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.

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

Federal Communications Commission DA 17-662
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
In the Matter of
Best Insurance Contracts, Inc., and
Philip Roesel, dba Wilmington Insurance Quotes
)
)
)
)
File No.: EB-TCD-16-00023195
CITATION AND ORDER
PRERECORDED VOICE MESSAGE VIOLATIONS
Adopted: August 4, 2017 Released: August 4, 2017
By the Deputy Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The Bureau has conducted an extensive investigation and identified Best Insurance
Contracts, Inc., and Philip Roesel, doing business as Wilmington Insurance Quotes (collectively, Roesel),
as the originator of more than 21 million illegal robocalls. This CITATION AND ORDER (Citation),
notifies Roesel that Roesel violated the law by making unauthorized and disruptive prerecorded
telemarketing calls—or robocalls—to emergency phone lines, wireless phones, and residential phone
lines without prior express written consent and absent an emergency purpose. Further, Roesel violated
the law by initiating telephone solicitations, without prior express written consent, to subscribers who had
registered their telephone numbers on the national Do-Not-Call registry. We therefore direct Roesel to
take immediate steps to comply with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications
Act or Act), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and the Federal Communications
Commission’s (Commission) rules (Rules), which prohibit (1) making autodialed, artificial or
prerecorded voice message calls to emergency phone lines, wireless phones, or residential telephone lines
unless the calls are made for emergency purposes or with the prior express consent of the called party,
and (2) initiating telephone solicitations to telephone lines registered on the national Do-Not-Call registry
without prior express written consent. If Roesel fails to comply with these laws, he may be liable for
significant fines.
2. Notice of Duty to Comply With Law: We issue this Citation pursuant to Section
503(b)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act),1 which states that the Commission may
not impose monetary forfeitures against non-regulatees who violate the Act or the Rules unless and until:
(a) the Commission issues a citation to the violator; (b) the Commission provides the violator a
reasonable opportunity to respond; and (c) the violator subsequently engages in conduct described in the
citation.2 Accordingly, Roesel is hereby on notice that Best Insurance Contracts, Inc., and Philip Roesel,
1 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(5). Under Section 503(b)(5) of the Act, a person who does not hold a license, permit,
certificate, or other authorization issued by the Commission, or is not an applicant for the same, may not be issued a
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture unless: (1) that person is first sent a citation of the violation charged; (2)
is given an opportunity for a personal interview with an official of the Commission; and (3) subsequently engages in
conduct of the type described in such citation. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(5). In addition to this Citation, the Commission
contemporaneously released a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture against Roesel for apparent violations of
the Truth In Caller ID Act of 2009. In contrast to the TCPA, the Truth In Caller ID Act only requires that the
Commission provide the notice required under Section 503(b)(3) of the Act (notice and opportunity for a hearing
before the Commission or an administrative law judge) or Section 503(b)(4) of the Act (Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture) before assessing a forfeiture for unlawful spoofing. 47 U.S.C. § 227(e)(5)(A).
2 See 47 U.S.C § 503(b)(5); see also 47 CFR § 1.80(a)(5).
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-662
2
doing business as Wilmington Insurance Quotes (or any entity through which Roesel does business) must
comply with Section 227 of the Act and Section 64.1200 of the Rules. If Roesel subsequently engages in
any conduct of the type this Citation describes—and specifically any violation of the Act and Rules that
govern solicitations, artificial/prerecorded voice message calls, and autodialed telephone calls3—Roesel
may be subject to further legal action, such as civil penalties, including substantial monetary forfeitures.
In assessing such forfeitures, the Commission may consider both the conduct that led to this Citation and
the conduct following it.4
II. BACKGROUND
3. Pursuant to the Act and the Rules, consumer consent is required prior to making
autodialed or artificial/prerecorded voice message calls—commonly known as robocalls—to emergency
telephone lines or to consumers’ wireless phones. Similarly, pursuant to the Act and the Rules, express
written consent is required prior to making telephone solicitations to telephone lines registered on the
national Do-Not-Call registry. Although Congress and the Commission have long worked to protect
consumers from illegal, unwanted, and disruptive robocalls, such calls persist as the number one
consumer complaint to the Commission. As technology has advanced, these calls have become more
prevalent, more threatening, and even more challenging to prevent. Along with advanced and low cost
spoofing technology, nefarious robocallers can easily hide their true identities from consumers and cause
a variety of harms, including the disruption of consumer privacy.
4. The evidence indicates that Roesel is the perpetrator of systematic and substantial illegal
robocalling campaigns—making more than 21 million illegal robocalls in just a three-month period. As
explained in greater detail below, during late 2016 and early 2017, Roesel engaged in mass-robocalling
campaigns related to the solicitation of insurance plans. Roesel’s calls overwhelmed American
consumers and repeatedly disrupted a critical communications service used by hospitals and emergency
medical providers. Roesel’s large-scale and systematic robocalling campaigns violate the
Communications Act and the Commission’s Rules.
A. Robocalls Offering Health Insurance
5. In recent years, robocalls have been used increasingly by the health insurance industry to
generate health insurance leads and sales.5 In December 2016, Sp?k, Inc. (Sp?k), which provides paging
services to medical providers, submitted an informal complaint with the Bureau about a significant
robocalling event that was disrupting its emergency medical paging service.6 After the company received
complaints from its paging customers about service disruptions, Sp?k investigated and was able to
identify a large number of prerecorded message calls hitting its network. Sp?k determined that the

3 See 47 U.S.C. § 227; 47 CFR § 64.1200. Section 227 was added to the Communications Act by the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-243, 105 Stat. 2394 (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 227), and is most
commonly known as the TCPA. The TCPA and the Commission’s rules restrict a variety of practices that are
associated with telephone solicitation and the use of the telephone network to deliver unsolicited advertisements or
prerecorded/artificial voice and autodialed telephone calls.
4 See S. Rep. No. 95-580, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. at 9 (1977) (explaining that a person or entity that has been issued a
citation by the Commission that thereafter engages in the conduct for which the citation was issued, the subsequent
notice of apparent liability “would attach not only for the conduct occurring subsequently but also for the conduct
for which the citation was originally sent”) (emphasis added).
5 See Michele Andrews, ‘You’ve Got Mail’: E-mails and Robocalls Hit Home in Promoting Medicaid Enrollment,
Kaiser Health News (May 26, 2017), available at http://khn.org/news/youve-got-mail-emails-and-robocalls-hit-
home-in-promoting-medicaid-enrollment/; see also Bridgette Small, Phony Calls about Health Insurance, February
18, 2016, Federal Trade Commission Website, available at https://www.consumer ftc.gov/blog/phony-calls-about-
health-insurance.
6 See E-mail from Dexter Lee, Corporate Technical Operations Director, Sp?k, Inc., to Kristi Thompson, Deputy
Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Dec. 14, 2016, 16:59 ET) (on file in
File No. EB-TCD-16-00023195).
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-662
3
robocalls consisted of a prerecorded advertising message for health insurance policies. Sp?k,
headquartered in Springfield, Virginia, provides paging services for hospitals, emergency rooms, and
physicians.7 Paging services are essential in hospitals and emergency rooms across the country, with an
estimated 85 percent of hospitals relying on this technology to ensure that emergency room doctors,
nurses, EMTs, and other first responders receive immediate alerts.8 Because paging technology is not
equipped to handle voice calls, a large-scale robocalling campaign will disrupt—and can potentially
disable—the medical pager network. Service outages, slowdowns, or other problems caused by robocalls
flooding a paging network constitute a serious risk to public safety because they interfere with critical
hospital and emergency room communications.
6. Sp?k contacted the FCC to lodge an informal complaint about the unauthorized
prerecorded message calls hitting its network. According to Sp?k, the robocalling event adversely
affected 5,000 to 10,000 of its service subscribers.9 The robocalling event harmed Sp?k’s customers by
disrupting those customers’ pager numbers, which are used by doctors, hospitals and emergency first
responders. Sp?k said that one of its subscribers is Palmetto Health, which operates seven hospitals
serving Columbia, Greenville, and Sumter, South Carolina. Palmetto Health is the largest health resource
in the South Carolina Midlands region.10 According to Sp?k, Palmetto Health experienced intermittent
pager disruptions as a result of the massive influx of unauthorized robocalls to Sp?k’s network.11
7. From the information provided by Sp?k, the Commission traced the disruptive calls to
Philip Roesel. Philip Roesel does business under at least two different names. First, Philip Roesel sells
insurance plans (including medical insurance and life insurance) under the unregistered name
“Wilmington Insurance Quotes” and its accompanying website, wilmingtoninsurancequotes.com (WIQ).12
The WIQ domain name is registered to Philip Roesel in his personal name and at his
address; the website features a prominent photograph of Philip Roesel along with his name, personal e-
mail address, his address, his personal cell phone,13 and a toll-free phone number.
Second, Philip Roesel does business under the name “Best Insurance Contracts, Inc.” (BIC). Roesel
describes himself as the “CEO and founder” of BIC, which is incorporated in North Carolina.14 BIC’s

7 See Sp?k Website, http://www.spok.com/ (last visited July 31, 2017).
8 See Hospitals turning a ‘pager’ on data hardware, The Boston Globe (Feb. 2, 2016),
https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/02/01/beep-this-accessory-busy-doctors-finally-gets-
upgrade/gRcjTy7w3RuTJiqaeKTsEN/story html.
9 See E-mail from Dexter Lee, Corporate Technical Operations Director, Sp?k, Inc., to Kristi Thompson, Deputy
Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (June 20, 2017, 10:16 ET) (on file in
File No. EB-TCD-16-00023195); see also Declaration of Kimbarly H. Taylor, May 22, 2017 (on file in File No. EB-
TCD-16-00023195).
10 See Palmetto Health Website, “About Palmetto Health,” https://www.palmettohealth.org/patients-guests/about-
palmetto-health (last visited July 31, 2017).
11 As soon as Sp?k identified the robocalls hitting its network, it immediately alerted its carriers (AT&T and
Verizon) and Bureau staff. After receiving Sp?k’s reports about the unauthorized nature of the robocalls, and at
Sp?k’s request, AT&T and Verizon were able to take steps to mitigate and reduce the number of illegal robocalls
before they reached Sp?k’s subscribers.
12 See LinkedIn page for Philip Roesel, https://www.linkedin.com/in/philiproesel/ (last visited July 5, 2017) (on file
in File No. EB-TCD-16-00023195).
13 The subscriber phone records for the number show that in 2015, the phone number was registered
to Philip Roesel’s wife, Elizabeth Roesel, at their address in . Subsequently, the phone number
was ported to a new carrier under the name of Wilmington Insurance Quotes. Wilmington Insurance Quotes appears
to be Philip Roesel doing business as Wilmington Insurance Quotes; the name is not registered as a company name
in any state.
14 The North Carolina Secretary of State lists Philip Roesel as the Best Insurance Contracts registered agent and the
company’s principal office shares the same address as one of Roesel’s current personal addresses. See Best
(continued…)

Federal Communications Commission DA 17-662

6
? Philip Roesel instructed the former employee to hang up on consumers if “they asked too
many questions.”
? Philip Roesel told the employee that the goal was to market to economically
disadvantaged and unsophisticated consumers, stating that “the dumber and more broke,
the better.”
32

III. APPLICABLE LAW AND VIOLATIONS
12. In 1991, Congress passed the TCPA to prohibit certain autodialed and
artificial/prerecorded message calls to emergency lines, wireless, and residential telephone lines made
without the called party’s consent.
33
Congress expressed concern that “automated calls are placed to lines
reserved for emergency purposes, such as hospitals and fire and police stations” and that “some automatic
dialers will dial numbers in sequence, thereby tying up all the lines of a business and preventing any
outgoing calls.”
34
Congress noted that such calls were not only a nuisance, an invasion of privacy, and an
impediment to interstate commerce, but also a serious threat to public safety.
35
In 1992, the Commission
adopted rules implementing the TCPA.
36
Further, in 2003, the FCC revised its TCPA rules to establish, in
coordination with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), a national Do-Not-Call registry.
37
The national
registry is nationwide in scope, covers all telemarketers (with the exception of certain nonprofit
organizations), and applies to both interstate and intrastate calls. The registry went into effect on October
1, 2003. By revising its TCPA rules and establishing a national Do-Not-Call registry, the Commission
provided consumers with options for avoiding unwanted telephone solicitations.
13. Based on the evidence gathered in the Bureau’s investigation, we find that Roesel
violated multiple provisions of the Communications Act and the Rules. Specifically, we find that Roesel
violated provisions of the TCPA and the Commission’s rules that prohibit making (1) prerecorded voice
message calls to emergency telephone lines,
38
(2) prerecorded voice message calls to cell phones,
39
(3)
prerecorded telemarketing calls to residential phone lines without prior express written consent absent an
emergency purpose,
40
and (4)

telephone solicitations to telephone lines registered on the national Do-Not-
Call registry without prior express written consent.
41

A. Violations of TCPA
14. Prohibitions Against Prerecorded Voice Messages. The TCPA prohibits certain
prerecorded message calls to consumers. Section 227(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Communications Act and Section
64.1200(a)(1)(i) of the Rules prohibit calls made using any automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice message to “any emergency telephone line, including any 911 line and any
emergency line of a hospital, medical physician or service office, health care facility, poison control

32
Id.
33
Pub. L. No. 102-243 (1991).
34
Id.
35
See S. Rep. No. 102-178 (1991).
36
47 CFR § 64.1200. See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991,
Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752 (1992).
37
See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 68
FR 4414-01 (2003).
38
See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(i); 47 CFR § 64.1200(a)(1)(i).
39
See 47 U.S.C. §§ 227(b)(1)(A)(i), (iii); 47 CFR § 64.1200(a)(1)(iii).
40
See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B); 47 CFR § 64.1200(a)(3).
41
See 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(3)(F); 47 CFR §§ 64.1200(c)(2), 64.1200(e).
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-662

7
center, or fire protection or law enforcement agency.”
42
Similarly, Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the
Communications Act and Section 64.1200(a)(1)(iii) of the Rules prohibit such calls to cell phones and
other mobile services, such as paging systems. It is unlawful “for any person . . . to make any call . . .
using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice . . . to any telephone
number assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other
radio common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call.”
43

15. Two exceptions to these prohibitions are: (1) calls made for emergency purposes; and
(2) calls made with the prior express consent of the called party.
44
Prior express written consent is
required if the calls include advertisements or constitute telemarketing.
45
An advertisement is defined as
“any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods or services.”
46

Likewise, the rules define “telemarketing” as “the initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose
of encouraging the purchase . . . of property, goods, or services, which is transmitted to any person.”
47

16. The Communications Act and the Rules also restrict prerecorded message calls to
residential phone lines when the prerecorded message includes an advertisement or constitutes
telemarketing.
48
Specifically, Section 64.1200(a)(3) of the Rules states that “[n]o person or entity may: .
. . [i]nitiate any telephone call to any residential line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a
message without the prior express written consent of the called party” unless one or more of four
enumerated exceptions apply.
49

17. Further, the Act and the Rules prohibit the initiation of telephone solicitations to
telephone lines registered on the national Do-Not-Call registry without prior express written consent.
50

Specifically, Section 64.1200(c)(2) states that “[n]o person or entity shall initiate any telephone
solicitation to residential telephone subscriber who has registered his or her telephone number on the
national do-not-call registry of persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations.”
51
Section
64.1200(c)(2)(ii) states that any person or entity making such telephone solicitations will not be liable for
violating Section 64.1200(c)(2) if it has obtained the subscriber's prior express written permission.
52

42
47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(i); 47 CFR § 64.1200(a)(1)(i).
43
47 CFR § 64.1200(a)(1)(iii); 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).
44
See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii); 47 CFR § 64.1200(a)(1)(iii).
45
47 CFR § 64.1200(a)(2)-(3). There are exceptions for calls made on behalf of tax-exempt nonprofit organizations
or a call that delivers a “health care” message made by an entity identified in the HIPAA Privacy Rule. Id.
46
47 CFR § 64.1200(f)(1).
47
47 CFR § 64.1200(f)(12).
48
Section 227(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act prohibits any person “to initiate any telephone call to any
residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express
consent of the called party unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the
Commission. . . . ” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B). The Commission set forth specific exemptions to the prohibition in its
Rules.
49
The exceptions are calls for emergency purposes, calls not made for a commercial purpose, calls made for a
commercial purpose but do not include advertisements or telemarketing, and calls made for tax-exempt nonprofit
organizations. 47 CFR § 64.1200(a)(3) (emphasis added).
50
See 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(3)(F); 47 CFR §§ 64.1200(c)(2), (e).
51
See 47 CFR § 64.1200(c)(2). Section 64.1200(e) clarifies that “[t]he rules set forth in paragraph (c) and (d) . . .
are applicable to any person or entity making telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls to wireless telephone
numbers to the extent described in the Commission's Report and Order, CG Docket No. 02-278, FCC 03-153, ‘Rules
and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.’” See 47 CFR § 64.1200(e).
52
See 47 CFR § 64.1200(c)(2)(ii).
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-662

8
18. Calls to Emergency Telephone Lines. Sp?k contacted Commission staff about a
robocalling incident affecting its services on December 15, 2016.
53
In its December informal complaint,
the company reported a high volume of robocalls that adversely affected its paging network on December
14-15, 2016.
54
Sp?k’s paging system constitutes an “emergency telephone line.”
55
Sp?k represents that
its paging system provides communications between and among physicians, nurses and patients.
56

According to Sp?k, medical professionals and first responders often rely on paging during emergencies
because cellular networks can fail.
57
In Abramovich,
58
the Commission noted that Sp?k’s paging system
provides critical emergency communications to hospitals and physicians and other medical personnel.
59

The Commission previously acknowledged that paging services “are a critical part of emergency
response” and that first responders, hospitals, and critical infrastructure providers “rely on paging services
during emergencies.”
60

19. The calls made to Sp?k’s paging system were prerecorded telemarketing calls in violation
of the Act. The calls contained prerecorded messages soliciting consumers to purchase health care
insurance.
61
The sale of health care insurance constitutes telemarketing requiring prior express written
consent.
62
Because the numbers that were called belong to pagers used by medical personnel in hospitals
(and were incapable of receiving voice calls), it stands to reason that the end user subscribers did not
provide express written permission to receive these calls. Moreover, Sp?k itself complained that the
robocalls made to phone numbers on its paging network were unauthorized when it alerted the
Commission about the calls and requested assistance with stopping them. As previously mentioned, the
related Roesel robocalling event adversely affected 5,000 to 10,000 of Sp?k’s service subscribers.
63
We
conclude, therefore, that Roesel made prerecorded telemarketing message calls to Sp?k’s emergency
paging system for a non-emergency purpose without prior express written consent in violation of Section
64.1200(a)(1)(i).
20. Calls to Wireless Telephone Lines. As part of the investigation, Bureau staff spoke with
44 wireless subscribers who received robocalls from Roesel on their wireless phones.
64
The individuals
each confirmed that they (1) owned the telephone number at the time of the call, and (2) never consented
to receive these calls. Thus, we conclude that Roesel made at least 44 prerecorded message calls to
wireless numbers without prior express consent in violation of the Communications Act and the Rules. In
addition, as noted previously, the Bureau identified that 17,487,293 of the 21,582,771 robocalls Roesel
made from late October 2016 to late January 2017 were made to wireless phones.

53
See supra note 6. As discussed above, Sp?k provides wireless paging systems for hospitals and medical
personnel. See also Sp?k, Paging Services, http://www.spok.com/solutions/paging-services (last visited July 31,
2017).
54
See supra note 6.
55
See Adrian Abramovich, Marketing Strategy Leaders, Inc., and Marketing Leaders, Inc., Citation and Order, DA
17-593, paras. 17 (June 22, 2017) (Abramovich Citation).
56
Sp?k, Paging Services, http://www.spok.com/solutions/paging-services (last visited July 31, 2017).
57
Id.
58
See Abramovich Citation at paras. 17-18.
59
Id.
60
Recommendations of the Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications
Networks, Order on Reconsideration, 22 FCC Rcd 18013, 18029, para. 34 (2007).
61
See supra note 6.
62
See 47 CFR § 64.1200(f)(11).
63
See supra note 9.
64
See supra note 24.
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-662

9
21. Calls to Residential Telephone Lines. Commission staff verified that at least 15 of the
calls were to residential lines.
65
The calls involved healthcare insurance solicitations, and therefore
constitute telemarketing calls and do not fall within one of the exceptions listed in Section 64.1200(a)(3).
These 15 individuals confirmed that they (1) owned the number, and (2) did not consent to receive
telemarketing calls. Thus, we find that Roesel violated the Act and the Rules by making at least 15
prerecorded message telemarketing calls to residential lines without prior express written consent.
22. Calls to Telephone Lines Registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. Commission
staff verified that at least nine calls were made to telephone lines registered on the national Do-Not-Call
registry at the time of the calls. The calls involved healthcare insurance solicitations, and therefore
constitute telephone solicitations as described in Section 64.1200(c)(2) of the Rules. These nine
individuals all filed complaints
66
in connection with Roesel’s calls and confirmed that they did not
provide prior express written consent to Roesel to make the calls to their lines.
67
Thus, we find that
Roesel violated the Act and the Rules by making at least nine telephone solicitations to telephone lines
without prior express written consent.
23. Finding of Violations. Based on the record developed in this case, the Commission finds
that Roesel made one or more telephone solicitations with prerecorded messages in violation of Section
227 of the Communications Act and Section 64.1200 of the Rules.
24. Joint and Several Liability. The evidence indicates that Philip Roesel apparently acted
directly, and under the BIC and WIQ names, to make the illegal robocalls at issue in this Citation. We
find that Philip Roesel may be held personally liable under the principles of piercing the corporate veil.
As the FCC has found in similar cases, personal liability is appropriate (and the Commission will pierce
the corporate veil) where the individual, like Philip Roesel, is an officer of a closely held corporation and
directly participates in, oversees, authorizes or otherwise directs the commission of the wrongful act. For
example, in a recent case involving violations of the TCPA’s prohibitions against unsolicited faxes, the
Commission found that personal liability attached to the individual who served as his company’s sole
member and sole corporate officer.
68

25. Similar to the facts of that case, in this case, the evidence shows that the “Best Insurance
Contracts” entity merely functions as an instrumentality of Philip Roesel, and Philip Roesel cannot be
allowed to circumvent personal liability simply by forming a corporate entity to hide behind.
69
There are

65
Id. As noted above, 4,095,478 of the 21,528,771 robocalls reviewed by the Bureau were made to landline phones.
However, the Bureau’s review did not ascertain the percentage of these calls placed to residential lines.
66
See Attachment A (Do-Not-Call Complaints).
67
See Declarations of Nakasha Ramsey and Lisa Williford, June 19, 2017 (on file on File No. EB-TCD-16-
00023195).
68
See Scott Malcolm, DSM Supply, LLC, Somaticare, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 29 FCC Rcd
2476, 2483-84, paras. 16-19 (2014); Scott Malcolm, DSM Supply, LLC, Somaticare, LLC, Forfeiture Order, 31 FCC
Rcd 1652, 1653, para. 5 (2016).
69
See Texas v. Am. Blastfax, 164 F. Supp. 2d 892, 897-98 (W.D. Texas 2001) (“[I]f the officer directly participated
in or authorized the statutory violation, even though acting on behalf of the corporation, he may be personally
liable” for violations of the TCPA); see also United States v. Pollution Servs. of Oswego, Inc., 763 F.2d 133, 134-35
(2nd Cir. 1985) (“In light of the clear congressional intent to hold ‘person[s]’ liable for violations [of the Rivers and
Harbors Appropriations Act], we see no reason to shield from civil liability those corporate officers who are
personally involved in or directly responsible for statutorily proscribed activity.”). Like in Oswego, the TCPA
embodies the congressional intent to hold “persons” liable for violations. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1); see also 47
U.S.C. § 153(39) (defining a “person” to include individuals as well as corporate entities). In other contexts, courts
have found the responsible corporate officer of a company to be personally liable for unlawful acts where the
corporate officer was in a position of responsibility vis-à-vis the illegal conduct, had the power to prevent others
from engaging in such conduct or to promptly correct the violation, and failed to take action. See e.g. United States
v. Hodges X-Ray, Inc., 759 F.2d 557, 560-62 (6th Cir. 1985).
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-662
10
a number of significant factors that illustrate why the corporate veil should be pierced in this case. Philip
Roesel failed to maintain separate identities between BIC and himself.
26. According to the North Carolina Secretary of State, BIC was incorporated in September
2016.70 In BIC’s incorporation document, Philip Roesel is stated as the company’s sole incorporator, the
sole shareholder, and the sole registered agent.71 BIC’s mailing address, registered office, and principal
office are each listed as , which—according to North
Carolina property records—is a single family residence owned by Philip Roesel and members of his
immediate family.72 The BIC website lists Philip Roesel as the Founder and CEO of BIC;73 but the
company’s website domain name, “bestinsurancecontracts.com,” is registered to Philip Roesel personally,
rather than Best Insurance Contracts, Inc.74 BIC has been used for an illegal or wrongful purpose –
making spoofed robocalls. Similarly, Philip Roesel uses BIC’s telephone number for his personal
insurance operation/dba name WIQ, and prominently features this phone number on the WIQ website.
The robocalling operation used a third-party robocall platform provider called . As noted
previously, Philip Roesel set up the account under which he conducted all of his robocalls in his
own personal name and email address. As part of its investigation, the Bureau obtained billing records
for the robocalls that Roesel made via the platform. Those billing records show that Philip Roesel
sometimes paid with financial accounts in the name of BIC, while at other times the robocalling
services were paid for using Philip Roesel’s own financial accounts—indicating that he commingled his
personal expenditures with those of BIC.75 All of these factors strongly suggest that the corporate veil
should be pierced and that Philip Roesel is personally liable for the apparently unlawful conduct. Thus,
Best Insurance Contracts, Inc., and Philip Roesel, doing business as Wilmington Insurance Quotes are
jointly and severally liable for the unlawful conduct described above.
IV. OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THIS CITATION
27. Roesel may respond to this Citation within 30 calendar days from the release date of this
Citation by any of the following methods: (1) a written statement, (2) a teleconference interview, or (3) a
personal interview at FCC Headquarters or the Commission Field Office nearest to Roesel’s place of
business. The Commission office nearest Philip Roesel is FCC Headquarters located in Washington, DC.
28. If Roesel requests a teleconference or personal interview, contact Kristi Thompson at
(202) 418-1318. We note that such teleconference or interview must take place within 30 calendar days
of the release date of this Citation. If Roesel prefers to submit a written response with supporting
documentation, send the response within 30 calendar days of the release date of this Citation to the
contact and address provided in paragraph below.
29. All written communications should be sent to the address below.
Kristi Thompson, Deputy Chief
Telecommunications Consumers Division
Enforcement Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW, Rm. 4-C224

70 See Best Insurance Contracts, Inc. Corporate Filing, North Carolina Secretary of State Website,
https://www.sosnc.gov/Search/profcorp/12410762 (last visited June 14, 2017).
71 Id.
72 Id.
73See Best Insurance Contracts Website, https://bestinsurancecontracts.com/wp/ (last visited July 31, 2017).
74 See GoDaddy.com WHOIS results, www.bestinsurancecontracts.com (last visited June 27, 2017) (on file in EB-
TCD-16-00023195).
75 See Response.
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-662

11
Washington, DC 20554
Re: EB-TCD-16-00023195

30. Upon request, the Commission will make reasonable accommodations for persons with
disabilities. If applicable, Roesel should provide a description of the accommodation required, and
include as much detail as possible, and also provide a telephone number and other contact information.
Roesel should allow at least five business days advance notice; last minute requests will be accepted, but
may be impossible to fill. Roesel should send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC’s Consumer
& Governmental Affairs Bureau:
For sign language interpreters, CART, and other reasonable accommodations:
202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty);

For accessible format materials (braille, large print, electronic files, and audio format
202-418-0531 (voice), 202-418-7365 (tty).

31. We advise Roesel that he is a violation of Section 1.17 of the Rules
76
for any person to
make any false or misleading written or oral statement of fact to the Commission. Specifically, no person
shall:
(1) In any written or oral statement of fact, intentionally provide material factual
information that is incorrect or intentionally omit material information that is necessary to
prevent any material factual statement that is made from being incorrect or misleading;
and
(2) In any written statement of fact, provide material factual information that is incorrect
or omit material information that is necessary to prevent any material factual statement
that is made from being incorrect or misleading without a reasonable basis for believing
that any such material factual statement is correct and not misleading.
32. Further, the knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of
any material fact, in reply to this Citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment.
77

33. Violations of Section 1.17 of the Rules or the criminal statute referenced above may
result in further legal action, including monetary forfeitures pursuant to Section 503 of the Act.
34. Finally, we warn Roesel that, under the Privacy Act of 1974,
78
Commission staff will use
all relevant material information before it, including information disclosed in interviews or written
statements, to determine what, if any, enforcement action is required to ensure your compliance with the
Act and Rules.
V. FUTURE VIOLATIONS
35. If, after receipt of this Citation, Best Insurance Contracts, Inc., and/or Philip Roesel,
doing business as Wilmington Insurance Quotes (or any entity through which Philip Roesel does
business) again violates Section 227 of the Act, Sections 64.1200 of the Rules, the Commission may
impose sanctions for each such violation. For example, the Commission may impose monetary

76
47 CFR § 1.17.
77
18 U.S.C. § 1001.
78
5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3).
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-662
12
forfeitures of up to $19,246 per violation of Section 227.79 Further, as discussed above, the Commission
may assess forfeitures on both the conduct that led to this Citation and the conduct following it.80
VI. ORDERING CLAUSE
36. IT IS ORDERED that a copy of this Citation shall be sent by first class mail and
certified mail, return receipt requested, to Best Insurance Contracts, Inc., and Philip Roesel, doing
business as Wilmington Insurance Quotes, .

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Lisa S. Gelb
Deputy Chief
Enforcement Bureau

79 47 CFR § 1.80. See Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties to Reflect Inflation, Order, DA 16-1453, (Dec. 30,
2016).
80 See supra para. 2.
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-662

13
ATTACHMENT A

Do-Not-Call Complaints

Federal Communications Commission DA 17-662