Industry Seeks More Flexibility on Robocall, Robotext Consent Rules

Industry urged the FCC to give providers more time to honor requests from consumers to revoke prior express consent through any reasonable means under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, in reply comments posted Tuesday in docket 02-278 (see 2308010071). Some commenters sought clarity on what would constitute "reasonable means" for a consumer to make an opt-out request.

The wireless provider exemption "continues to bring substantial benefits to consumers and promote the public interest by facilitating a variety of important service-related communications at no charge to wireless subscribers," said CTIA. The record shows "little support for amending the exception," the group said. CTIA warned "many subscribers may stop receiving critical, often requested communications regarding their wireless service, such as automatic bill payment confirmations and account security notifications that protect subscribers from potential fraud" if opt-out requests are too broadly honored.

The National Lifeline Association repeated its request that any communications sent by Lifeline or affordable connectivity program providers about either program don't count toward the monthly limit of texts or calls. The "proposed wireless provider exemption and its conditions could improperly restrict communications that are required or promote the goals of the Lifeline program and the ACP," NaLA said.

The ability to revoke consent and "have that request understood and honored without fail is a critical issue," said the National Opinion Research Center: "Exactly how that is done necessarily has to account for what is possible for U.S. businesses to do." Honoring requests within 24 hours "seems to be without any serious review of its feasibility," the group said, adding the FCC should "adopt a timeline that reflects the diversity and complexity of U.S. businesses and their processes."

The current proposal "would create an unworkable standard resulting in unintended harm to consumers," said the Edison Electric Institute and National Rural Electric Cooperative Association in joint comments. Clarify what constitutes a "reasonable method" of revoking consent, the groups said: "Without standardized language, variations and ambiguous language will impede callers from automating the process of honoring revocation requests." The groups also raised concerns about the 24-hour timeline to honor requests. "Businesses do not always use and cannot always use automated systems to process revocation requests and even when relying on automated systems 24-hours is still not sufficient time for businesses to process all revocation requests under the proposed rule," they said.

The record "overwhelmingly demonstrates that the commission’s proposed 24-hour time frame to honor revocations is not practicable," said ACA International and Credit Union National Association in joint comments. ACA and CUNA backed allowing providers 10 business days to honor a request, saying a reasonable period of time "is very much dependent on the breadth of the commission's related rulings." The groups urged the FCC to adopt a "standard, but limited" set of words or phrases that texting platforms are required to recognize for opt-out requests: "Callers that use commission-prescribed processes and honor compliant revocation requests within whatever time period the Commission ultimately adopts should be given their due."

"We agree with the concerns expressed in some comments that business days should be the trigger for implementing the revocation request rather than just hours," said the National Consumer Law Center. It backed allowing up to 14 days for the first year of the final rule's implementation and asked the FCC to require that callers then "figure out how to adopt an implementation period of two business days after the revocation request is made."