Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
********************************************************
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.
*****************************************************************
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
AT&T Corporation )
) File No. EB-03-TC-020
)
Apparent Liability for ) NAL/Acct. No. 200332170008
Forfeiture ) FRN: 0006380976
)
)
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted: October 30, 2003 Released: November 3,
2003
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture (``NAL''),1 we find that AT&T Corporation (``AT&T'')
apparently willfully or repeatedly violated section
64.1200(e)(vi) of the Commission's rules2 by making 78 telephone
solicitations to 29 residential telephone customers who had
previously asked not to receive such calls. Upon our review of
the facts and circumstances surrounding these apparent
violations, we find that AT&T is apparently liable for a
forfeiture in the amount of $10,000 for each of 78 violations,
for a total of $780,000.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Summary
2. In 1991, Congress enacted the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (``TCPA'') to protect consumers from unwanted and
unsolicited telemarketing, among other things.3 Congress found
that
[u]nsolicited telemarketing ... all too frequently ...
represents more of a nuisance than an aid to commerce.
Whether an individual or a machine is on the other end
of the line, consumers find unsolicited telemarketing
calls an intrusive, often frustrating, invasion of
their privacy.... The expert testimony, data, and legal
analyses comprising the Committee's record, and broad
support of consumers, state regulators, and privacy
advocates clearly evidence that unsolicited commercial
telemarketing calls are a widespread problem and a
federal regulatory solution is needed to protect
residential telephone subscriber privacy rights.4
As a linchpin of the TCPA's protective measures, Congress
required the Commission to adopt rules ``concerning the need to
protect residential telephone subscribers' privacy rights to
avoid receiving telephone solicitations to which they object.''5
Responding to the statutory mandate to balance the legitimate
commercial interests inherent in telemarketing with the privacy
interests of residential telephone subscribers, the Commission,
in 1992, adopted section 64.1200(e) of the rules to require that
any entity engaged in telephone solicitation maintain a Do-Not-
Call list to record residential telephone subscribers' requests
not to receive future solicitations from that entity.6 During
the time relevant to this case, section 64.1200(e) required that
entities record each Do-Not-Call request ``at the time the
request is made'' and honor such requests for a period of ten
years.7 The Commission further elucidated consumers' Do-Not-
Call rights in 1999, finding that companies must honor each Do-
Not-Call request on a household-wide basis so that one household
member's instruction to place a residential telephone number on a
company's Do-Not-Call list requires the company to refrain from
making solicitation calls to anyone at that number.8 Moreover,
in July 2003, the Commission adopted new rules that supplement
the company-specific Do-Not-Call system with a National Do-Not-
Call Registry that is maintained by the Federal Trade
Commission.9
3. The Enforcement Bureau initiated this
proceeding based on its regular review of consumer complaint data
involving telephone solicitations. The Bureau found a high
volume of complaints involving AT&T, a nationwide provider of
long distance service that markets some of its services through
telephone solicitations. During the period from December 2002
through August 2003, for example, the Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau received 360 complaints concerning AT&T's Do-Not-
Call practices, more than for any other company. As part of its
investigation of these complaints, the Enforcement Bureau staff
sent five separate letters of inquiry to AT&T inquiring into 142
of the complaints of customers who allegedly requested to be
placed on AT&T's Do-Not-Call list, and seeking information
concerning AT&T's telemarketing procedures, its monitoring of Do-
Not-Call requests, and its customer records.10 AT&T filed
responses to each letter of inquiry.11
4. Sixty-two of the violations that form the
basis of this NAL are supported by complaints and sworn
declarations from 19 consumers stating that they were called by
an AT&T telemarketer who was marketing local or long distance
service, that they requested that they not be called again, and
that they were nevertheless called again by AT&T. AT&T responded
to each of these complaints separately. These complaints are
further described below. A compilation of the violations
reported by these consumers is included in the attached Appendix
A. Sixteen additional violations involving 10 other consumers
that form the basis of this NAL are based on AT&T's records and
responses to the letters of inquiry described above. A
compilation of these complaints is also provided in Appendix A.
Because AT&T has asked for confidential treatment of its
responses to the letters of inquiry, and that request remains
pending, we are keeping Appendix A confidential at this time.
B. Description of Consumer Complaints
5. All of the consumers whose complaints form
the basis of this NAL filed complaints alleging that AT&T had
failed to comply with their requests that they not be called
again. In support of these complaints, they also filed
declarations. For example, Susan Richardson stated that on July
12, 1999, she received a telephone call from an AT&T
telemarketer, and asked that her telephone number be placed on
AT&T's Do-Not-Call list. AT&T subsequently called her, marketing
its long distance and local services, on November 2, 2002, and
March 26, 2003. After the filing of her complaint, Ms.
Richardson received a third call from AT&T on May 8, 2003.
Regarding the May 8 call, Ms. Richardson provided the following
detail:
The caller identified herself as Cathy Reagan. I
requested the telephone number that she was calling from
and she provided 800/288-2747. At the time I was on my
downstairs telephone which does not have Caller ID,
however, when I went upstairs, the telephone that does
have Caller ID revealed that this call had originated from
770/857-6850. I also noticed that on the same day, at
7:01 p.m., I had received another call from the same
number.
...The Caller ID equipment revealed ``770/857-6850 AT&T
Consumer'' for the call received on May 8, 2003.12 On
June 20, I provided to the FCC, photographs of my Caller
ID equipment, reflecting the identity of the May 8
calls.13
6. Similarly, Amy Dickinson stated that she was
called in August 2002 by an AT&T telemarketer about AT&T's long
distance service and at that time asked that her telephone number
be placed on AT&T's Do-Not-Call list. She nevertheless received
calls from AT&T on January 2 and 3, 2003, advertising their long
distance service.''14
7. Another consumer, Jeffrey Chen, stated that
in February 2002, he and his father, David Chen, received a call
from an AT&T telemarketer marketing its long distance services
and at that time he asked that their telephone number be placed
on AT&T's Do-Not-Call list. Mr. Chen stated that the number was
called by an AT&T telemarketer on October 22, 2002. Mr. Chen
then described another call received from AT&T after he filed his
initial complaint:
In February 2003, I again submitted to the Federal
Communications Commission information that we received
another telephone solicitation call from AT&T on February
24, 2003, at 6:20 p.m. This call was received despite a
(1) previous do-not-call request and (2) a November 15,
2002 letter from Margaret R. Berry, District Manager,
AT&T, stating that the telephone number was going to be
added to the do not call list within 30 days.15
III. DISCUSSION
A. Apparent Violations Evidenced in the Record
8. During the time period in question, Section
64.1200(e) of the Commission's rules required that
if a person or entity making a telephone solicitation (or
on whose behalf a solicitation is made) receives a request
from a residential telephone subscriber not to receive
calls from that person or entity, the person or entity
must record the request and place the subscriber's name
and telephone number on the do-not-call list at the time
the request is made. If such requests are recorded or
maintained by a party other than the person or entity on
whose behalf the solicitation is made, the person or
entity on whose behalf the solicitation is made will be
liable for any failures to honor the do-not-call
request.16
The rules also required that a Do-Not-Call request had to be
honored for a ten-year period. The Commission has stated that a
company's current customer can make an enforceable Do-Not-Call
request.17
9. AT&T apparently did not comply with the
requirement that it place consumers' names on the Do-Not-Call
list and honor their requests within a reasonable time. We need
not determine in this instance precisely how soon after receiving
a Do-Not-Call request a carrier must record and honor the
consumer's preference. AT&T's own policy, which is supposedly
mailed to all consumers who requested that they be placed on
AT&T's Do-Not-Call list, specified that they would be placed on
the list within 30 days of their request.18 We find that AT&T's
own 30-day requirement appears to represent the outer limit of
reasonableness, and it appears that AT&T did not meet even this
standard.19
10. We find that the complaints and declarations
of the complainants whose declarations are described above, as
well as the remainder of the complainants listed in Appendix A,
are sufficiently persuasive to support a finding that AT&T
apparently made telephone calls to these customers 30 days or
more after they had requested to be placed on AT&T's Do-Not-Call
list. First, the declarations submitted by the consumers, as
shown in the examples cited above, were very specific, citing the
date, time, purpose, and sometimes the name of the telemarketer
making the call. Second, as shown in confidential Appendix A,
AT&T's responses to the Letters of Inquiry indicate that the
claims of at least some of these consumers are supported by AT&T
records. Further, the monitoring conducted by AT&T, described in
Appendix A, confirms that not all requests were honored. Third,
the photograph submitted by Susan Richardson apparently confirms
that the absence of an entry on AT&T records does not support an
inference that the calls were not made. We find that the
concrete and specific allegations of violations of the Do-Not-
Call rule, together with the evidence showing that AT&T either
failed to comply with Do-Not-Call requests or that AT&T's records
are demonstrably incomplete, warrant a finding of apparent
liability.
11. In addition, as detailed in Appendix A,
AT&T's admissions and records show that since December 2002 on 16
occasions AT&T called 10 other customers who had previously asked
to be placed on AT&T's Do-Not-Call list at least 30 days after
they had made the request.
B. Forfeiture Amount
12. We conclude that AT&T apparently willfully or
repeatedly violated the Commission's rules by making 78
solicitation calls to 29 consumers who had made Do-Not-Call
requests. Accordingly, a proposed forfeiture is warranted against
AT&T for its apparent willful or repeated violations of section
64.1200(e)(vi) of the Commission's rules.
13. As adjusted by statute, Section 503(b) of the
Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to
$120,000 for each violation of the Act or of any rule,
regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act by a
common carrier.20 In exercising such authority, we are to take
into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and
such other matters as justice may require." 21
14. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement
does not establish a base forfeiture amount for violating the
prohibition on making telephone solicitations to customers who
had previously asked to be placed on a Do-Not-Call list.22 We
have, however, imposed a $10,000 forfeiture for each unsolicited
facsimile advertisement where the consumer previously requested
that the sender cease its unlawful conduct and refrain from
faxing additional unsolicited advertisements.23 We conclude that
making telephone solicitations where the consumer has previously
asked the telemarketer to stop is similar to such an unsolicited
facsimile advertising violation. Accordingly, we believe that a
proposed base forfeiture amount of $10,000 per violation in this
context is consistent with our previous actions where a consumer
has made a request not to receive an unsolicited facsimile
advertisement. In proposing this forfeiture, we apply the
$10,000 amount to each of the apparent violations associated with
the 78 calls that AT&T apparently made to a consumer's number
after the 29 consumers listed in Appendix A requested that their
telephone numbers be placed on AT&T's Do-Not-Call list.
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING
CLAUSES
15. We have determined that AT&T apparently committed 78
separate violations of Section 64.1200(e)(vi) of the Commission's
rules by failing to adhere to our Do-Not-Call requirements, as
described above. We have further determined that AT&T is
apparently liable in the amount of $10,000 for each of the
violations of Section 64.1200(e)(vi) of the Commission's rules,
for a total of $780,000.
16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to
Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. § 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47
C.F.R. § 1.80, that AT&T Corporation IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the amount of $780,000 for
willful or repeated violations of Section 64.1200(e)(vi) as
described in the paragraphs above and detailed in Appendix A.24
17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section
1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.80, that within
thirty (30) days of the release of this Notice of Apparent
Liability, AT&T SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed
forfeiture25 OR SHALL FILE a response showing why the proposed
forfeiture should not be imposed or should be reduced.
18. The Commission will not consider reducing or
canceling a forfeiture in response to a claim of inability to pay
unless the petitioner submits: (1) federal tax returns for the
most recent three-year period; (2) financial statements prepared
according to generally accepted accounting practices (``GAAP'');
or (3) some other reliable and objective documentation that
accurately reflects the petitioner's current financial status.
Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the
basis for the claim by reference to the financial documentation
submitted.
19. Requests for payment of the full amount of
this Notice of Apparent Liability under an installment plan
should be sent to: Chief, Revenue and Receivables Operations
Group, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., 20554.26
20. Under the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act
of 2002, Pub L. No. 107-198, 116 Stat. 729 (June 28, 2002), the
FCC is engaged in a two-year tracking process regarding the size
of entities involved in forfeitures. If you qualify as a small
entity and if you wish to be treated as a small entity for
tracking purposes, please so certify to us within thirty (30)
days of this NAL, either in your response to the NAL or in a
separate filing to be sent to the Telecommunications Consumers
Division. Your certification should indicate whether you,
including your parent entity and its subsidiaries, meet one of
the definitions set forth in the list provided by the FCC's
Office of Communications Business Opportunities (OCBO) set forth
in Attachment A of this Notice of Apparent Liability. This
information will be used for tracking purposes only. Your
response or failure to respond to this question will have no
effect on your rights and responsibilities pursuant to Section
503(b) of the Communications Act. If you have questions
regarding any of the information contained in Appendix B, please
contact OCBO at (202) 418-0990.
21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture SHALL BE SENT by
certified mail to AT&T Communications, Inc., 295 North Maple
Avenue, Basking Ridge, New Jersey 07920.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary APPENDIX B
FCC List of Small Entities
As described below, a ``small entity'' may be a small
organization,
a small governmental jurisdiction, or a small business.
(1) Small Organization
Any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and
operated and
is not dominant in its field.
(2) Small Governmental Jurisdiction
Governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages,
school districts, or
special districts, with a population of less than fifty
thousand.
(3) Small Business
Any business concern that is independently owned and operated
and
is not dominant in its field, and meets the pertinent size
criterion described below.
Industry Type Description of Small Business
Size Standards
Cable Services or Systems
Special Size Standard -
Cable Systems Small Cable Company has 400,000
Subscribers Nationwide or Fewer
Cable and Other Program
Distribution $12.5 Million in Annual Receipts
or Less
Open Video Systems
Common Carrier Services and Related Entities
Wireline Carriers and
Service providers
1,500 Employees or Fewer
Local Exchange Carriers,
Competitive Access
Providers, Interexchange
Carriers, Operator Service
Providers, Payphone
Providers, and Resellers
Note: With the exception of Cable Systems, all size
standards are expressed in either millions of dollars or
number of employees and are generally the average annual
receipts or the average employment of a firm. Directions for
calculating average annual receipts and average employment of
a firm can be found in
13 CFR 121.104 and 13 CFR 121.106, respectively.
International Services
International Broadcast
Stations
$12.5 Million in Annual Receipts
or Less
International Public Fixed
Radio (Public and Control
Stations)
Fixed Satellite
Transmit/Receive Earth
Stations
Fixed Satellite Very Small
Aperture Terminal Systems
Mobile Satellite Earth
Stations
Radio Determination
Satellite Earth Stations
Geostationary Space Stations
Non-Geostationary Space
Stations
Direct Broadcast Satellites
Home Satellite Dish Service
Mass Media Services
Television Services
$12 Million in Annual Receipts
or Less
Low Power Television
Services and Television
Translator Stations
TV Auxiliary, Special
Broadcast and Other Program
Distribution Services
Radio Services
$6 Million in Annual Receipts or
Less
Radio Auxiliary, Special
Broadcast and Other Program
Distribution Services
Multipoint Distribution Auction Special Size Standard -
Service Small Business is less than $40M
in annual gross revenues for
three preceding years
Wireless and Commercial Mobile Services
Cellular Licensees
1,500 Employees or Fewer
220 MHz Radio Service -
Phase I Licensees
220 MHz Radio Service - Auction special size standard -
Phase II Licensees Small Business is average gross
revenues of $15M or less for the
preceding three years (includes
affiliates and controlling
principals)
Very Small Business is average
gross revenues of $3M or less
for the preceding three years
(includes affiliates and
controlling principals)
700 MHZ Guard Band Licensees
Private and Common Carrier
Paging
Broadband Personal
Communications Services 1,500 Employees or Fewer
(Blocks A, B, D, and E)
Broadband Personal Auction special size standard -
Communications Services Small Business is $40M or less
(Block C) in annual gross revenues for
three previous calendar years
Very Small Business is average
gross revenues of $15M or less
for the preceding three calendar
years (includes affiliates and
persons or entities that hold
interest in such entity and
their affiliates)
Broadband Personal
Communications Services
(Block F)
Narrowband Personal
Communications Services
Rural Radiotelephone Service 1,500 Employees or Fewer
Air-Ground Radiotelephone
Service
800 MHz Specialized Mobile Auction special size standard -
Radio Small Business is $15M or less
average annual gross revenues
for three preceding calendar
years
900 MHz Specialized Mobile
Radio
Private Land Mobile Radio 1,500 Employees or Fewer
Amateur Radio Service N/A
Aviation and Marine Radio
Service 1,500 Employees or Fewer
Fixed Microwave Services
Small Business is 1,500
Public Safety Radio Services employees or less
Small Government Entities has
population of less than 50,000
persons
Wireless Telephony and
Paging and Messaging 1,500 Employees or Fewer
Personal Radio Services N/A
Offshore Radiotelephone 1,500 Employees or Fewer
Service
Wireless Communications Small Business is $40M or less
Services average annual gross revenues
for three preceding years
Very Small Business is average
gross revenues of $15M or less
for the preceding three years
39 GHz Service
Auction special size standard
(1996) -
Multipoint Distribution Small Business is $40M or less
Service average annual gross revenues
for three preceding calendar
years
Prior to Auction -
Small Business has annual
revenue of $12.5M or less
Multichannel Multipoint
Distribution Service $12.5 Million in Annual Receipts
or Less
Instructional Television
Fixed Service
Auction special size standard
(1998) -
Local Multipoint Small Business is $40M or less
Distribution Service average annual gross revenues
for three preceding years
Very Small Business is average
gross revenues of $15M or less
for the preceding three years
First Auction special size
standard (1994) -
Small Business is an entity
that, together with its
affiliates, has no more than a
218-219 MHZ Service $6M net worth and, after federal
income taxes (excluding
carryover losses) has no more
than $2M in annual profits each
year for the previous two years
New Standard -
Small Business is average gross
revenues of $15M or less for the
preceding three years (includes
affil iates and persons or
entities that hold interest in
such entity and their
affiliates)
Very Small Business is average
gross revenues of $3M or less
for the preceding three years
(includes affiliates and persons
or entities that hold interest
in such entity and their
affiliates)
Satellite Master Antenna
Television Systems $12.5 Million in Annual Receipts
or Less
24 GHz - Incumbent Licensees 1,500 Employees or Fewer
24 GHz - Future Licensees Small Business is average gross
revenues of $15M or less for the
preceding three years (includes
affiliates and persons or
entities that hold interest in
such entity and their
affiliates)
Very Small Business is average
gross revenues of $3M or less
for the preceding three years
(includes affiliates and persons
or entities that hold interest
in such entity and their
affiliates)
Miscellaneous
On-Line Information Services $18 Million in Annual Receipts
or Less
Radio and Television
Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment 750 Employees or Fewer
Manufacturers
Audio and Video Equipment
Manufacturers
Telephone Apparatus
Manufacturers (Except 1,000 Employees or Fewer
Cellular)
Medical Implant Device 500 Employees or Fewer
Manufacturers
Hospitals $29 Million in Annual Receipts
or Less
Nursing Homes $11.5 Million in Annual Receipts
or Less
Hotels and Motels $6 Million in Annual Receipts or
Less
Tower Owners (See Lessee's Type of Business)
_________________________
1 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(4)(A). The Commission has authority
under Section 503 of the Act to assess a forfeiture penalty
against a common carrier if the Commission determines that the
carrier has ``willfully or repeatedly'' failed to comply with the
provisions of the Act or with any rule, regulation, or order
issued by the Commission under the Act. Id. §503(b)(1)(B)
Section 503 provides that the Commission must assess such
penalties through the use of a written notice of apparent
liability or notice of opportunity for hearing. Id. § 503(b)(3),
(4).
2 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(e) (1995). Except where otherwise noted,
all references to the Commission's rules shall be to the rules as
they existed at the time of the acts or omissions in question.
3 The TCPA is codified at 47 U.S.C. § 227.
4 H.R. Rep. No. 102-317, 102nd Cong. at 18 (1991); see also
comments of Senator Pressler:
Many consumers are simply tired of the nuisance of telephone
solicitations. Information age technologies, combined with
the telephone, now give modern door-to-door salesmen an
unrestricted ability to invade the privacy of our homes.
Unlike other mediums of communications media, the telephone
commands our instant attention. Junk mail can be thrown
away. Television commercials can be turned off. The
telephone demands to be answered.
S. Rep. No. 102-177, 102nd Cong. at 19 (1991).
5 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(1).
6 Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, CC Docket No. 92-90, Report and Order, 7
FCC Rcd 8752 (1992).
7 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1200(e)(2)(iii), (vi).
8 Consumer.Net v. AT&T, 15 FCC Rcd 281, 298-99 (1999).
9 Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278, Report and Order,
18 FCC Rcd 14,014 (2003) (TCPA Revisions Report and Order),
petition for review pending sub nom. Mainstream Marketing
Services, Inc. v. FCC, No. 03-9511 (10th Cir.). These rules were
not in effect at the time of the acts or omissions in question.
10 Letter from Colleen K. Heitkamp, Chief, Telecommunications
Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau. FCC, to Michael F. Del
Casino, AT&T (Apr. 1, 2003); Letter from Colleen K. Heitkamp,
Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau.
FCC, to Michael F. Del Casino, AT&T (Apr. 10, 2003); Letter from
Colleen K. Heitkamp, Chief, Telecommunications Consumers
Division, Enforcement Bureau. FCC, to Michael F. Del Casino, AT&T
(Apr. 29, 2003); Letter from Colleen K. Heitkamp, Chief,
Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau. FCC,
to Michael F. Del Casino, AT&T (June 2, 2003).
11 Letter from Peter H. Jacoby, AT&T, to Peter G. Wolfe, FCC
(Apr. 25, 2003); Letter from Peter H. Jacoby, AT&T, to Peter G.
Wolfe, FCC (May 19, 2003); Letter from Seth S. Gross, AT&T, to
Peter G. Wolfe, FCC (July 21, 2003); Letter from Seth S. Gross,
AT&T, to Peter G. Wolfe, FCC (Aug. 29, 2003); Letter from Seth S.
Gross, AT&T, to Peter G. Wolfe, FCC (Sept. 5, 2003). All AT&T
responses contain requests that the material provided be withheld
from public disclosure. AT&T later withdrew its request insofar
as it applied to its Do-Not-Call policy and confirmatory letter
that are sent to all customers that request to be placed on its
Do-Not-Call list. Letter from Peter Jacoby, AT&T, to Peter G.
Wolfe, FCC, dated May 19, 2003.
12 Our staff has ascertained that the number is the number of an
AT&T telemarketing location.
13 Declaration of Susan Richardson, dated August 26, 2003.
14 Declaration of Amy Dickinson, dated May 14, 2003.
15 Declaration of Jeffery Chen, dated August 7, 2003.
16 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(e).
17 See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, 8770 n.
63, 8766 n. 47 (1992); see also H.R. Rep. 102-317, 1st Sess.,
102nd Cong. (1991) at 15; see also Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer
Services, Inc., 95 Ohio St.3d 505, 769 N.E.2d 829 (2002).
18 Letter from Peter Jacoby, AT&T, to Peter G. Wolfe, FCC, dated
April 25, 2003.
19 The Commission's revised telemarketing rules, which were not
in effect at the time in question, now require that telephone
numbers be placed on company-specific Do-Not-Call lists within 30
days of the do-not-call request. TCPA Revisions Report and Order,
18 FCC Rcd at 14069; 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(3)(2003).
20 47 U.S.C. § 503(b). Pursuant to the Debt Collection
Improvement Act of 1996, P.L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-358, the
statutory maximum amount for a forfeiture penalty shall be
adjusted for inflation at least once every four years. The
current maximum, as adjusted, is $120,000. 47 C.F.R. §
1.80(b)(5).
21 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
22 The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of
Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture
Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon.
denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (Forfeiture Policy Statement).
23 Carolina Liquidators, Inc.,15 FCC Rcd 16837, 16842 (2000); 15
FCC Rcd 21775 (2000). We note, however, that unsolicited
facsimile advertising is unlawful under section 64.1200(a)(3) of
our rules even when a consumer has not requested that such
transmissions be halted.
24 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(e).
25 The forfeiture amount should be paid by check or money order
drawn to the order of the Federal Communications Commission.
Reference should be made on AT&T's check or money order to
``NAL/Acct. No. 200332170008'' Such remittances must be mailed
to Forfeiture Collection section, Finance Branch, Federal
Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois
60673-7482.
26 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.