Advocates, Industry Disagree on Need for Additional Robocall Consent Rules

Consumer advocates and industry disagreed on whether it's necessary to codify FCC rules to ensure callers may revoke prior express consent through any reasonable means under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, in comments posted Tuesday in docket 02-278. Some carriers warned it could inhibit certain important information being provided to consumers. Commissioners adopted the item in June (see 2306080043).

"The cable industry takes pains to ensure that its communications with consumers are effective, productive, and useful," said NCTA. It asked the FCC to provide more guidance on "reasonable methods" of revoking consent, allow 72 hours for processing opt-out requests, and adopt its proposal allowing one-time texts seeking clarification on the scope of an opt-out request. Give non-telemarketing, informational callers 10 business days to honor revocation requests, said the Edison Electric Institute and National Rural Electric Cooperative Association in joint joint comments. "Such a deadline does not reflect the process and procedures or technological capabilities of electric companies," the groups said, and the additional time would "allow sufficient time for hand-offs between vendors and business units." The Ad Hoc Telecom Users Committee disagreed and said the 24-hour proposal is "reasonable as current technologies accessible to and used by business customers permit this type of consent-based processing within such a timeframe."

A coalition of consumer advocates welcomed the NPRM and sought some clarifications. The coalition, which included the National Consumer Law Center, Electronic Privacy Information Center, National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates and Public Knowledge, asked the FCC to clarify that automated opt-out mechanisms are required for "all non-emergency prerecorded calls to wireless telephones" and that consumers have the right to revoke consent "even if consent was provided as part of a contract." The Professional Association for Customer Engagement also welcomed the item and sought some additional language. The group sought clarifying language on the types of actions that would be considered a "reasonable method" to withdraw consent.

A coalition of industry groups, including the American Bankers Association, American Financial Services Association and National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions, urged the FCC to allow businesses and consumers to "contractually agree to specific and reasonable methods by which the customer may revoke consent to receive autodialed or prerecorded calls or text messages." The groups also asked the FCC to provide at least 18 months for companies to implement any changes.

Some industry groups opposed the NPRM. The proposal "fails to account for how these changes will impact communications that certain wireless providers have with their subscribers to support the requirements and goals of the Lifeline program and the [affordable connectivity program]," said the National Lifeline Association. It raised concerns about how providers will notify subscribers about "de-enrollment, non-usage, recertification, and benefit transfers under both the Lifeline program and the ACP."

NaLA asked that "any communications sent by Lifeline or ACP providers to satisfy a program requirement or to further the goals of these programs" not count toward the number of calls or texts allowed. Verizon agreed, saying the proposed changes would "undermine the unique relationship between providers and their customers for wireless service." The NPRM "provides no basis to conclude that wireless carriers are abusing their subscribers with unwanted calls or texts," the carrier added.

There's "no compelling reason to change course," said the Competitive Carriers Association. Message cap and opt-out requirements "would be contrary to the interests of wireless subscribers and are more onerous than even those imposed on entities that have obtained prior consent to send informational messages," CCA said, saying the proposal would "effectively prohibit carriers from sending important account notifications to subscribers."

The NPRM would "fundamentally alter wireless providers’ ability to provide important and timely messages to their customers," said AT&T. It would "amend the longstanding wireless service provider exception ... to the detriment of wireless service subscribers and in contravention of Congress' framework for the TCPA," said CTIA: The FCC should "maintain its decades-long approach to the messages sent by wireless service providers to their subscribers at no charge."