Targeting and Eliminating Unlawful Text Messages

AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

In this document, the Commission seeks comment on whether to require terminating mobile wireless providers to block text messages when notified by the Commission that they are likely scams. The Commission also seeks comment on text message authentication. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on extending Do-Not-Call protections to marketing text messages. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on banning the practice of obtaining a single consumer consent as justification for calls and texts from multiple sellers and potential fraudsters.

DATES:

Comments are due on or before May 8, 2023 and reply comments are due on or before June 6, 2023.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket Nos. 02–278 and 21–402, by any of the following methods:

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing.

Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.

• Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID–19. See FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2788 (OMD 2020), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy. In the event that the Commission announces the lifting of COVID–19 restrictions, a filing window will be opened at the Commission's office located at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis, MD 20701.

People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mika Savir of the Consumer Policy Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at mika.savir@fcc.gov or (202) 418–0384.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a summary of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( FNPRM), in CG Docket Nos. 02–278 and 21–402; FCC 23–21, adopted on March 16, 2023 and released on March 17, 2023. The full text of this document is available online at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-21A1.pdf.

This matter shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. See47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other rules pertaining to oral and written ex parte presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in § 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1206(b).

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( FNPRM) may contain proposed new or modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and OMB to comment on any information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how to further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

Synopsis

1. In this FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on additional protections for consumers against illegal robotexts. The Commission first seeks comment on whether to require terminating mobile wireless providers to block text messages when notified by the Commission that they are likely scams. The Commission also seeks comment on text message authentication. In addition, the Commission proposes to extend the National Do-Not-Call (DNC) Registry protections to marketing text messages. Finally, the Commission seeks to ban the practice of obtaining a single consumer consent as justification for calls and texts from multiple, sometimes hundreds, of sellers and potential fraudsters.

2. First, the Commission proposes to require terminating mobile wireless providers to investigate and potentially block texts from a sender after they are on notice from the Commission that the sender is transmitting suspected illegal texts, similar to our requirement for gateway providers with respect to voice calls. Where texts are clearly illegal, and the Commission has put providers on notice of the illegal texts, mobile wireless providers should have no legitimate reason to transmit the texts. The Commission therefore seeks comment on extending this approach, which is in place for call blocking, to text blocking.

3. Specifically, the Commission's rules (in 47 CFR 64.1200(n)(5)) require the Commission's Enforcement Bureau to issue a Notification of Suspected Illegal Traffic that: (1) identifies with as much particularity as possible the suspected illegal traffic; (2) provides the basis for the Enforcement Bureau's reasonable belief that the identified traffic is unlawful; (3) cites the statutory or regulatory provisions the suspected illegal traffic appears to violate; and (4) directs the provider receiving the notice that it must comply with the requirements in section 64.1200(n)(5) of the Commission's rules by a specified date that gives the provider a minimum of 14 days to comply. Notified gateway voice providers must then promptly investigate the identified traffic and either block the identified traffic and substantially similar traffic on an ongoing basis or respond to the Commission that the provider has a reasonable basis for concluding that the identified calls are not illegal. If a provider fails to comply, the Commission established a process through which the Enforcement Bureau can require all providers immediately downstream from that gateway provider to block all traffic from that provider.

4. The Commission seeks comment on whether there are any differences between calling and texting that would suggest that this model would not work well for texting. The Commission seeks comment on the cost to providers of implementing such a requirement. The Commission also seeks comment on whether providers and the Commission's Enforcement Bureau can properly trace text messages to their originating provider to effectuate these rules. Are there additional requirements the Commission should adopt to ease any traceback efforts for text messaging? Because providers state that they already do a considerable amount of text blocking, the Commission does not expect the proposal to impose material additional costs. The Commission seeks comment on these questions specifically and this recommendation generally.

5. Second, the Commission seeks comment on the extent of number spoofing and if there are other solutions that are better targeted to address the problem of spoofed text messages. In the robocalling context, the Commission has found that a subset of small voice service providers are responsible for a large number of illegal robocalls. The Commission seeks comment on whether a similar dynamic at issue with robotexts. If so, how might the Commission target these specific providers? How might the Commission encourage industry members to collaborate and finalize technical solutions for authenticating text messages and mitigating illegal text messages? For example, should the Commission adopt a deadline for providers to develop a text message authentication solution or an alternative technical solution for addressing the problem of spoofed text messages? Commenters should address how the Commission can ensure non-discriminatory policies in adopting text authentication measures.

6. Third, the Commission proposes to clarify that the National Do-Not-Call Registry protections apply to text messages as well as voice calls and to codify this clarification in the Commission's rules. The National DNC Registry has been operational for almost two decades and currently protects over 246 million telephone numbers from telemarketing sales calls, or telephone solicitations. As such, it represents a critical component of the policy strategy against unwanted calls. Although the Commission has stated that text messages are calls for Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) purposes, it has not explicitly included text messages in the codified DNC rules that protect wireless phone subscribers by requiring prior express invitation or permission in writing for calls to wireless numbers on the National DNC Registry. The Commission's rules require that, before sending a marketing text to consumers, the texter must have the consumer's prior express invitation or permission, which must be evidenced by a signed, written agreement between the consumer and seller, which states that the consumer agrees to be contacted by this seller and includes the telephone number to which the calls may be placed.

7. The Commission seeks comment on whether codifying the DNC protections to marketing texts further protect consumers from unwanted marketing text messages. We note that the DNC protections do not depend on whether the caller uses an autodialer, unlike some provisions of the TCPA. The Commission seeks comment on whether the proposal would also represent an important codification of consumer protections. Are there downsides to the proposal?

8. Finally, the Commission proposes to ban the practice of obtaining a single consumer consent as grounds for delivering calls and text messages from multiple marketers on subjects beyond the scope of the original consent. In an illustration of the issue, Assurance IQ describes a website that purports to enable consumers to comparison shop for insurance. The website sought consumer consent for calls and texts from insurance companies and other various entities, including Assurance IQ's partner companies that were listed in a hyperlink on the web page ( i.e., they were not displayed on the website without clicking on the link) and the list of partner companies included both insurance companies and other entities that did not appear to be related to insurance. The telemarketer that obtains the consumer's contact information from the lead generator may believe that it has the consumer's prior express consent, but, commenters argue, the consumer has not consented to the particular caller or callers, which may be listed as partner companies in these arrangements.

9. The Commission seeks comment on amending the TCPA consent requirements to require that such consent be considered granted only to callers logically and topically associated with the website that solicits consent and whose names are clearly disclosed on the same web page. The Commission has not addressed this aspect of consent in the past. Would this proposal better protect consumers from receiving large numbers of calls and texts they do not wish to receive when they visit websites such as comparison shopping websites? Consumers may find comparison shopping websites helpful; how can we ensure that they can consent to obtain further information from the site without receiving numerous calls and texts from unrelated companies? Commenters should discuss whether the proposal would limit the value of comparison-shopping sites to consumers. Are there alternatives that would better protect consumers from the harms identified? The Commission also seeks comment on whether prior express consent to receive calls or texts must be made directly to one entity at a time. More broadly, the Commission seeks comment on the extent of the problem, the proposed rule, and whether the proposed rule will clarify consent and help to eliminate illegal text messages and calls. Are there different or additional limitations on multi-party consent the Commission should consider?

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

10. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA) the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies proposed in this FNPRM. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the FNPRM, provided on the first page of the FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the entire FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).

11. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules. The FNPRM seeks comment on several issues, specifically, (i) whether to require terminating mobile wireless providers to block text messages when notified by the Commission that they are likely scams; (ii) text message authentication; (iii) extending Do-Not-Call protections to marketing text messages; and (iv) banning the practice of obtaining a single consumer consent as justification for calls and texts from multiple sellers and potential fraudsters.

12. Legal Basis. This action, including publication of proposed rules, is authorized under sections 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 227(e), 254, 257, 301, and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 227(e), 254, 257, 301, and 303.

13. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.

14. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission therefore describes, at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from SBA's Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 32.5 million businesses.

15. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there were approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS.

16. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments indicate there were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of this number, there were 36,931 general purpose governments (county, municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments-independent school districts with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 48,971 entities fall into the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”

17. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 797 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 715 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities.

18. All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of internet services ( e.g., dial-up ISPs) or voice over internet protocol (VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this data, the Commission estimates that the majority of “All Other Telecommunications” firms can be considered small.

19. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities. This FNPRM may include a change to the Commission's current information collection, reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance requirements.

20. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may include the following four alternatives, among others: (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) and exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.

21. The FNPRM seeks comment on (i) whether to require terminating mobile wireless providers to block text messages when notified by the Commission that they are likely scams; (ii) text message authentication; (iii) extending Do-Not-Call protections to marketing text messages; and (iv) banning the practice of obtaining a single consumer consent as justification for calls and texts from multiple sellers and potential fraudsters.

22. These proposals would probably not be burdensome for small entities. The proposal to require those seeking consent from consumers to a list of entities, to clearly and conspicuously display the list where consent is requested would, if adopted, prevent those lead generators or telemarketers from failing to advise the consumer of the list of entities; instead the list would be displayed where the consent is requested. This should not be burdensome to small entities, as it merely requires disclosing the list where consent is requested, instead of in a hyperlink, and should reduce unwanted text messages and calls to consumers. The proposal to include texts in the DNC rules should not have an impact on small entities. Wireline and wireless phones are already included and this would just clarify that not only calls to wireless phones on the DNC list are covered, but text messages, too. The Commission anticipates that these rules, if adopted, would also reduce unwanted calls and texts to small entities. The proposal to require service providers to block texts after notice from the Commission of suspected illegality, including fraud should not be burdensome for small entities. Mobile wireless providers are already diligent in blocking fraudulent calls and texts to their customers and this would assist them in those efforts.

23. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules. None.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

• Communications common carriers
• Reporting and recordkeeping

Proposed Rules

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposed to amend 47 CFR part 64 as follows:

PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

1. The authority citation to part 64 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220, 222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 255, 262, 276, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 617, 620, 1401–1473, unless otherwise noted; Pub. L. 115–141, Div. P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091.

2. Amend § 64.1200 by revising paragraphs (e) and (f)(9) to read as follows: