Click here for Adobe Acrobat 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 FCC 17-80 
Before the 
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, DC 20554  
In the Matter of 
Adrian Abramovich,  
Marketing Strategy Leaders, Inc., and 
Marketing Leaders, Inc. 
)
)
)
)
)
File No.:  EB-TCD-15-00020488 
NAL/Acct. No.:  201732170006 
FRN:  0026627141 
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE 
Adopted:  June 22, 2017 Released:  June 22, 2017 
By the Commission:  Chairman Pai and Commissioner Clyburn issuing separate statements; 
Commissioner O’Rielly concurring. 
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. This Notice of Apparently Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) finds that Adrian Abramovich
(Abramovich) is apparently liable for perpetrating one of the largest spoofed robocall campaigns that the 
Commission has ever investigated, involving nearly 100 million robocalls during a three-month period in 
2016.  Accurate caller ID information allows consumers to make informed decisions about which calls to 
accept, ignore, or block, and whether the party on the other end of the phone line is reputable and 
deserving of their trust.  The Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009 and the Commission’s rules (Rules), prohibit 
any individual from falsifying or faking his or her phone number with the intent to defraud, cause harm, 
or wrongfully obtain anything of value.  This prohibited practice is better known as “spoofing.”  Spoofing 
is particularly pernicious when used to advance illegal robocalls—the number one consumer complaint 
received by the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC).  As technology has 
improved, the dangerous combination of spoofing and illegal robocalls has become much more potent, 
making illegal robocalling campaigns more deceptive, more disruptive, and harder to stop.  The 
Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) has investigated complaints regarding Abramovich’s alleged scheme 
involving spoofed robocalls appearing to originate from local numbers and offering holiday vacations and 
cruises to popular destinations in Mexico, the Caribbean, and Florida.  The callers falsely claim to be 
affiliated with well-known American travel and hospitality companies—including TripAdvisor, Expedia, 
Marriott, and Hilton—but then connect trusting consumers to unaffiliated third parties.     
2. Today, the Commission issues this NAL1 and proposes a penalty of $120,000,000 against
Mr. Adrian Abramovich2 for apparently causing the display of misleading or inaccurate caller ID 
1 The Commission also released a Citation and Order notifying Abramovich that he violated the Telephone 
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the federal wire fraud statute by making illegal robocalls to emergency lines, 
wireless phones, and residential phones, and that included prerecorded messages falsely claiming affiliation with 
well-known U.S. travel and hotel companies.  Adrian Abramovich, Marketing Strategy Leaders, Inc., and Marketing 
Leaders, Inc., Citation and Order, DA 17-593 (EB June 22, 2017) (Abramovich Citation). 
2 We reference Adrian Abramovich and the companies that he owns and controls as one and the same.  See infra 
para. 27.  Abramovich has formed 12 corporations in Florida over the past two decades, many of which only existed 
for one year before he dissolved them.  He has operated the following companies:  Alphavision, Inc. (Jul. 23, 1997 
to Jan. 14, 2002); Telsur Communications, Inc. (June 18, 1999 to Dec. 18, 2003); Promociones Y Saldos de Remate 
de Mercancias Enterprise, Inc. (Sept. 12, 2002 to Sept. 19, 2003); Horizontes Promociones, Inc. (Apr. 7, 2003 to 
Oct. 1, 2004); Marketing Leaders, Inc. (Apr. 28, 2005 to Sept. 18, 2006); One Destinations, Inc. (July 2, 2007 to 
Sept. 2, 2011); One Destinations Telecom, Inc. (Jan. 5, 2009 to Sept. 23, 2011); Mundidiomas Inc. (Apr. 28, 2009 to 
Sept. 23, 2011); Medical Imaging Equipment, Inc. (July 20, 2012 to Sept. 27, 2013); Marketing Strategy Leaders, 
Inc. (Mar. 10, 2004 to Jan. 29, 2016); Emerald Media, Inc. (Sept. 21, 2015 to present); Exclusive Leads Services, 
(continued….) 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-80  
2 
information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value.  The evidence 
shows that Abramovich apparently made 96,758,223 spoofed telephone calls over a three-month period in 
2016.  Abramovich apparently made the spoofed robocalls with the intent to cause consumers harm.  
Abramovich received payment for his work, which depended on falsely representing that the calls 
originated locally (to induce consumers to answer the telephone) and that the offers were affiliated with 
well-known hotel and travel companies (to induce consumers to pursue the offer).  The spoofed numbers 
were an integral part of Abramovich’s scheme to mislead consumers.  We therefore find that Abramovich 
apparently violated the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, as codified in Section 227(e) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act or Act),3 and Section 64.1604 of the 
Rules.4 
II. BACKGROUND 
A. The Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009 
3. The Commission has long stressed the importance of requiring telemarketers to transmit 
accurate caller ID information.  Even before the passage of the Truth in Caller ID Act, the Commission 
noted that “Caller ID allows consumers to screen out unwanted calls and to identify companies that they 
wish to ask not to call again.”5  The Commission went on to say that “[k]nowing the identity of the caller 
is also helpful to consumers who feel frightened or threatened by hang-up or ‘dead air’ calls.”6  The Truth 
in Caller ID Act of 2009 outlaws “caus[ing] any caller identification service to knowingly transmit 
misleading or inaccurate caller identification information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or 
wrongfully obtain anything of value.”7  Congress observed that consumers greatly value accurate, reliable 
caller ID information to help them decide whether to answer a phone call and, ultimately, whether to trust 
the caller on the other end of the line.  Congress noted that consumers’ widespread expectation is that any 
information that appears on caller ID represents the true originating number of the person or entity 
making the call.8   
4. In the years leading up to the Truth in Caller ID Act’s passage, consumers, telephone 
carriers, the Commission, and other law enforcement authorities observed a growing, troubling trend—
deliberate falsification of caller ID information as part of criminal frauds and other harmful activities 
posing threats to the pocketbooks, privacy, and peace of mind of millions of American consumers.  
Congress was especially concerned by cases where criminals used spoofed caller ID information for the 
purposes of defrauding consumers or wrongfully obtaining something of value from the called persons.  
For example, Congress was aware that fraudsters could spoof the caller ID information of recognizable 
businesses and thus “cause people to blame innocent businesses instead of the real source for the calls.”9  
In another cited example, scammers spoofed telephone numbers belonging to charities in order to 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
Inc. (Sept. 21, 2015 to present).  In nearly every case, Abramovich was the sole incorporator, officer, and director; at 
a minimum, he controlled each of these companies.  The listed addresses for the corporations appear to match 
residential addresses associated with Abramovich.  Thus, as explained more fully in paragraph 27, hereinafter, all 
references to Abramovich include Mr. Abramovich, personally, and the companies that he owns or controls.  
3 47 U.S.C. § 227(e). 
4 47 CFR § 64.1604. 
5 Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC 
Rcd 14014, 14122, para. 179 (2003). 
6 Id. 
7 47 U.S.C. § 227(e). 
8 See 156 Cong. Rec. H2522, H2524 (2010) (“Now, if you see a caller ID and you see it has a phone number, most 
people think that it’s ironclad that that’s the actual phone number that’s calling them when in truth it’s not.”). 
9 Id. at H2525. 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-80  
3 
misappropriate donations.10  Such scams and frauds were precisely the types of activities that Congress 
had in mind when it adopted the Truth in Caller ID Act.11 
B. FCC Investigation into Abramovich’s Spoofed Robocalls 
5. In recent years, consumers have reported receiving spoofed robocalls offering vacation 
packages, including to Mexico and the Caribbean. The calls appear as local numbers on caller ID systems, 
often tricking consumers into answering.12  When consumers answer the call, they hear a prerecorded 
message instructing them to “Press 1” to hear more about an “exclusive” vacation deal offered by a well-
known travel or hospitality company such as TripAdvisor, Expedia, Marriott, or Hilton.  Consumers are 
then transferred to a call center, where live operators attempt to sell the consumer one or more vacation 
packages (usually involving timeshare presentations), but are not affiliated with the well-known and 
trusted brands presented to the consumer during the prerecorded message.  Some consumers report 
receiving these calls multiple times per week.13  
6. In December 2015, Sp?k, Inc. (Sp?k) contacted the Commission to report and complain 
about a significant robocalling event that was disrupting its emergency medical paging service.  Sp?k, 
headquartered in Springfield, Virginia, provides paging services for hospitals, emergency rooms, and 
physicians.  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.14  Because paging technology is not 
equipped to handle voice calls, a large-scale robocalling campaign will disrupt—and can potentially 
disable—the 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.  From the information provided by Sp?k, the Commission traced the 
calls to Adrian Abramovich through his company, Marketing Strategy Leaders, Inc., a Florida based 
corporation.15 
7. In April 2016, TripAdvisor, Inc.16 contacted the Bureau to report that it had received a 
number of consumer complaints about robocalls that invoked the TripAdvisor name without 
                                                     
10 156 Cong. Rec. H8376, H8380 (2010). 
11 See 156 Cong. Rec. H2522, H2523 (2010) (“Caller ID spoofing has emerged as a useful tool for identifying 
thieves and other scam artists.”). 
12 As part of the investigation, Enforcement Bureau staff spoke with consumers who confirmed these same 
sentiments, namely extreme frustration and annoyance about these spoofed calls.  One consumer said she uses her 
cellular phone for business and cannot afford to not pick up a local call because it might be a client or business lead.  
These robocalls distract her from her work and waste her time.  Declaration of Daniel Stepanicich, February 13, 
2017 (on file in File No. EB-TCD-15-00020488) at 11 (Declaration of Daniel Stepanicich). 
13 See Zendesk Complaint #1370065 (Dec. 28, 2016); Zendesk Complaint #1364829 (Dec. 22, 2016); Zendesk 
Complaint #1330923 (Nov. 2016); Zendesk Complaint #1297041 (Nov. 1, 2016); see also infra para. 13. 
14 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. 
15 According to the Florida Secretary of State corporate filing web database, Abramovich dissolved Marketing 
Strategy Leaders on January 29, 2016.  The Commission’s investigation, however, found call data records for 
Marketing Strategy Leaders as recent as December 31, 2016.  See Carrier Call Detail Records, January 11, 2017 (on 
File No. EB-TCD-15-00020488) (Call Detail Records). 
16 TripAdvisor, Inc. (TripAdvisor) is a publicly traded U.S. advice and information company that offers user-
generated reviews of travel accommodations, restaurants and tourism attractions.  See About TripAdvisor, 
https://tripadvisor.mediaroom.com/us-about-us.  TripAdvisor provides a portal for third party travel provider 
partners to promote their services, but does not itself sell any travel tickets or vacation packages.  Id.  (“TripAdvisor 
[] is not a booking agent or tour operator, and does not charge any service fees to users of our site.”). 

 Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-80  
5 
1,000 calls from the call records for each day of the three-month period that Abramovich made calls (for a 
total sample of 80,000 calls) and found that every reviewed call was spoofed.26  Each calling number was 
spoofed in order to match the area code (first three digits) and central office code (second three digits) of 
the called number.27   
10. Based on the evidence collected during the investigation, the Bureau cited Abramovich 
for making illegal robocalls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and for 
committing wire fraud.28  Those violations are separate from, and in addition to, the apparent spoofing 
violations set forth in this NAL. 
III. DISCUSSION 
11. We find that Abramovich apparently violated Section 227(e) of the Act and Section 
64.1604 of the Rules by causing the display of misleading or inaccurate caller ID information, or 
“spoofing,” with unlawful intent, for the purpose of aiding an illegal robocalling campaign.  Section 
227(e) of the Act and Section 64.1604 of the Rules prohibit any person within the United States, in 
connection with any telecommunications service or Internet Protocol-enabled voice service, to knowingly 
cause, directly or indirectly, any caller ID service to transmit or display misleading or inaccurate caller ID 
information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value.29 
A. Abramovich Apparently Knowingly Caused the Display of Misleading and 
Inaccurate Caller ID Information  
12. Abramovich apparently knowingly caused the display of inaccurate caller ID 
information.  Call records obtained from Abramovich’s carrier show that between October 2016 and 
December 2016, Abramovich made 96,758,223 robocalls.30  The call records contained the called 
number, caller ID number, time stamp, call duration, and the IP address that sent the calls to the carrier.  
As stated above, Bureau staff analyzed a representative sample of the calls from the call records for each 
day during October, November, and December 2016 and found that the first six digits of each caller ID 
number matched the first six out of ten digits of the called consumer—a practice often referred to as 
“neighbor spoofing.”31  Neighbor spoofing, without question, results in the display of inaccurate caller ID 
information.  Therefore, based upon the large sample reviewed by Bureau staff, we find that Abramovich 
apparently knowingly caused the display of inaccurate caller ID information in violation of the Act and 
the Rules.   
13. The spoofed caller ID was also misleading.  Neighbor spoofing misleads consumers into 
thinking they are receiving a local call.  Numerous consumers complained to the Commission about 
Abramovich’s use of neighbor spoofing.  For example: 
• Over the past two weeks, I have received a phone call from a number with the same area code 
and first three digits of my own.32 
                                                     
26 See Reviewed Carrier Call Detail Records (on File EB-TCD-15-00020488) (Reviewed Carrier Call Detail 
Records). 
27 Id. 
28 See Abramovich Citation. 
29 47 U.S.C. § 227(e); 47 CFR § 64.1604. 
30 See supra para. 9-10. 
31 See id.  “Neighbor spoofing” involves altering the caller ID information to mimic the first six digits—the area 
code and central office code—of the called number.   
32 Zendesk Complaint #1295430 (Oct. 31, 2016). 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-80  
6 
• I have received repeated pre-recorded messages, some claiming to be from Marriott . . . they 
keep spoofing different numbers.33 
• I have daily—sometimes multiple times [a] day—inbound spoofed calls (same area code and 
prefix as my own phone number) purporting to be from [Marriott]. . . .”34 
• I’m on the do-not-call list, and I get telemarketing robo-calls to my cell phone every two 
hours.  It’s unbelievably infuriating.  All of them have my same area code (617) and middle 
code (284) but the last 4 digits change every time.35 
14. Based upon the evidence, we find that Abramovich apparently knowingly caused the 
display of inaccurate or misleading caller ID information.  This action, combined with the requisite intent 
(discussed below), violates Section 227(e)(1) of the Act and Section 64.1604(a) of the Rules. 
B. Abramovich’s Falsification of Caller ID Was Done With the Apparent Intent to 
Defraud, Cause Harm, or Wrongfully Obtain Something of Value 
15. Section 227(e) of the Act and Section 64.1604 of the Rules prohibits “in connection with 
any telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice service” the display of misleading or inaccurate 
caller ID information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value.36  In 
this instance, Abramovich apparently knowingly spoofed caller ID information with the intent to 
perpetuate an illegal robocalling campaign that was harmful to both consumers and businesses and in 
violation of the federal wire fraud statute.     
16. Intent to Cause Harm.  It is unlawful to display misleading or inaccurate caller ID 
information when the caller’s purpose or intent for doing so is to cause harm.  The Commission has held 
that the element of “harm” in the Truth in Caller ID Act is broad and “encompasses financial, physical, 
and emotional harm.”37  Both Congress and the Commission have long recognized the unique threats 
posed by illegal robocalls, including that such calls are a nuisance and invasion of privacy.38  Similarly, 
courts have routinely recognized that robocalls are an invasion of privacy, an injury in fact sufficient for 
Article III jurisdiction.39  Spoofing deceptively enhances the efficacy of illegal robocalling campaigns by 
attempting to trick consumers into answering the call and trusting the caller.  In addition to the harms 
caused by illegal robocalls generally, Abramovich’s spoofing campaign poses additional harms.  In this 
case, Abramovich apparently intended to spoof millions of calls in order to perpetuate an illegal 
robocalling campaign, which is an inherently harmful practice.   
                                                     
33 Zendesk Complaint #1298563 (Nov. 2, 2016). 
34 Zendesk Complaint #1330923 (Nov. 28, 2016). 
35 Zendesk Complaint #1364829 (Dec. 22, 2016). 
36 47 U.S.C. § 227(e); 47 CFR § 64.1604. 
37 Truth in Caller ID Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 9122, para 22. 
38 See Pub. L. No. 102-243 (1991); Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 
1991, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752 (1992). 
39 See, e.g., Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 484 (1988) (recognizing that preserving the sanctity of the home is an 
important value); Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, 565 U.S. 368, 372 (2012) (finding that robocalls are an 
invasion of privacy); LaVigne v. First Community Bancshares, Inc., 2016 WL 6305992 at *4 (D.N.M. Oct. 9, 2016) 
(finding that the invasion of privacy is a concrete harm); Krakauer v. Dish Network LLC, 168 F.Supp.3d 843, 845 
(M.D.N.C. 2016) (holding that violations of the TCPA are concrete injuries because unwanted telemarketing calls 
are “a disruptive and annoying invasion of privacy”). 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-80  
7 
17. Harm to Consumers.  The spoofed calls appeared to originate from local numbers.  
Consumers reported frustration at being tricked into answering the calls and explained that they feel 
powerless to effectively block the unwanted calls because the spoofed numbers constantly change.40   
18. “Neighbor spoofing” also harms the true subscriber of the spoofed number when affected 
consumers redial the spoofed number, thinking they are dialing the telemarketer, and instead reach the 
neighbor.  For example, in one instance a consumer left multiple voicemail messages with the true 
subscriber demanding they stop the calls.41  Other consumers have reported similar experiences: 
• I received an angry telephone call today from a man who says that my cell phone number has 
been calling him frequently with a Marriott prerecording about reservations.42 
• My phone number/caller ID is coming up on someone else’s number.  The gentleman called 
me to inform me that my number/caller ID shows up on his phone and when he answers it’s 
Marriott Telemarketing.43 
• I am getting calls from people whom I don’t know, telling me they are receiving calls from 
my number saying that someone keeps calling them trying to sell them services from Marriott 
Corporation.  I am not calling them, and I have no ID [sic] who this corporation is.44 
19. Harm to Carriers.  Extensive illegal robocalling can overwhelm a network’s capacity, 
and spoofing makes it harder for carriers to detect those calls and take remedial action.  Neighbor 
spoofing in particular is a technique that robocall scammers use to evade detection by the carriers’ 
network fraud prevention systems; because the illegal traffic masquerades as normal call traffic between 
local end users it is more likely to evade detection by carriers or consumers.  Spoofed robocalls harm 
telecommunications carriers by (1) burdening the carriers’ networks with illegal calls, and (2) enraging 
consumer recipients of the illegal robocalls—whose complaints add to the workload of customer service 
agents, decrease the perceived value of the service, and increase carrier costs.  The harder it is to detect 
the source of the calls, the longer these harms persist and the more damage they inflict. 
20. Harm to Misrepresented Companies.  Abramovich’s spoofed robocalls harmed the 
companies mentioned in the robocall messages.  Consumers believed that the calls were coming from 
Marriott or TripAdvisor and threatened to cease doing business with them.45  Some consumers have 
complained on online forums, further tarnishing their goodwill to a wider audience.46  By masking the 
originating number, spoofing makes it harder to identify the perpetrators of illegal robocalling campaigns.  
The longer it takes to detect the source of the calls, the more damage can be done to the companies’ 
reputations.  
21. In just the last three months of 2016, Abramovich made nearly 100 million apparently 
illegal spoofed calls, disrupting and angering consumers.47  Whereas unspoofed telemarketing calls can be 
                                                     
40 Id. 
41 Zendesk Complaint #1028233 (June 9, 2016). 
42 Zendesk Complaint #1473554 (Feb. 24, 2017). 
43 Zendesk Complaint #1482115 (Mar. 1, 2017). 
44 Zendesk Complaint #1420686 (Jan. 27, 2017). 
45 See supra para. 7, note 17. 
46 See john_thai, Robo calls?? (June 28, 2016), https://www.rewards-insiders marriott.com/thread/48697 (“I usually 
don’t spout off when I get angry.  Time for an exception.  Dear Marriott Insiders.  Talk to your boss.  I just got a 
robo-call from Marriott on my cell phone.  It’s on the no call list and I’ve never given you permission to call me.  
Do it again and you lose a Lifetime Platinum customer.  I didn’t buy a phone in order to provide you with a 
marketing platform. STOP IT!”). 
47 See Abramovich Citation. 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-80  
8 
ignored by consumers using caller ID and call blocking services, Abramovich’s spoofed telemarketing 
calls—masquerading as local numbers—trick consumers into answering the phone for fear of missing a 
call from a neighbor, family member, childcare provider, or business client only to be subjected to an 
unwanted prerecorded sales message.48  This is disruptive and an invasion of privacy, and precisely the 
type of harmful conduct that Congress sought to prevent via the Truth in Caller ID Act.  Moreover, 
spoofing of this particular variety allows illegal robocalls to propagate undetected from carrier to carrier, 
adding unauthorized burdens to carrier networks and threatening the integrity of the nation’s 
telecommunications infrastructure.  Finally, misrepresenting that the calls were associated with well-
known travel and hospitality companies harmed those companies’ reputations, and the spoofing made the 
calls harder to detect and prevent. Based on the representative sample of calls investigated during the 
three-month period at the end of 2016, we conclude that Abramovich apparently made 96,758,223 
spoofed telemarketing robocalls with the intent to causing harm, defraud, or wrongfully obtain something 
of value. 
C. Proposed Forfeiture  
22. Section 227(e) of the Act and the Section 1.80 of the Rules authorize the Commission to 
impose a forfeiture against any person that engages in unlawful spoofing.49  Specifically, the Act and 
Rules authorize a forfeiture of up to $11,052 for each spoofing violation, or three times that amount for 
each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,105,241 for any single act or failure 
to act.50  The Truth in Caller ID Act empowers the Commission “to proceed expeditiously to stop and . . . 
assess a forfeiture penalty against, any person or entity engaged in prohibited caller ID spoofing without 
first issuing a citation” against the violator.51 
23. This is the first time that the full Commission has proposed a forfeiture for spoofing 
under the Truth in Caller ID Act.  While the Act and Section 1.80 of the Rules set a maximum forfeiture 
                                                     
48 Declaration of Daniel Stepanicich at 10-11. 
49 47 U.S.C. § 227(e)(5); 47 CFR § 1.80(b)(4).  The Truth in Caller ID Act and the Rules contain a two-year statute 
of limitations on proposing forfeitures for unlawful spoofing.  47 U.S.C. § 227(e)(5)(A)(iv); 47 CFR § 1.80(c)(3).  
Unlike forfeitures assessed under Section 503(b) of the Act, “the Truth in Caller ID Act does not require ‘willful’ or 
‘repeated’ violations to justify imposition of a penalty.”  Truth in Caller ID Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 9133, para. 48.  
As a result, the Bureau is not required to demonstrate the “conscious and deliberate commission or omission of any 
act” or that such act happened more than once or for more than one day to propose a forfeiture for apparently 
unlawful spoofing.  See 47 U.S.C. §§ 312(f)(1)-(2) (defining “willful” and “repeated” under the Act).  We 
nevertheless find that Abramovich willfully and repeatedly spoofed caller ID information with the intent to harm. 
50 See 47 U.S.C. § 227(e)(5)(A); 47 CFR § 1.80(b)(4).  In the alternative and in lieu of the Act’s general criminal 
penalty provisions in Section 501 of the Act, the Truth In Caller ID Act also provides for criminal fines up to 
$10,000 for each violation, or three times that amount for each day of a continuing violation.  47 U.S.C. § 
227(e)(5)(B).  See Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties to Reflect Inflation, Order, DA 16-1453, (Dec. 30, 2016). 
51 Truth in Caller ID Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 9132-33, para. 47.  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).  
By contrast, 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).  Here, we provide the required notice under Section 503(b)(4) of the Act 
through this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture.  
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-80  
9 
amount, the Commission has not previously considered how to calculate proposed forfeitures for 
spoofing.52   
24. When adopting its spoofing rules, the Commission said that it would “seek substantial 
penalties” against violators.53  Because of the ease and low costs that technology has brought to the task 
of generating telephone calls and falsifying caller ID information for unlawful purposes, large-scale 
violators may generate hundreds of thousands or even millions of illegal calls within a short period of 
time.  We find that large-scale spoofing operations tend to be more harmful to consumers.  A single 
spoofed call every month or so is an annoyance, a spoofed call every day is disruptive, and multiple 
spoofed calls each day can be harassing and even cause consumers to cancel phone service altogether.  
Even where consumers do not receive multiple spoofed calls, sending spoofed calls to thousands or 
millions of consumers increases the scope of harm, and in this instance, has increased the damage to 
upstanding businesses deceptively associated with these calls.  Accordingly, any proposed forfeitures in 
such cases must reflect the exponential harm associated with large-scale spoofing operations where the 
spoofer has the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain something of value.  At the same time, 
we recognize that in cases involving massive spoofing campaigns, there is a risk that the fine will far 
exceed any person or company’s ability to pay.   
25. In this case, we calculate the proposed forfeiture to account for the egregiousness of the 
harm caused by this massive spoofing activity and to serve as both a punishment and a deterrent to future 
wrongdoing.  Nevertheless, we recognize that this is a case of first impression.54  Consistent with prior 
precedent in such cases of first impression, we propose a per violation amount at a level well below the 
maximum in recognition of the fact that we have not previously proposed a forfeiture for this particular 
kind of violation, but that will still serve to put bad actors on notice that we take such violations seriously 
and will act as a deterrent to other large scale spoofing operations.  Consistent with prior instances in 
which we have not previously proposed forfeiture amounts for a particular type of violation,55 we propose 
a base forfeiture in the amount of $1,000 per unlawful spoofed call.56  We will then multiply the base 
forfeiture value of $1,000 to each of the 80,000 calls that the Commission specifically examined that 
apparently involved unlawful caller ID spoofing, for a total base forfeiture of $80,000,000 for which 
Abramovich is apparently liable.57 
                                                     
52 See 47 U.S.C. § 227(e) (setting a statutory maximum at $10,000 per violation); 47 CFR § 1.80 (adopting the 
statutory maximum with the required inflation adjustment); Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties to Reflect 
Inflation, Order, DA 16-1453 (Dec. 30, 2016). 
53 Truth in Caller ID Act Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 9114, para. 2. 
54 We will evaluate proposed forfeiture amounts in future spoofing cases in light of their particular facts and 
circumstances, in accordance with Section 503, including notice of the Commission’s intention to act quickly and 
effectively to deter flagrant misconduct.  47 U.S.C. § 503. 
55 The Commission took a similar approach in setting the base forfeiture for cramming.  See Long Distance Direct, 
Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 14 FCC Rcd 314 (1998); see also Onelink Communications, Inc., 
TeleDias Communications, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 31 FCC Rcd 1403, 1419, para. 28 
(2016; Norristown Telephone Company, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 26 FCC Rcd 8844, 8850, 
paras. 21-22 (2011).  The Rules did not provide guidance for calculating forfeitures for cramming, but the 
Commission determined that cramming was akin to slamming—which had a base forfeiture amount—because both 
involved misleading consumers.  Long Distance Direct, Inc., 14 FCC Rcd at 336-337, para. 29. 
56 Section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules sets forth base forfeiture amounts for a wide variety of apparent 
violations.  The base forfeitures in Section 1.80 range from $1,000 (failure to provide station identification, for 
example) to the statutory maximum (misrepresentation/lack of candor).  Because there are no directly analogous 
violations covered within the existing range of base forfeitures, we find that establishing the base forfeiture amount 
of $1,000 is reasonable as applied to the specific facts in this case. 
57 FCC staff confirmed that the 80,000 calls examined involved apparent spoofing but the actual number of spoofed 
calls, even during this limited period, appears to be likely higher.  See Reviewed Carrier Call Detail Records 
(continued….) 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-80  
10 
26. In addition to the base forfeiture proposed above, we find that the circumstances in this 
case merit a significant upward adjustment.  The sheer volume of calls that Abramovich made—
96,758,223 calls between the period of October 1, 2016 and December 31, 201658—illustrates that 
Abramovich’s violations are egregious in number.  Likewise, the direct harms from Abramovich’s illegal 
robocalling campaign are so egregious that that an upward adjustment is warranted.59  Furthermore, 
Abramovich is highly culpable.  The call records show that the calls were made by Marketing Strategy 
Leaders—a company solely owned by, and sharing the residential address of, Adrian Abramovich.  
Additionally, this is not Abramovich’s first experience with the Communications Act.  In 2007, AT&T 
Mobility received a consent judgment and permanent injunction against Abramovich for unlawful 
telemarketing calls in violation of the TCPA.60  Therefore, after applying the statutory factors, we propose 
an upward adjustment, to the base forfeiture established above, of $40,000,000.  Thus, the total proposed 
forfeiture for which Abramovich is apparently liable is $120,000,000.         
27. Additionally, we propose to hold Adrian Abramovich directly liable for the total 
forfeiture.  The Commission may pierce the corporate veil to “prevent reliance on [the] corporate form to 
frustrate our efforts to implement core statutory provisions.”61  To pierce the corporate veil under federal 
common law, it must be shown that (1) there is a unity of interest and ownership such that the corporation 
and the individual no longer have separate personalities, and (2) an inequity will result if the acts are 
treated to the corporation alone.62  Piercing the corporate veil, however, is only relevant if the corporate 
entity actually exists.63  Here, Adrian Abramovich dissolved Marketing Strategy Leaders on January 21, 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
(spreadsheet identifying the 80,000 call detail records reviewed by Bureau staff).  Even though we limit the total 
number of violations here to the 80,000 calls verified, we reserve the right in the future, especially with large scale 
spoofing operations, to use the total number of calls made where there is a high likelihood of violations based on the 
use of a representative sampling of calls.  
58 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(4) (“[N]o forfeiture penalty shall be imposed under this subsection against any person 
unless and until . . . the Commission issues a notice of apparent liability, in writing, with respect to such person. [. . . 
] Such a notice shall (i) identify each specific provision, term, and condition of any Act, rule, regulation, order, 
treaty, convention, or other agreement, license, permit, certificate, instrument, or authorization which such person 
apparently violated or with which such person apparently failed to comply; (ii) set forth the nature of the act or 
omission charged against such person and the facts upon which such charge is based; and (iii) state the date on 
which such conduct occurred.”).  For purposes of this NAL, we take action only with respect to those violations 
occurring within the three-month period identified above.  See Call Detail Records; Reviewed Carrier Call Detail 
Records; Purple Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 30 FCC Rcd 14892, 14899-900, paras. 21-23 (2015) 
(stating that the notice requirements of Section 503 are satisfied when the Notice of Apparent Liability identifies the 
conduct resulting in the violations and provides “(1) specific cite references to the record (i.e., specific citations to 
files and documents provided by the violator that identified relevant dates sufficient to allow the violator to lodge its 
defense) or, (2) citations to the records containing dates and other relevant information”).  Id. at 14899, para. 22. 
59 See supra paras. 16-20. 
60 AT&T Mobility v. Hispanic Solutions, No. 1:06 cv 02695-WSD (N.D. Ga. Oct. 25, 2007).  
61 Telseven, LCC, Patrick Hines, Forfeiture Order, 31 FCC, Rcd, 1629, 1635 (2016).  See United States Through 
Small Business Admin. v. Pena, 731 F.2d 8, 12 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (quoting Capital Tel. Co., Inc. v. FCC, 498 F.2d 
734, 738 & n.10 (D.C. Cir. 1974)) (“Where the statutory purpose could be easily frustrated through the use of 
separate corporate entities a regulatory commission is entitled to look through corporate entities and treat he separate 
entities as one for purposes of regulation.”); General Tel. Co. of Southwest v. United States, 449 F.2d 846, 855 (5th 
Cir. 1971). 
62NLRB v. West Dixie Enterprises, Inc., 190 F.3d 1191, 1194 (11th Cir. 1999).  Federal common law rather than 
state law applies when a federal statutory scheme is at issue.  See id. (applying federal common law in a case arising 
in Florida involving violations of federal labor statutes). 
63 Labadie Coal Co. v. Black, 672 F.2d. 92, 95 (D.C. Cir. 1982). 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-80  
11 
2016.64  Despite formally dissolving Marketing Strategy Leaders, he continued to make spoofed robocalls 
using the corporate name.65  Because Marketing Strategy Leaders ceased to exist by the time of the 
violations cited in this NAL, Adrian Abramovich is not entitled to the protections of the corporate form 
and is personally liable for the full forfeiture amount.  We also propose holding Marketing Strategy 
Leaders and Marketing Leaders jointly and severally liable with Adrian Abramovich.66  Adrian 
Abramovich has a practice of quickly forming and closing companies for which he is the sole owner, 
controller, and officer—Marketing Strategy Leaders and Marketing Leaders are no exceptions.67  
Accordingly, out of an abundance of caution, we hold both Adrian Abramovich and his companies, 
Marketing Strategy Leaders, Inc. and Marketing Leaders, Inc., jointly and severally liable for the 
obligations proposed by this NAL. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
28. We have determined that Adrian Abramovich apparently willfully and repeatedly 
violated Section 227(e) of the Act and Section 64.1604 of the Rules.  We have further determined that 
Adrian Abramovich, Marketing Strategy Leaders, and Marketing Leaders are apparently jointly and 
severally liable for a forfeiture in the amount $120,000,000. 
V. ORDERING CLAUSES 
29. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 227(e)(5)(A)(i) and 503(b) of the Act68 and 
Sections 1.80 of the Rules,69 Adrian Abramovich, Marketing Strategy Leaders, Inc. and Marketing 
Leaders, Inc. are hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY FOR 
A FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred twenty million dollars ($120,000,000) for willful and 
repeated violations of Section 227(e) of the Act,70 Section 64.1604 of the Rules,71 and the Rules and 
Regulations Implementing the Truth In Caller ID Act of 2009.72 
30. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules,73 within thirty 
(30) calendar days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Adrian 
Abramovich, Marketing Strategy Leaders, Inc. and Marketing Leaders, Inc. SHALL PAY the full amount 
of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the 
proposed forfeiture consistent with paragraph 33 below. 
31. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, wire transfer, or 
credit card, and must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN referenced above. Adrian Abramovich, 
Marketing Strategy Leaders, Inc., and Marketing Leaders, Inc. shall send electronic notification of 
                                                     
64 Articles of Dissolution, Marketing Strategy Leaders, Inc. (Jan. 21, 2016), available at 
http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/ConvertTiffToPDF?storagePath=COR%5C2016%5C0203%5C8
0058866.Tif&documentNumber=P04000043957.  
65 The billing information provided by Abramovich’s carrier for October 2016 through December 2016 lists 
Marketing Strategy Leaders.  See Call Detail Records. 
66 See supra note 2. 
67 Id. 
68 47 U.S.C. §§ 227(e)(5)(A)(i), 503(b). 
69 47 CFR § 1.80. 
70 47 U.S.C. § 227(e). 
71 47 CFR § 64.1604. 
72 Rules and Regulations Implementing the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 9114 
(2011). 
73 47 CFR § 1.80. 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-80  
12 
payment to Lisa Williford at Lisa.Williford@fcc.gov on the date said payment is made.  Regardless of the 
form of payment, a completed FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted.74  When 
completing the FCC Form 159, enter the Account Number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID) and 
enter the letters “FORF” in block number 24A (payment type code).  Below are additional instructions 
that should be followed based on the form of payment selected:  
• Payment by check or money order must be made payable to the order of the Federal 
Communications Commission.  Such payments (along with the completed Form 159) must be 
mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-
9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank – Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-
GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. 
• Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004, receiving bank 
TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001.  To complete the wire transfer and ensure 
appropriate crediting of the wired funds, a completed Form 159 must be faxed to U.S. Bank 
at (314) 418-4232 on the same business day the wire transfer is initiated. 
• Payment by credit card must be made by providing the required credit card information on 
FCC Form 159 and signing and dating the Form 159 to authorize the credit card payment.  
The completed Form 159 must then be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. 
Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank – 
Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 
63101. 
32. Any request for making full payment over time under an installment plan should be sent 
to:  Chief Financial Officer—Financial Operations, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th 
Street, SW, Room 1-A625, Washington, DC 20554.75  Questions regarding payment procedures should be 
directed to the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by phone, 1-877-480-3201, or by e-mail, 
ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov. 
33. The written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture, if any, 
must include a detailed factual statement supported by appropriate documentation and affidavits pursuant 
to Sections 1.16 and 1.80(f)(3) of the Rules.76  The written statement must be mailed to the Office of the 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, ATTN:  
Enforcement Bureau – Telecommunications Consumers Division, and must include the NAL/Account 
Number referenced in the caption.  The statement must also be e-mailed to Kristi Thompson, Deputy 
Division Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, at Kristi.Thompson@fcc.gov.   
34. 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; 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. 
                                                     
74 An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be obtained at 
http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf. 
75 See 47 CFR § 1.1914. 
76 47 CFR §§ 1.16, 1.80(f)(3). 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-80  
13 
35. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture together with the Reviewed Carrier Call Detail Records shall be sent by first class mail and 
certified mail, return receipt requested, to Adrian Abramovich, Marketing Strategy Leaders, Inc., and 
Marketing Leaders, Inc. at . 
 
      FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
 
 
 
 
      Marlene H. Dortch 
      Secretary 
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-80  
 
 14 
STATEMENT OF 
CHAIRMAN AJIT PAI 
 
Re:     Adrian Abramovich, Marketing Strategy Leaders, Inc., and Marketing Leaders, Inc., File No. EB-
TCD-15-00020488. 
 
Have you ever gotten a call in which the phone number looks pretty familiar?  The area code 
matches yours, and the first three “prefix” numbers match yours, but you can’t quite tell who it is?   
If so, you’re not alone.  This often results from a tactic known as “neighbor spoofing,” and 
inveterate robocallers are using it to bombard the American people with illegal robocalls without getting 
caught.  Neighbor spoofing often tricks consumers into answering, since they think that the person on the 
other end must be someone from his or her local community. 
Robocalling is consistently the top-ranked category of complaints that consumers bring to the 
FCC.  That’s why I’m pleased that today the Commission is taking major, unprecedented action against 
what appears to be the most egregious “neighbor spoofing” robocalling scheme we have ever seen.  
Adrian Abramovich, through several faux marketing companies he owns and manages, appears to have 
made 96,758,223 robocalls between October 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016.  96,758,223.  That works 
out to over one million unwanted calls every day and almost 44,000 such calls each hour. 
Today, we respond in kind, proposing to fine Mr. Abramovich $120 million. 
Mr. Abramovich’s scheme apparently works like this.  Upon answering a call, consumers are 
typically offered what appears to be an “exclusive” vacation deal offered by a well-known travel or 
hospitality company, like TripAdvisor, Expedia, Marriott, or Hilton.  Consumers are prompted to “Press 
1” and are then transferred to a call center, where live operators give them the hard sell on low-quality 
vacation packages that have no relation to the companies previously referenced.  Unfortunately, many 
unsuspecting Americans are deceived into taking the bait. 
Make no mistake:  Mr. Abramovich appears to have been no passive party to this scam.  He 
apparently found it profitable to send to these live operators the most vulnerable Americans—typically 
the elderly—to be bilked out of their hard-earned money.  Many consumers spent from a few hundred up 
to a few thousand dollars on these “exclusive” vacation packages. 
This scheme was particularly abhorrent because, given its breadth, it appears to have substantially 
disrupted the operations of an emergency medical paging provider.  It did this by slowing down and 
potentially disabling its network.  Pagers may be low-tech, but for doctors, these devices are simple and 
dependable standbys.  By overloading this paging network, Mr. Abramovich could have delayed vital 
medical care, making the difference between a patient’s life and death. 
Thanks to the tenacious sleuthing by the staff of our Enforcement Bureau, we were able to 
connect the dots among numerous consumer complaints that showed us the scope of Mr. Abramovich’s 
apparent scheme.  The Bureau hand-verified over 80,000 calls from this three-month period.  Every single 
one was spoofed to show what consumers must have thought was a local number.  The Bureau also 
interviewed several people who had received calls, none of whom had provided consent. 
Today marks the first time that the FCC is taking enforcement action against a large-scale 
spoofing operation under the Truth in Caller ID Act.  This FCC is an active cop on the beat for 
consumers, and a cop that means business when it to their top concern: the scourge of robocalls.  We aim 
to put unlawful robocallers out of business and to deter anyone else from hatching a business plan that 
plunders American consumers’ pocketbooks. 
Thank you to the dedicated staff of the Enforcement Bureau, including Vilma Anderson, Tamara 
Baxter, Michael Carowitz, Lisa Gelb, Richard Hindman, Lisa Landers, Latashia Middleton, Nakasha 
Ramsey, Stacy Ruffin-Smith, Michael Scurato, Daniel Stepanicich, Kristi Thompson, Kim Thorne, 
Melanie Tiano, Bridgette Washington, and Lisa Williford for their meticulous work on this investigation.
 Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-80  
 
 15 
STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN 
 
Re:     Adrian Abramovich, Marketing Strategy Leaders, Inc., and Marketing Leaders, Inc., File No. EB-
TCD-15-00020488. 
 
Anyone who has ever contacted the FCC’s Washington, DC headquarters is familiar with these 
six digits: 202-418. Given this association, if that area code and prefix appeared on your caller ID, you 
would more than likely answer the call (at least I like to think you would). But when phone numbers are 
spoofed and what appears to be a trusted or familiar source actually originates from a party intent on 
misleading, defrauding, causing harm, or wrongfully obtaining something of value, we each have a 
serious and potentially dangerous problem on our hands. 
Unwanted robocalls are universally hated. Too often, they disrupt some of our most precious, and 
increasingly rare moments of peace and quiet. And to say that the case before us, is one of the most 
troubling that I have ever seen in this context, is one of the biggest understatements I have made in years. 
One man, a single individual, is apparently responsible for nearly 100 million robocalls during a three 
month period. Adrian Abramovich’s alleged spoofing activities, has had a direct and adverse financial 
impact on consumers, the reputational harm of respected American businesses and if that were not 
enough, has been a serious threat to public safety.  
During the FCC Enforcement Bureau’s review of these apparent spoofed telephone calls, it was 
discovered that some consumers paid hundreds of dollars for vacations that differed significantly from the 
ones presented to them. This has caused incalculable harm to well-regarded American travel companies, 
as their names were misappropriated and their hard-earned reputations were maligned as consumers were 
misled presumably for financial gain. Mr. Abramovich’s apparent robocall spoofing scheme also 
disrupted an emergency medical paging service designed to ensure that first responders receive immediate 
critical alerts.  
I wish that I could promise the American people that today’s action will put an end to all 
unwanted and as this case makes apparent, dangerous robocalls. Sadly, this Notice of Apparent Liability 
addresses only a fraction of the approximately 2.6 billion robocalls that YouMail’s Robocall Index reports 
were made just during the month of May. But there is one thing that I know on which we all agree: If 
there is any case of where a first impression should be lasting, it is this one. I wholeheartedly support 
being as tough as we can justify, on anyone who would violate the public’s trust, intentionally violate the 
Commission’s rules, and put people at risk for apparent personal gain. And a proposed penalty of $120 
million, the largest in the FCC’s history, shows just how serious we are in stamping out the largest 
spoofed robocall campaign we have yet to investigate. 
The Commission has an obligation to ensure that all of its rules are robustly enforced, including 
those that protect consumers against 9-1-1 outages, cramming, slamming, and other core consumer 
protections. A Commission that is truly committed to putting #ConsumersFirst, must never issue a hall 
pass to any communications provider that egregiously violates the Truth in Caller ID Act or any of our 
standing rules.  
The American people are counting on us to be the voice that stands against practices that harm 
competition and limit consumer choice. We have much more work to do when it comes to these goals, but 
today it pleases me to say, we have taken a noteworthy step. 
My thanks to the Enforcement Bureau staff for your extensive work on this item and for your 
continued efforts to address the Commission’s number one consumer complaint: illegal robocalls.