TMCnews Featured Article

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) was passed and signed into law in 1991. It is actually an amendment to the Communications Act of 1934. The TCPA limits the use of automatic dialing systems, artificial or prerecorded voice messages, SMS text messages and fax machines. It also specifies several technical requirements for fax machines, autodialers and voice messaging systems.

As you may be able to determine from the inclusion of fax machines in the description, the 1991 version may be a little outdated. An autodialer is an electronic device or software that automatically dials telephone numbers. Once the call has been answered, the autodialer can either play a recorded message or transfers the call to a live person. If the autodialer plays a pre-recorded message instead of transferring the call, it is then referred to as voice broadcasting, or robocalling.

Earlier this month, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC (News - Alert)) released its TCPA Omnibus Declaratory Ruling and Order, also referred to as the Order. The intent of the Order is to expand consumer protection with respect to autodialed calls and texts.

The expanded definition of what constitutes an autodialer could present businesses with serious consequences. The equipment that existed in 1991 did not have the capacity or extent of use that today’s hardware and software can offer. As it says in the Order, “The capacity of an autodialer is not limited to its current configuration but also includes its potential functionalities.” This means that businesses will need to carefully examine and determine if their equipment falls under the new expanded definition of autodialers.

In the past, when I’ve dealt with a service provider or utility, I would be asked if it was all right to text me a survey. If I declined nothing was sent to me, which is what the FCC is attempting to enforce. The Order states, “Our ruling today allows businesses to voluntarily provide these simple disclosures to consumers in a call-to-action before sending a single on-demand text in response to a consumer’s request. If the business sends more than a single text as a response to the consumer, however, our rules require prior express written consent with the specified disclosures.”

If a consumer does not want to receive robocalls or texts, opting-out should not be long, drawn out and confusing process. The goal is to not let companies dictate how consumers can opt out. “Consumers generally may revoke, for example, by way of a consumer-initiated call, directly in response to a call initiated or made by a caller, or at an in-store bill payment location.”

Technology has a sort of yin and yang to it. In this case, if it is possible for a company to use autodialing and robocalls then on the flip side, the consumer should be able to block these types of calls. The FCC ruling wants service providers to adopt robocall blocking technology.

I have had my cell phone number since 1998, which unfortunately is not the case for many consumers. Phone (News - Alert) numbers are constantly being shuffled and reassigned. If someone who previously had a number gave permission to receive robocalls, it does not extend to the new owner of the number. That person should not be responsible to answer the call and describe the situation, nor should they be inundated with robocalls.

Time Warner (News - Alert) recently found this out and that robocalling can be a very expensive proposition. After a Texas resident received 153 robocalls, a judge awarded her the maximum fine of $1,500 per call. Another aspect of the Order is that companies need to take more steps in determining if a number has been reassigned.

As you can see, the Order is designed to make it easier for consumers to not receive autodialed and robocalls, but it also puts more restrictions on businesses and how they are allowed to their hardware and software. It appears that some of these companies will need to re-examine their business practices.