blow to the CFPB’s Arbitration Rule through the Congressional Review Act shortly after the shift of power in government following the 2016 election. If Congress invokes the Congressional Review Act, it not only stops the proposed rule from being enacted, but it also prevents the agency from creating a substantially similar rule without Congress’s approval. If invoked for the debt collection NPRM, this could mean endless uncertainty for the industry. Clear rules of the road are better than no rules of the road.

As we reported last week, the TCPA ringless voicemail Defendant involved in the big Saunders suit has gone on the offensive and moved for summary judgment in the suit. If the motion were to be granted it would be a remarkable turn around from last July when the Court issued a stunning ruling concluding VoApp’s DirectDrop product delivered a “call” for TCPA purposes.

Well, on Friday the Defendant upped the ante further–moving to strike the report of Plaintiff’s expert to the effect that ringless voicemails trigger TCPA coverage. The motion can be found here: Motion to Strike

The motion raises several grounds assailing the Plaintiff’s expert, but the primary attack is a very basic one– the expert never performed an evaluation of the DirectDrop ringless voicemail platform to begin with! While it is remarkable to consider that Plaintiff’s expert is offering an opinion regarding the operation of the platform contrary to a declaration of the inventor of the technology–David King–the fact that the expert offers that opinion without reviewing the platform from a technical perspective is, well, weird. And as the motion points out, this is not the first time this expert has been dinged for failing to review technology before offering an expert opinion–the motion lists five instances of “criticisms” from federal judges regarding this expert engaging in this precise practice. Yikes.

The motion also challenges that the expert “offers testimony that is not helpful as it is designed to inject his own personal experiences and beliefs into the case” and that his report otherwise lacks a reliable methodology.

We’ll let you know how this turns out, but the VoApps team is really swinging for the fences now.

—

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. 

While the industry begins its shift to digital communication channels, telephone calls are still one of the primary methods of reaching consumers about their past due accounts. Unfortunately, due to several factors—the advent of call labeling technology, rules against third-party disclosure, and regulators’ warnings about answering unknown calls—consumers have become skeptical of telephone calls, even if they are from legitimate companies. 

Recognizing this issue, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released a video to help educate consumers about legitimate debt collection calls and how to differentiate them from debt collection scams. The three-minute-long video acts out an example of a fraudulent debt collection call and notes several details about what a legitimate debt collector would do in the hypothetical scenario. 

The video points out that, unlike a scammer, legitimate debt collectors would:

• Not threaten to have someone arrested for not paying a debt.
• Provide information about the debt, including how much is owed and to whom and would generally send such information to the consumer in writing. 
• Want the consumer to know who they are and how to contact them by providing the company’s address and a callback number.
• Help the consumer determine the best way to pay off their debts and arrange payments.

insideARM Perspective

One other difference between a legitimate debt collector and a scammer that was not pointed out in the video—but was readily apparent in the hypothetical call—is that the outset of a legitimate debt collection call will usually begin with the collector authenticating the identity of the consumer. To do this, debt collectors typically ask for and match certain identifying information in order to ensure the person they are speaking to is the right person before they can reveal anything about the purpose of the call. The fact that the scammer in the hypothetical call went right into providing information about the debt before requesting any sort of verification raises a flag that the call is not legitimate.

[article_ad]

There are also nuanced differences between the type of information a legitimate debt collector and a scammer would ask for. For example, a legitimate debt collector would typically only ask for the last 4 digits of a social security number, whereas scammers would ask for the full social security number. 

Educating consumers is an important task of the CFPB, and the Bureau took a tremendous step with this video to help consumers spot legitimate debt collectors (and, more importantly, spot scammers). This effort is appreciated and applauded by the industry. If the CFPB was interested in suggestions, a great follow-up video that would be extremely beneficial to consumers and industry alike would be one about third-party disclosure and the authentication on the outset of debt collection calls.

Commercial Collection Agencies of America is the only collection agency certifying body in which ALL members are certified. Several of the organization’s members are entering their 46th year of agency certification. Today, they have 39 agency members and growing.

What are the benefits to you as a creditor for using a certified member agency? You will receive the following protections and advantages:

• Professional services to help attain maximum dollar recovery
• Prompt remittance of funds to creditors
• Minimum $300,000 surety bond coverage
• Maintenance of separate trust accounts for collected funds
• Reputable collection procedures that maintain your customers’ goodwill
• Ongoing oversight to ensure adherence to a rigorous code of ethics
• An experienced agency that has been in business for a minimum of four years
• Agency executives attend annual meetings and complete continuing education courses
• Assistance in choosing legal counsel when necessary
• Creditors may call upon the Executive Director if a complaint arises

Just as we want to ensure our vendors are bonded and insured, we should have standards that we want our agency to be governed by. If you aren’t sure if the agency you are using today is certified, visit www.commercialcollectionagenciesofamerica.com/member-directory. If your current provider isn’t listed, you now have a list of certified agencies at your fingertips.

[article_ad]

Speaking of certified agencies, Altus Receivables Management earned the industry-respected Certification of Accreditation and Compliance. Altus Receivables Management was recognized and awarded this achievement. Stacey Summerville, Director of Administration Support in attendance and accepting on Altus’s behalf. Congratulations to the entire leadership team at Altus on this achievement and for believing in holding yourselves to a higher standard

It was an honor and pleasure to be a guest and speaker of Commercial Collection Agencies of America at their annual meeting. My first day started with traveling to the beautiful Delray Beach Marriott Resort in Florida. Where we kicked off the week of events with an evening of music, dinner, drinks, and watching a perfect sunset on a private yacht. It was a great networking event, and no matter what direction I turned, I observed competitors (friends at heart) sharing ideas. This group of professionals operates continually at an elite level with very high standards.

My immediate impression was that this event was going to be something extraordinary and unique. And oh boy could I say that again! Another first at this event was the Commercial Collection Agencies of America Standards Board met there as well.

The kick-off luncheon for the rest of the attendees did not disappoint. Guests of the event had the opportunity to dine at 50 Ocean, where they enjoyed gorgeous views of the Atlantic Ocean. It seems everywhere I turned, lots of laughs and long-time friends were catching up. Senior Director Product Management and Strategic Initiatives, Rob Unger spoke to us about NACHA. NACHA, also known as the National Automated Clearing House Association, manages the development, administration, and governance of the ACH Network, the backbone for the electronic movement of money and data in the United States. We were educated on the difference between classic ACH, same-day ACH, and the new ACH option to be announced sometime in 2021. If you are interested in learning more, visit www.nacha.org.

The first day was complete with dinner and cocktails poolside at the Welcome Cocktail Reception and Dinner. Another thing I love about this group was their charitable work in their communities. A portion of this year’s meetings proceeds was donated to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. Early to bed, for Friday was a full day of educational sessions.

It’s Friday morning, rise and shine! I scurried down for the start of the second day. I was excited to hear how the group interacted in the first session on how to Create Successful Business Relationships for Life. You could hear that they all genuinely wanted to find solutions for whatever needs their clients have. In wanting to further educate themselves, stay up to date with technology and organizational culture. It was refreshing to hear them working together towards how they can be the best long term partner for their clients. Technology and transparency were buzz words; I heard throughout this dialogue. This session was followed by the Association’s Young Professionals in Collections educational roundtable on Obtaining & Retaining Good Employees. The group encouraged members and attendees on the importance of culture and flexibility when able.

The Anatomy of A Commercial Collection Case- A Mock Pretrial Hearing. Wow, was this funny, enjoyable, and kept everyone on their toes. The audience was playing the jury! It was so crucial for the members to understand the terms and conditions and the importance of paperwork. Great job to all participants in their acting roles. What day could not be complete with The Great CCA of A Cake Competition! Where we split into teams and worked in a timed manner together on creativity and execution. We were responsible for naming our bakeries, decorating our cake boxes while incorporating the CCA of A theme. Once again, the camaraderie heard and felt through the room was enjoyable. Executive Director, Annette Waggoner surprising everyone with a cake eating contest to end the Triadic Tournament. The evening complete with late-night drinks on the beach!

Saturday Morning was here and after finishing my freshly squeezed Florida orange juice and omelet, it was time! Commercial Collection Agencies of America allowing me to speak with their members in an open forum. I focused on ensuring the agencies know that we are educational tools and resources as we are to all. A discussion on credit reporting was launched by Rob Lawson, from Credit Today. Where Mark Edwards, Managing Director at Creditsafe USA strongly encouraged the members if they weren’t reporting delinquency today, they should speak with them. I echoed these sentiments that it’s so important that agencies are reporting to the credit community as much as creditors.

As I gathered my suitcase to catch my flight back to the cold, I noticed members staying to play tennis, a round of golf, relax on the beach or join the group of members on the private charter fishing. You can tell these elite professionals have a long history together with lots of future memories yet to be made. The association’s next meeting was announced for March 26-28, 2020, in San Francisco.

In closing, let’s hold more agencies to this higher standard! I want to personally thank Bruce Godwin, President, Pete Roth, Vice-President, Fred Wasserspring, Treasurer, David Herer, Secretary, Meg Scotty, President Emeritus, George Bresler, Board Member, Humberto Matz, Board Member, and certainly not least Annette M. Waggoner, Executive Director. It was a pleasure to be a part of your member’s annual meeting, and I look forward to the opportunity to speak again! To learn more about Commercial Collection Agencies of America please visit www.commercialcollectionagenciesofamerica.com.

GENESEO, N.Y. — Coast Professional, Inc. (Coast) recently promoted both Chad Reese and Randy Diffy to Director of Operations. Chad will serve as Director of Operations at the company’s Elma, NY office, while Randy will be at Coast’s West Monroe, LA office. These promotions are a result of the employees’ experience and success, as well as the company’s significant growth over the past year. 

Chad started with Coast in 2018 as a Rehabilitation Manager and quickly advanced his career to Director of Operations. He now oversees 45 employees and is responsible for ensuring an optimum balance of productivity. Chad will be responsible for the continued performance on one of the company’s federal government contracts. He has more than 18 years of experience in the collection industry and resides in Arcade, NY. 

Randy began his career with Coast in 2014 in an administrative support role. He was promoted to Manager of Operations in 2016 and to Director of Operations in 2019. Randy is responsible for evaluating the company’s everyday business systems with a focus on process improvement, increased efficiency, oversight, and control. He will oversee the company’s higher education business line and the administrative teams. Randy resides in West Monroe, LA. 

“Both Chad and Randy are dedicated, hard-working employees who earned their promotions by adhering to and upholding Coast’s core values,” said Coast COO, Jon Prince. “They are both experts in this field and are bringing over 23 years of combined industry experience to their new positions. We truly believe in the advantages of promoting internally and recognizing our employees for their hard work, knowledge, and skills. Chad and Randy are a perfect example of this mentality.”

About Coast Professional, Inc.:

Coast Professional, Inc. is an accounts receivable management company, dedicated to the respectful and ethical collection of higher education and government debt. Coast provides professional collection services to over 200 campus-based colleges, universities, and government clients. Coast is a six-time honoree on the Inc. 5000 list for American’s Fastest-Growing Private Companies provided by Inc. Magazine and in 2019, was recognized for the fourth time as one of the “Best Places to Work In Collections” by insideARM.com and Best Companies Group. Since 1976, Coast has worked closely with clients to increase recoveries by assisting consumers in resolving their financial obligations. Coast’s success is exemplified by exceptional recoveries, superior service, and dedication to the highest levels of compliance. More information about Coast can be found at www.coastprofessional.com.

Editor’s Note: This article previously appeared on Numeracle’s blog, and is re-published here with permission.

—

In the age of call blocking and labeling, it’s hard to keep up with how many new features and technologies are available at the carrier, device, and app level. As consumers continue to voice concerns about unwanted and scam calls, pressure on the telecom industry has resulted in an influx of methodologies by which scam, spam, fraud, and unknown calls can be minimized.

For a quick crash course on the most popular solutions out there today, we’ve included call blocking and labeling solutions provided by the top four carriers as well as two very interesting features provided by Google and Apple.

AT&T Call Protect

Back in July of 2019, AT&T began adding automatic fraud call blocking to millions of AT&T wireless lines at no charge.

As the first carrier to release free call blocking features to subscribers in the weeks following the FCC’s Default Call Blocking Declaratory Ruling, this carrier continues to add new features that make “unwanted robocalls even easier to avoid.”

The free version of AT&T’s Call Protect includes:

• Automatic Fraud Blocking: detects and blocks calls from likely fraudsters
• Spam Risk Blocking: blocks or sends to voicemail calls identified as Spam Risk
• Nuisance Call Warnings: provide a heads up on potential nuisance calls with warnings of telemarketers, account services and more
• Unknown Callers: sends callers not in your contact list to voicemail
• Personal Block List: lets you block specific unwanted calls
• Siri Shortcuts: enables blocking and reporting of unwanted calls with voice commands

Call Protect Plus (paid features) include:

• Caller ID: identifies unknown caller details
• Reverse Number Lookup: provides details when you enter a U.S. number
• Custom Call Controls: lets you choose call categories to accept, block, or send to voicemail

Verizon Call Filter

Verizon, the second major carrier to release free call blocking options to subscribers in September 2019, provides its free Call Filter app to screen incoming calls.

Current Verizon customers on eligible plans with compatible Android devices are automatically enrolled in the free version of Call Filter. iPhone users are required to download and sign-in to the free Call Filter app from the app store.

The free version of Call Filter includes:

• Spam Detection: get real-time alerts for over 100 million spam callers
• Spam Filter: easily set up filters to auto-block the worst offenders

Call Filter Plus (the paid subscription) includes:

• Caller ID: put a name and picture to unknown logos
• Spam Look Up: get access to a database of over 100 million spam callers
• Personal Block List: block the number once and forget it
• Spam Risk Meter: assess the incoming call’s risk in real-time

T-Mobile

The popular label “Scam Likely” is what users of T-Mobile’s Scam ID would see in place of a phone number when a suspected fraud call is placed.

This call labeling is turned on by default and provided for free to T-Mobile subscribers without the need to download an app.

The default Scam ID services include the following:

• Scam ID: automatically identifies calls from likely scammers via labeling

An additional T-Mobile free feature, when enabled, also allows users to block scam calls before they have the chance to ring.

• Scam Block: filters out scammers before you get the call

For an additional fee, subscribers can also enroll in T-Mobile’s Name ID app to receive enhanced services such as:

• Caller Verified: users can identify, screen, reverse search, filter calls by type, and compile custom blocklists

Sprint

Sprint offers both a free and paid service to identify and block incoming calls on a subscription basis.

• Basic Spam Detection: this free solution detects only the highest risk spam calls and alerts you via notifications and the incoming call screen
• Premium Caller ID: with this paid solution, incoming calls will not only be identified with the Calling party’s name if available but will also contain text and graphical warnings to provide you with the best information available to determine how you want to manage the call

[article_ad]

Google Call Screen

Call Screen on Pixel phones lets Google Assistant screen and answer your phone calls by providing a transcript of what is being said in real-time.

With every incoming call, a new ‘screen call’ button will appear by default. The user just needs to tap this screen call button to immediately answer the call and have Google Assistant begin speaking to the caller.

Through this feature, you can choose to tell the caller you aren’t available, ask for more information, or pick up the call once you know it’s a legitimate caller that you need/want to speak to.

It’s marketed as an easy way to answer a call from numbers you don’t recognize without having to interact if the caller is spam or a scam call.

However, transcripts are not always accurate, and those communicating for business purposes worry about the “unprofessional” nature of requiring business colleagues to interact with Google Assistant.

iPhone Call Silencing

Apple’s new iOS13 software release includes a controversial setting to send all unknown callers straight to voicemail. This includes callers not previously saved to a user’s Contacts (address book), recently dialed in an outgoing call, or found in the Messages (text messaging) or Mail (synced email) apps.

Many issues have been cited in terms of this feature’s usability. Yes, it screens unknown “robocallers,” but it screens just about everyone else as well, unless you’ve recently interacted with and/or saved their phone number.

Here’s more on Apple’s iOS13 from Kim Komando:

As the primary caregiver to my mother, I get calls all the time from doctors and clinics. And these calls are extremely important.

Imagine having a critical call come in from a doctor that you’ve been waiting on and, because you’re using Apple’s robocall blocker, the call goes to voicemail and you don’t get the sensitive information in time. You could end up missing an important appointment or worse.

What about calls coming in dealing with business? Missing out on those calls could cost you big bucks.

Key Takeaways

We’ve focused here on carrier-provided call labeling and blocking, as well as some new features at the device level. There are also hundreds of third-party apps a user could download directly to their mobile device to screen calls, either in addition to what’s being provided by their carrier, or instead of.

As the list of available technologies continues to grow, it’s increasingly important to spread awareness within your organization on the various potential roadblocks your calls may encounter on their way to your consumers. With anywhere from 10–30% of legitimate business calls incorrectly labeled or blocked across the network, knowledge and prevention can make a real difference in maintaining positive relationships with your consumer-base.

If you’d like to engage with us on some of the key learnings Numeracle has uncovered when it comes to taking a proactive approach to call blocking and labeling, understanding the impact of labeling unique to each organization, and developing long-term contact rate improvement strategies as the result, get in touch today!

Or for weekly updates on all things call blocking and labeling, sign up for our weekly industry newsletter!