******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************



Media Contact: 
Will Wiquist, (202) 418-0509
will.wiquist@fcc.gov
For Immediate Release
FCC ISSUES $120 MILLION FINE FOR SPOOFED ROBOCALLS
Agency Concludes Investigation into Adrian Abramovich’s Massive ‘Neighbor 
Spoofing’ Telemarketing Operation with Largest FCC Forfeiture Ever
  -- 
WASHINGTON, May 10, 2018—The Federal Communications Commission today fined 
Adrian Abramovich $120 million for malicious spoofing that was part of his massive 
robocalling operation aimed at selling timeshares and other travel packages.  The caller ID 
spoofing operation made almost 100 million spoofed robocalls over three months.  The Truth 
in Caller ID Act prohibits callers from deliberately falsifying caller ID information with the 
intent to harm or defraud consumers or unlawfully obtain something of value.
The FCC proposed this fine in the summer of 2017.  In response to the proposed fine, Mr. 
Abramovich claimed that he had no intent to cause harm, and that the proposed forfeiture 
amount was unconstitutional.  The Commission determined that the evidence did not support 
these claims and is imposing a fine in the amount originally proposed, the largest forfeiture 
ever imposed by the agency. 
Mr. Abramovich, of Miami, Florida, or companies he controlled, spoofed 96 million robocalls 
in order to trick unsuspecting consumers into answering and listening to his advertising 
messages.  To increase the likelihood that consumers would answer his calls, Mr. 
Abramovich’s operation made calls that appeared to be local—a practice known as “neighbor 
spoofing.”  The messages indicated that the calls came from well-known travel or hospitality 
companies such as Marriott, Expedia, Hilton, and TripAdvisor, and prompted consumers to 
“Press 1” to hear about “exclusive” vacation deals.  Those who did were transferred to foreign 
call centers where live operators attempted to sell vacation packages—often involving 
timeshares—at destinations unrelated to the named travel or hospitality companies.
The Commission received numerous consumer complaints about these calls.  In addition, the 
Commission heard from companies such as TripAdvisor, which received complaints from 
consumers who believed the robocalls had come from the company.  Medical paging provider 
Sp?k also complained after its network was disrupted by these calls, thus interfering with 
hospital and physician communications.  Both companies actively helped the investigation. 
Consumer complaints about neighbor spoofing have more than doubled in the first few months 
of this year.  The Commission recently warned consumers of this deceptive practice, providing 
tips to help consumers. 
Action by the Commission May 10, 2018 by Forfeiture Order (FCC 18-58).  Chairman Pai, 
Commissioners Carr and Rosenworcel approving.  Commissioner O’Rielly approving in part 
and dissenting in part.  Commissioner Clyburn not participating.  Chairman Pai, 
Commissioners O’Rielly, Carr and Rosenworcel issuing separate statements
###
Office of Media Relations: (202) 418-0500
ASL Videophone: (844) 432-2275
TTY: (888) 835-5322
Twitter: @FCC
www.fcc.gov/media-relations  
This is an unofficial announcement of Commission action.  Release of the full text of a Commission order 
constitutes official action.  See MCI v. FCC, 515 F.2d 385 (D.C. Cir. 1974).