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 FCC 18-135
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
In the Matter of )
)
Affordable Enterprises of Arizona, LLC. ) File No.: EB-TCD-17-00024974
) NAL/Acct. No.: 201832170003
) FRN: 0027881093
)
)
)
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted: September 26, 2018 Released: September 26, 2018
By the Commission: Chairman Pai and Commissioner Rosenworcel issuing separate statements;
Commissioner O Rielly approving in part and dissenting in part.
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) finds Affordable Enterprises of
Arizona (Affordable or Company)1 apparently liable for unlawfully spoofing caller ID information to
perpetrate a large-scale illegal telemarketing campaign. Caller ID information is spoofed when it is
manipulated or altered to display anything other than the originating telephone number. 2 The Truth in
Caller ID Act of 2009 and the Federal Communication Commission (Commission or FCC) rules (Rules)
prohibit any individual from falsifying or misrepresenting his or her caller ID information3 with the intent
to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value. 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. Accurate caller ID also
allows the phone companies and law enforcement to detect and combat unlawful calls, such as unlawful
telemarketing calls. As technology has advanced, the dangerous combination of spoofing and illegal
telemarketing calls has become much more pervasive and harder to stop.
2. The Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) investigated Affordable s telemarketing activities and
found that the Company made apparently unlawfully spoofed telemarketing calls to consumers
throughout Arizona many of whom had placed their numbers on the National Do-Not-Call (DNC)
1 Affordable operates under numerous names. See Westlaw Clear Report (detailing that Affordable Enterprises of
Arizona also operates under the names Affordable Enterprises of AZ, Affordable Windows Plus Exteriors, LLC,
Affordable Bathrooms, LLC, Affordable Kitchens, LLC., Affordable Enterprises, LLC, Affordable Windows and
Home Renovations, LLC, Affordable Windows, and Affordable Windows of Tucson, LLC.); see Declaration of
March 12, 2018 (on file in EB-TCD-17-00024974) ( Declaration).
2 See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 9114,
9115, para. 1 (2011) (Truth in Caller ID Order).
3 Caller ID spoofing is not per se unlawful. In fact, there are legitimate reasons for spoofing. For instance,
domestic violence shelters often need to manipulate caller ID information and have important reasons for not
revealing the actual number of the shelter. Id. at 9117, para. 9. Doctors may want to use their cell phones to
return calls to patients, but choose to transmit their office number rather than their cell phone number as the
calling number. Id. at 9117-18, para. 9. However, spoofing with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully
obtain something of value is illegal.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-135
Registry to avoid unwanted telemarketing calls. When making the calls, Affordable did not transmit the
originating phone number. Instead, Affordable displayed the caller ID information of: (1) numbers that
were assigned to prepaid wireless phones, for which the subscriber information was not available; (2)
numbers that were unassigned (i.e., not in use by any consumer); or (3) numbers that were assigned to
consumers who had no affiliation or relationship with Affordable (innocent consumers). The caller ID
information was misleading or inaccurate and did not permit consumers to identify the caller. Affordable
apparently made the spoofed calls with the intent to cause harm and wrongfully obtain something of
value.
3. The Commission issues this NAL and proposes a penalty of $37,525,000 against
Affordable. The evidence shows that, over a 14-month period spanning 2016 and 2017, Affordable made
2,341,125 apparently unlawful spoofed telemarketing calls. Moreover, Bureau staff confirmed that
37,525 of those calls were made by spoofing numbers that had been assigned, at the time of the calls, to
innocent consumers leaving such individuals vulnerable to scores of angry callbacks from other
consumers whom Affordable had targeted with unwanted marketing messages while effectively shielding
itself from their complaints. We therefore find that Affordable apparently violated the Truth in Caller ID
Act of 2009 (Truth in Caller ID Act), as codified in Section 227(e) of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended (Communications Act or Act),4 and Section 64.1604 of the Rules.5 Affordable s apparent
violations of the DNC registry regulations are being addressed separately.6
II. BACKGROUND
A. The Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009
4. For many years, the Commission has recognized the importance of requiring
telemarketers to transmit accurate caller ID information. Even before passage of the Truth in Caller ID
Act, the Commission noted that [c]aller ID allows consumers to screen out unwanted calls and to
identify companies that they wish to ask not to call again. 7 The Commission further stated that
[k]nowing the identity of the caller is also helpful to consumers who feel frightened or threatened by
hang-up and dead air calls. 8 The Truth in Caller ID Act prohibits caus[ing] any caller identification
service, in connection with any telecommunications service or Internet Protocol-enabled service, to
knowingly transmit misleading or inaccurate caller identification information with the intent to defraud,
cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value. 9 Members of Congress observed that consumers
place substantial value in accurate and reliable caller ID information to assist them in deciding whether to
answer a phone call and, ultimately, whether to trust the caller on the other end of the line.10 They further
noted that consumers widespread expectation is that any information that appears on caller ID represents
4 47 U.S.C. 227(e).
5 47 CFR 64.1604.
6 The Bureau also is contemporaneously releasing a Citation and Order notifying Affordable that it violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by making telephone solicitations to consumers whose numbers were
registered on the DNC Registry at the time the calls were made. Affordable Enterprises, File No. EB-TCD-17-
00024974, Citation and Order, DA 18-984 (EB rel. Sept. 26, 2018) (Affordable Citation). For details, see infra para.
12.
7 Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order, 18 FCC
Rcd 14014, 14122, para. 179 (2003).
8 Id.
9 47 U.S.C. 227(e).
10 See 155 Cong. Rec. S170-02, S173 (2009) ( Consumers expect caller I.D. to be accurate because it helps them
decide whether to answer a phone call and trust the person on the other end of the line. )
2
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-135
" Caller ID No Name. No message. Has called others about solar windows. 33
" I received a call to my registered dnc telephone number on at 3.17p
from identified as Phoenix, AZ. I returned the call the next day. I left an [sic]
message to have my number removed. i contend this number should not have called in the
first place. This number s identification is a violation of FCC regulations. 34
Notably, the complaints reflected that Affordable did not provide identifying information to the
consumers. Some consumers were only able to provide the number listed on the caller ID (i.e., one of the
13 caller ID numbers that Affordable used) and could not identify Affordable by name. A few consumers
were able to identify Affordable by name, but when prompted to provide the phone number of the calling
party, the complainant entered the number reflected on the caller IDs, which the investigation determined
was not the number assigned to the phone that placed the call.
12. Bureau staff compared the complaints to the call records that Affordable made during the
relevant time period and matched all 45 FTC complaints to the call records of telemarketing calls made
by Affordable thereby confirming that Affordable made the calls in question. Based on this and other
evidence, the Bureau has cited Affordable (in a citation released concurrently with this NAL) for making
illegal telephone solicitations to consumers registered on the DNC Registry in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).35 Those violations are separate from, and in addition to, the apparent
unlawful spoofing violations set forth in this NAL.
D. Innocent Consumers Affected by Affordable s Spoofed Telemarketing Calls
13. As discussed above, Affordable made telemarketing calls by spoofing the caller ID
information to display the numbers assigned to pre-paid burner phones, unassigned numbers, or numbers
assigned to innocent consumers. Bureau staff interviewed one such consumer the legitimate user of
phone number which was one of the 13 numbers that Affordable spoofed and displayed in
the caller ID of its telemarketing calls. The consumer expressed that she was assigned the number
as her cell phone number.36 The consumer recounted a two-month period, beginning around
May 2017, in which she received more than five calls per day on her cell phone from consumers
complaining that they were receiving unwanted calls from her number and demanding that she stop
calling them.37 The consumer indicated that she was very annoyed at receiving so many calls per day
on her cell phone and confused as to why she was receiving such calls in the first place.38 The
consumer wanted the calls to stop but did not know how to bring an end to the annoying and intrusive
calls on her cell phone.39
14. Through the Bureau s analysis of Affordable s call detail records, the Bureau confirmed
that Affordable displayed the number assigned to this consumer in the caller ID during the time period
specified by the consumer. In fact, according to the call detail records, Affordable made more than
48,349 calls using this number during the period that it was assigned to this consumer.40
33 Complaint #79971346 (Consumer Sentinel, Jan. 19, 2017) (Complaint regarding number ).
34 Complaint #85368480 (Consumer Sentinel, June 24, 2017) (Complaint regarding spoofed number ).
35 See Affordable Citation, DA-984 at para. 2.
36 See Declaration of Shante Willis, May 11, 2018 (on file in EB-TCD-17-00024974) at 1.
37 See id.
38 See id.
39 See id. The consumer indicated that the calls ultimately ended without any intervention or action on her part.
40 See Response (providing call details records for Affordable).
6
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-135
III. DISCUSSION
15. 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 cause, directly or indirectly, any caller ID service to knowingly transmit or display misleading
or inaccurate caller ID information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything
of value.41 We find that Affordable apparently violated Section 227(e) of the Act and Section 64.1604 of
the Rules by knowingly causing the display of misleading or inaccurate caller ID information, or
spoofing, with unlawful intent, for the purpose of implementing an illegal telemarketing campaign.
A. Affordable Apparently Knowingly Caused the Display of Misleading or Inaccurate
Caller ID Information
16. Affordable knowingly spoofed the caller ID information when it directed its employees to
upload the telephone numbers assigned to the burner phones into the telemarketing platform.42 The
Bureau s investigation also found that some of the spoofed numbers used by Affordable for calls made
via the telemarketing platform either were unassigned or were assigned to innocent consumers. Thus,
Affordable knowingly displayed misleading or inaccurate numbers for which called parties could not
identify the company based on the caller ID information.43
17. The spoofed numbers were both misleading and inaccurate to those consumers who
received the calls. According to the Commission s rules, telemarketers are required to transmit caller
identification information, and the phone number they transmit must be one that a person can call to
request placement on a company-specific do-not-call list. 44 The Commission has made clear that this
requirement allows consumers to more easily identify incoming telemarketing calls and to . . . facilitate[]
consumers ability to request placement on company-specific do-not-call lists. 45
18. As a result of the spoofing, called parties could not identify the company based on the
caller ID information or report the company to authorities.46 In fact, many consumers filed complaints
with the FTC to report unwanted telemarketing calls but were unaware that the caller ID information was
not associated with Affordable s assigned numbers. Moreover, by spoofing the caller ID information,
consumers could not effectively make company-specific do-not-call requests nor could many identify
Affordable as the perpetrator of do-not-call violations. Affordable had a policy of avoiding company-
specific do-not-call requests by instructing its employees to hang up on complaining customers 47 before
they could ask to be placed on the company s do-not-call list.48
41 47 U.S.C. 227(e); 47 CFR 64.1604.
42 See Declaration at 1.
43 Id. at 1.
44 Truth in Caller ID Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 9128, para. 36; see also 47 CFR 64.1601(e).
45 Truth in Caller ID Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 9128, para. 36.
46 Declaration at 1 (Affordable chose to display the numbers associated with the burner phones . . . so that
irate customers could not identify the company based on [the caller ID number], or report the company to
authorities. ).
47 Id. ( Affordable Enterprises instructed its employees to hang up on complaining customers, or to apologize but to
avoid engaging in any conversation. )
48 Id. at 2. ( Affordable instructed the employees to simply hang up on any consumer that said they were on the
National Do Not Call Registry. )
7
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-135
B. Affordable s Falsification of Caller ID Was Done With the Apparent Intent to
Cause Harm or Wrongfully Obtain Anything of Value
19. Section 227(e) of the Act and Section 64.1604 of the Rules prohibit, in connection with
any telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice service, 49 knowingly displaying misleading or
inaccurate caller ID information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything
of value. 50 In this case, Affordable knowingly spoofed caller ID information with the apparent intent to
perpetuate a large scale illegal telemarketing campaign that was harmful to consumers and for which
Affordable wrongfully obtained something of value.
20. Intent to Wrongfully Obtain Anything of Value. The Truth in Caller ID Act and our Rules
prohibit knowingly displaying misleading or inaccurate caller ID information with the intent to defraud,
cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value.51 Although the term anything of value is not
defined in the statute, it is not limited to tangible assets.52 As discussed below, the spoofed numbers were
a key element of Affordable s unlawful telemarketing campaign designed to generate customers for its
home remodeling and improvement businesses. The spoofed calls also helped Affordable evade law
enforcement (and potential monetary penalties) and private civil lawsuits. Thus, Affordable was
apparently knowingly spoofing the numbers to wrongfully obtain something of value.
21. Affordable was seeking to generate increased sales (i.e., gain something of value) by
making unlawful, and thus wrongful, spoofed telemarketing calls. According to the Former Employee,
Affordable s phone center made about $300,000 per month in sales as a result of its apparently illegal
spoofed telemarketing calls.53 Affordable initiated its telemarketing campaign intending to gain
something of value new customers and, ultimately, increased sales of its home improvement and home
remodeling services. Affordable could have acquired these new customers and increased sales
legitimately (i.e., by displaying phone numbers which would enable the called party to identify the
company and by avoiding calling consumers that had registered their numbers on the DNC Registry).
Instead, Affordable intended to obtain these new customers and increase sales by unlawfully making
telemarketing calls to consumers on the DNC Registry. The unlawful conduct violated Section 227 of the
49 47 U.S.C. 227(e).
50 47 U.S.C. 227(e); 47 CFR 64.1604.
51 See 47 U.S.C. 227(e); 47 CFR 64.1604.
52 See United States v. Girard, 601 F.2d 69, 71 (2d Cir. 1979) ( [T]he phrase [ thing of value ] is generally
construed to cover intangibles as well as tangibles. ); see also, e.g., United States v. Nilsen, 967 F.2d 539, 542-43
(11th Cir. 1992) ( Congress' frequent use of thing of value in various criminal statutes has evolved the phrase into
a term of art which the courts generally construe to envelope both tangibles and intangibles. This broad
interpretation is based upon a recognition that monetary worth is not the sole measure of value. ); United States v.
Picquet, 963 F.2d 54, 55 (5th Cir. 1992) (holding that sales taxes constitute a thing of value for the purposes of 18
U.S.C. 1029(a)(2) s prohibition of using unauthorized access devices to obtain anything of value ); United States v.
Draves, 103 F.3d 1328 (7th Cir. 1997) (agreeing with and applying 5th Circuit s expansive interpretation of phrase
anything of value in Picquet); United States v. Schwartz, 785 F.2d 673, 680 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting broad range of
intangibles that have been found to be things of value by prior courts); United States v. Singleton, 144 F.3d 1343,
1349-50 (10th Cir. 1998), rev d on other grounds, 165 F.3d 1297 (10th Cir. 1999) (agreeing with Picquet); see also
United States v. Sheker, 618 F.2d 607, 609-10 (9th Cir. 1980) (holding that value includes anything recognized or
appreciated by others); United States v. Williams, 705 F.2d 603, 622-23 (2nd Cir. 1983) (holding that the district
court properly construed the meaning of the term anything of value to focus on the value that the defendants
subjectively attached to the items received ); Best Ins. Contracts, Inc., and Philip Roesel, DBA Wilmington Ins.
Quotes, File No. EB-TCD-16-00023195, Forfeiture Order, FCC 18-134, at para. 22 n.65 (rel. Sept. 26, 2018)
(Roesel FO); Best Ins. Contracts, Inc., and Philip Roesel, DBA Wilmington Ins. Quotes, Notice of Apparent
Liability, 32 FCC Rcd 6403, 6412, para 25 (2017) (Roesel NAL).
53 Declaration at 1. We note that an intent to wrongfully obtain anything of value constitutes a violation; the
statute does not demand that the spoofing perpetrator actually obtain something of value.
8
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-135
Act and Section 64.1200 of the Rules.54 And the evidence suggests that the unlawful conduct was
pervasive. Bureau staff ran a sampling of 604 calls contained in Affordable s call detail records and
found that 446 calls were to consumers registered on the DNC Registry.55 And because the caller ID was
spoofed, Affordable was able to violate the DNC Registry restrictions for many months with impunity.
22. The evidence also shows that Affordable was seeking to avoid detection, evade law
enforcement, and escape consumer litigation for initiating telephone solicitations to consumers registered
on the DNC Registry. Avoidance of culpability is a benefit that qualifies as a thing of value. 56
Affordable attempted to evade law enforcement and thereby culpability for the calls, which has an
ascertainable dollar value. Specifically, a penalty of up to $19,639 per unlawful telemarketing call made
in violation of the Commission s DNC rules in a forfeiture action brought by the FCC,57 and up to
$40,654 in civil penalties for each violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule in a lawsuit brought by the
FTC.58
23. Affordable intended to wrongfully obtain these valuable shields from detection and
culpability. For example, Affordable purchased the prepaid burner phones, registered the phones
anonymously, and displayed these burner phone numbers on the caller ID rather than Affordable s actual
business numbers. Affordable actively searched for online complaints that referenced the burner phone
numbers and discarded any burner phone that accumulated a significant number of online complaints.59
In fact, Affordable took these actions because it apparently believed the telemarketing calls were illegal.60
These actions indicate that Affordable wrongfully spoofed caller ID information intending to avoid
detection and culpability for its illegal telemarketing calls. These facts, taken together, demonstrate the
wrongful nature of Affordable s conduct, and the value that Affordable gained from such wrongful
conduct.
24. Intent to Cause Harm. It is unlawful to display misleading or inaccurate caller ID
information when the caller s intent 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. 61 Both Congress and the Commission have long recognized that the placement of telemarketing
calls without consumers consent causes consumers significant harm, including that such calls are a
nuisance and invasion of privacy.62 In fact, the FTC and FCC established the DNC Registry to provide
54 See 47 U.S.C. 227(c); 47 CFR 64.1200(c)(2).
55 The consumer complaints suggest that Affordable knew that many of its telemarketing calls were going to
consumers on the DNC Registry.
56 See, e.g., Roesel FO, FCC 18-134 at para. 22; Roesel NAL, 32 FCC Rcd at 6413, para 27.
57 See Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties to Reflect Inflation, Order, 33 FCC Rcd 46 (EB 2018) (2018 Inflation
Order).
58 See 16 CFR 310.1 et seq. See also Complying with the Telemarketing Sales Rule, FTC,
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/complying-telemarketing-sales-rule#penalties. ( Anyone
who violates the TSR is subject to civil penalties of up to $40,654 for each violation. ).
59 See Declaration at 2.
60 See id. ( The owners of Affordable Enterprises were aware of the TCPA and knew that their telemarketing calls
were illegal. They used the burner cell phones to avoid detection and TCPA liability. ).
61 Truth in Caller ID Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 9122, para. 22.
62 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); see, also, 2003 TCPA Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14035, para. 29
( Although some industry commenters attempt to characterize unwanted solicitation calls as petty annoyances and
suggest that consumers purchase certain technologies to block unwanted calls, the evidence in this record leads us to
believe the cumulative effect of these disruptions in the lives of millions of Americans each day is significant. ).
9
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-135
consumers with options for avoiding unwanted telephone solicitations.63 Moreover, courts have routinely
recognized that telemarketing calls are an invasion of privacy, an injury in fact sufficient for Article III
jurisdiction.64 Intentionally placing telemarketing calls to consumers who have made clear their desire to
avoid such calls demonstrates an intent to cause the disruptive harm that Congress, the FCC, and the FTC,
through establishment of the DNC Registry, sought to prevent.
25. Courts have recognized that direct evidence of specific intent is rarely available.65
Therefore, it is reasonable, and indeed often necessary, to look at a party s actions to determine whether
there was an intent to cause harm.66 In the particular circumstances presented in this case, specific intent
to cause harm can be inferred by Affordable s own actions. Among other things, the record shows that:
(1) Affordable s called customers that it knew were registered on the DNC Registry, and it knowingly
disregarded those requests to not receive telemarketing calls67; (2) Affordable disguised its identity
through the use of phone numbers assigned to innocent consumers , unassigned numbers,68 and burner
phones; and (3) Affordable instructed its employees to not engage with any consumers that called to
complain about the telemarketing calls.69
26. Affordable was, presumably, driven by the desire to make money from sales. That
desire, however, does not negate the evidence showing it had an intent to harm. The methods it used were
substantially certain to cause harm to the call recipients and to the consumers whose numbers were used,
in some cases, to make the spoofed telemarketing calls. Because the harms were substantially certain,
63 See 2003 TCPA Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14034-35, paras. 27-28. The DNC Registry is a national database of
persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained by the Federal Government. Id.
64 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 ).
65 See, e.g., United States v. Dearing, 504 F.3d 897, 901 (9th Cir. 2007); United States v. Mirabelles, 724 F.2d 1374,
1379 (9th Cir. 1984); see also General Cigar Co., Inc. v. CR Carriers, Inc., 948 F.Supp. 1030, 1036 (M.D. Ala.
1996) ( Because one cannot know another s subjective intent, circumstantial evidence must be relied upon to
indicate intent. The requirement of specific intent under the mail fraud statute is satisfied by the existence of a
scheme which was reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension and this
intention is shown by examining the scheme itself. (internal citations omitted)).
66 See, e.g., United States v. Davis, 490 F.3d 541, 549 (6th Cir. 2007); Tusa v. Omaha Auto Auction Inc., 712 F.2d
1248, 1253 (8th Cir. 1983) ( intent to defraud is ordinarily proved by circumstantial evidence ); see also, United
States v. Rogers, 321 F.3d 1226, 1230 (9th Cir. 2003) ( It is settled law that intent to defraud may be established by
circumstantial evidence. ); United States v. Sullivan, 522 F.3d 967, 974 (9th Cir. 2008) ( the scheme itself may be
probative circumstantial evidence of an intent to defraud ); General Analytics Corp. v. CNA Ins. Cos., 86 F.3d 51,
54 (4th Cir.1996) ( [B]ecause it is abstract and private, intent is revealed only by its connection with words and
conduct. ); FDIC v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 942 F.2d 1032, 1035 (6th Cir. 1991) ( intent . . . is thought to
refer to a subjective phenomenon that takes place inside people s heads . . . . [The law is concerned only with] the
external behavior ordinarily thought to manifest internal mental states . . . . ) (citations omitted)).
67 See Declaration at 2 (stating that Affordable was aware of the TCPA and knew their telemarketing calls
were illegal ).
68 See Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, Report and Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 9706, 9713, para 18 (2017) ( Use of an unassigned number provides a strong
indication that the calling party is spoofing the Caller ID to potentially defraud and harm a voice service subscriber.
Such calls are therefore highly likely to be illegal. ).
69 See Declaration at 2.
10
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-135
intent can be reliably inferred.70 The harm that resulted from using spoofed numbers to make
telemarketing calls to consumers on the DNC Registry is sufficiently certain to support a finding that
Affordable had an intent to harm.
27. Moreover, the evidence indicates that Affordable had actual knowledge that its calls were
causing harm. According to the Former Employee, Affordable checked complaint databases and found
numerous complaints about the telephone numbers it was using. Affordable received numerous angry
call-backs on the burner phones whose numbers had been spoofed. The fact that Affordable continued its
practices unabated following numerous complaints demonstrates that Affordable apparently intended the
harm that it caused. The fact that Affordable continued to use spoofed caller ID information and did not
modify its practices (except for discarding the burner phone and replacing with another burner phone)
after receiving numerous complaints supports the conclusion that Affordable used misleading or
inaccurate caller ID with the intent to harm consumers. Once Affordable had reason to know (following
multiple complaints) that its conduct was harmful, and continued the conduct unabated, its harmful
conduct can be deemed intentional.
28. In addition to harming consumers who received the spoofed calls, Affordable s spoofed
calls were particularly harmful to innocent consumers who had been assigned the phone numbers that
Affordable spoofed. Affordable made several thousands of calls using numbers that were assigned to
such innocent consumers. The Bureau identified four such innocent consumers whose phone numbers
Affordable used to make more than 154,756 telemarketing calls. Affordable s use of numbers that
belonged to other people presented the risk of significant harm to these consumers; as illustrated by the
record evidence here, a person whose number is spoofed by a telemarketer and used to make large
numbers of illegal calls often finds herself inundated with callbacks and angry messages from the
telemarketer s other, and often irate, victims. In short, by spoofing numbers assigned to legitimate users,
Affordable shifted the risk of harm large numbers of disturbing calls from angry consumers on to
innocent third parties.
29. And that is exactly what happened in this case. As discussed earlier, Bureau staff talked
to one such consumer that was receiving calls from individuals attempting to reach and complain to
the perpetrating telemarketer.71 The consumer recounted the number of irate calls that she received daily
on her cell phone over a two-month period, and expressed significant frustration both over receiving the
calls and being unable to stop them.72 Accordingly, by spoofing numbers assigned to innocent
consumers, Affordable knowingly and intentionally caused harm to the true owners of those numbers.
30. We find that in a 14-month period, Affordable made more than two million apparently
illegal spoofed calls. Because every call that we investigated was apparently unlawfully spoofed using
one of 13 caller ID numbers, we conclude that Affordable apparently made 2,341,125 spoofed
telemarketing calls with the intent to cause harm or wrongfully obtain something of value each call an
apparent violation of the Truth in Caller ID Act and our Rules.
C. Proposed Forfeiture
31. Section 227(e) of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Rules authorize the Commission to
impose a forfeiture against any person that engages in unlawful spoofing.73 Specifically, the Act and
70 Intent is not . . . limited to consequences which are desired. If the actor knows that the consequences are certain,
or substantially certain, to result from his act, and still goes ahead, he is treated by the law as if he had in fact desired
to produce the result. Restatement (Second) of Torts 8A, comment b, p. 15 (Emphasis Added). Restatement
(Second) of Torts 8A, comment b, p. 15.
71 See supra para. 13.
72 See id. The consumer indicated that the calls ultimately ended without any intervention or action on her part.
73 47 U.S.C. 227(e)(5); 47 CFR 1.80(b)(4); 2018 Inflation Order, 33 FCC Rcd 46. 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.
(continued& .)
11
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-135
Rules authorize a forfeiture of up to $11,27874 for each spoofing violation, or three times that amount for
each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,127,79975 for any single act or failure
to act.76 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.77
1. Base Forfeiture for Truth in Caller ID Violations
32. When the Commission adopted the spoofing rules, the Commission said that it would
seek substantial penalties against violators.78 Accordingly, the Commission has previously established
$1,000 as the base forfeiture amount per violation79 when confronted with large-scale spoofing
operations.80 It has then applied the section 503(b)(2)(E) balancing factors, taking into account the
nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
(Continued from previous page)
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. Thus, the Bureau is not required to demonstrate the conscious and
deliberate commission or omission of such act or that such act happened more than once or for more than one day
to propose a forfeiture for apparently unlawful spoofing. 47 U.S.C. 312(f)(1)-(2) (defining willful and
repeated under the Act). We nevertheless find that Affordable willfully and repeatedly spoofed caller ID
information with the intent to harm.
74 As discussed above, the Bureau obtained records of the spoofed telemarketing calls that Affordable made during
the time period July 26, 2016, to September 25, 2017. In 2016, the per-violation statutory maximum (adjusted for
inflation) for unlawful spoofing was $10,874. See Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties to Reflect Inflation,
Order, 31 FCC Rcd 6793, 6797 (EB June 9, 2016) (June Inflation Order). In 2017, the per-violation statutory
maximum (adjusted for inflation) was $11,052. See Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties to Reflect Inflation,
Order, 31 FCC Rcd 13485, 13488 (EB Dec. 30, 2016) (December Inflation Order).
75 In 2016, the statutory maximum (adjusted for inflation) for continuing violations was $1,087,450. See June
Inflation Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 6797. In 2017, the statutory maximum (adjusted for inflation) for continuing
violations was $1,105,241. See December Inflation Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 13488.
76 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 also 2018 Inflation Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 49.
77 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.
78 Truth in Caller ID Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 9115, para. 2.
79 Instead of applying the $1,000 base forfeiture to the millions of calls made by the violator, the Commission has
instead applied the base forfeiture to a smaller sample of the calls.
80 See Adrian Abramovich, Marketing Strategy Leaders, Inc., and Marketing Leaders, Inc., Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, 32 FCC Rcd 5418, 5426, para. 25 (2017) (Abramovich NAL); Adrian Abramovich.
Marketing Strategy Leaders, Inc., and Marketing Leaders, Inc., Forfeiture Order, FCC 18-58, 2018 WL 2192429, at
*10, para. 33 (May 10, 2018), Commissioner O Rielly approving in part, dissenting in part (Abramovich FO). See
also Roesel FO, FCC 18-134 at para. 57; Roesel NAL, 32 FCC Rcd at 6403, 6414-15, para. 33.
12
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-135
culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require to
determine the total forfeiture amount.81
33. For instance, in Roesel, the Commission addressed a case in which the perpetrator
falsified caller ID information to reflect unassigned telephone numbers, rather than the perpetrator s own
business numbers. In Roesel, we proposed a forfeiture designed to deter other large scale spoofing
operations and notify bad actors that the Commission takes spoofing violations seriously.82 We applied a
base forfeiture in the amount of $1,000 per unlawful spoofed call verified by the Bureau.83 We then took
into account the statutory factors required under Section 503 of the Act and found an upward adjustment
was not warranted in that particular case.84 Based on the totality of circumstances, the Commission found
that a forfeiture of $82,106,000 was necessary to punish Roesel s misconduct and deter future
wrongdoing. Because Roesel involved analogous apparent spoofing violations under the Truth in Caller
ID Act, we use it as guidance in proposing an appropriate forfeiture in this case.
2. Number of Violations
34. We find that Affordable committed multiple apparent violations of the Truth in Caller ID
Act for which we are authorized to impose a forfeiture. Affordable made 2,341,125 calls from July 26,
2016, to September 25, 2017.85 The Bureau evaluated a total of 37,525 total calls and used this sampling
of spoofed calls as the basis for assessing a forfeiture.86 As described in detail above, Affordable
apparently spoofed the caller ID information by displaying: (1) numbers that were assigned to prepaid
wireless phones, for which the subscriber information was not available; (2) numbers that were
unassigned to any consumer; or (3) numbers assigned to individuals or entities who were innocent
consumers. Affordable made these 2,341,125 spoofed calls with an apparent intent to cause harm or
wrongfully obtain anything of value. Accordingly, we find that each call was an apparent violation of the
Truth in Caller ID Act. However, we propose a fine specifically for the 37,525 calls that we analyzed.
We confirmed that not only were these calls spoofed, but the numbers spoofed had been assigned, at the
81 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)(E). See Truth in Caller ID Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 9132, para. 46 (although the Commission
is not statutorily required to apply the Section 503(b)(2)(E) balancing factors in cases involving apparent violations
of Section 227(e), the Commission said it would do so). See Abramovich NAL, 32 FCC Rcd at 5426, para. 25;
Abramovich FO, 2018 WL 2192429, at *4, para. 11; see also Roesel FO, FCC 18-134 at para. 17; Roesel NAL, 32
FCC Rcd at 6414, para. 31.
82 Roesel FO, FCC 18-134 at paras. 17, 62; Roesel NAL, 32 FCC Rcd at 6414, para. 31.
83 Roesel FO, FCC 18-134 at para. 51; Roesel NAL, 32 FCC Rcd at 6414-15, para. 33.
84 Roesel FO, FCC 18-134 at para. 58; Roesel NAL, 32 FCC Rcd at 6414-15, para. 33.
85 See Response.
86 This sample represents calls selected from a pool of violations that are of a type that are particularly harmful:
calls that displayed phone numbers assigned to innocent consumers. Spoofed telemarketing calls that use innocent
consumers numbers cause harm not only to the recipients of the calls but also to the owners of the numbers, who
often must field numerous calls from irate recipients of the spoofed calls. See, e.g., Abramovich NAL, 32 FCC Rcd at
5424, para. 18; Abramovich FO, 2018 WL 2192429, at *5, para. 18. In fact, the Bureau verified that one such
innocent consumer did receive irate calls complaining about the unwanted telemarketing calls. However, the
spoofed calls that displayed the numbers assigned to burner phones or that were unassigned were also apparently
unlawful, and we could have included those calls in our sample. Moreover, we recognize this is the first time we
have determined that the use of burner phones to spoof caller ID information with unlawful intent is a violation of
the Truth in Caller ID Act. Although we believe a person of ordinary intelligence would come to the same
conclusion, we proceed more cautiously than necessary here in order to negate any claims concerning notice. See
Lyca Tel, LLC, Forfeiture Order, 30 FCC Rcd 11792, 11796, para. 15 (2015) (to satisfy due process concerns, a
regulation must provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited ) (internal citations
omitted)). By issuing this NAL, we put all entities and persons on notice that the use of burner phones to unlawfully
spoof caller ID information is subject to the Truth in Caller ID Act and potential enforcement action.
13
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-135
time of the calls, to consumers who had no relationship, nor any affiliation, with Affordable.87
3. Calculation of Proposed Forfeiture
35. In determining the proposed forfeiture in this case, we apply a $1,000 base forfeiture to
each of the 37,525 spoofed calls evaluated by the Bureau, for a total proposed base forfeiture of
$37,525,000.88 Similar to our proposed forfeiture in Roesel, in this case we find that the application of the
facts to the statutory factors in Section 50389 do not warrant an upward adjustment to the base forfeiture.
The evidence does not indicate that the content of Affordable s telemarketing calls were fraudulent or that
it made any misrepresentations to consumers (with the exception of the caller ID information itself).
Based on the evidence, Affordable did not appear to misrepresent the products and services it was selling,
nor did it engage in the more deceptive types of spoofing such as neighbor spoofing (modifying the
telephone numbers to falsely appear to be originating from the same area code and prefix as the called
party). In addition, the instant action appears to be the first time that Affordable has run afoul of the
TCPA. Affordable, however, is highly culpable it concocted a scheme to purchase burner phones, as
well as using unassigned numbers and numbers assigned to innocent consumers in order to avoid
identification and detection and deprive consumers of their consumer protection rights. On balance, we
find that neither an upward adjustment nor a further downward adjustment90 to the proposed base
forfeiture of $37,525,000 is necessary to punish misconduct and deter future wrongdoing.
IV. CONCLUSION
36. Based on the foregoing, we find that Affordable, apparently willfully and repeatedly
violated Section 227(e) of the Act and Section 64.1604 of the Rules. Accordingly, Affordable is
apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount $37,525,000.
87 As noted above, some of the numbers that Affordable used were, at the outset of the investigation, either
unassigned or assigned to Tracfone, but were subsequently assigned to innocent consumers. See supra note 27.
Affordable might not have known precisely when the numbers were reassigned to innocent consumers, but such
reassignment was an easily foreseeable event Tracfone s terms of service make clear that service would be
deactivated for lack of use or payment. The website states, If your Service is deactivated . . . your phone may be
assigned a new phone number. https://www.tracfone.com/termsandconditions.
88 See Reviewed Call Detail Records (on file in File No. EB-TCD-17-00024974) (containing the call records that
include the dates and times the calls were made and are incorporated herein by reference). The 37,535 calls for
which the Commission applies its forfeiture were all made on or after October 1, 2016. See Purple Commc ns, Inc.,
Forfeiture Order, 30 FCC Rcd 14892, 14899-900, paras. 21-23 (2015) (discussing the identification of dates
pursuant to Section 503). The Commission has stated 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.
89 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)(E) ( In determining the amount of such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission or its designee
shall take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the
violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may
require. ).
90 We note that by selecting a base forfeiture in the amount of $1,000 per apparently unlawful call, we are already
significantly lowering the potential penalty, which may reach up to the applicable statutory maximum per call. See
supra notes 74-75. We have previously explained that 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, but nevertheless 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. Abramovich NAL, 32 FCC Rcd at
5426, paras. 24-25; see also Abramovich FO, 2018 WL 2192429, at *14, para. 46.
14
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-135
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
37. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 227(e)(5)(A)(i) and 503(b) of the Act91 and
Sections 1.80 of the Rules,92 Affordable Enterprises of Arizona is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT
LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of thirty-seven million, five hundred twenty-five
thousand dollars ($37,525,000) for willful and repeated violations of Section 227(e) of the Act,93 Section
64.1604 of the Rules,94 and the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Truth In Caller ID Act of 2009.95
38. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules,96 within thirty
(30) calendar days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Affordable
Enterprises of Arizona, 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 paragraphs
41-42, below.
39. 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. Affordable
Enterprises of Arizona shall send electronic notification of 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.97 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.
40. 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
91 47 U.S.C. 227(e)(5)(A)(i), 503(b).
92 47 CFR 1.80.
93 47 U.S.C. 227(e).
94 47 CFR 64.1604.
95 Rules and Regulations Implementing the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 9114
(2011).
96 47 CFR 1.80.
97 An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be obtained at
http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.
15
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-135
Street, SW, Room 1-A625, Washington, DC 20554.98 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.
41. 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.99 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, Division
Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, at Kristi.Thompson@fcc.gov, and Shante Willis,
Attorney Advisor, Telecommunications Consumers Division, at Shante.Willis@fcc.gov.
42. 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; and
(3) any other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner s current
financial status.100 Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by
reference to the financial documentation.
43. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, together with the Reviewed Call Detail Records, shall be sent by first class mail and certified
mail, return receipt requested, to Affordable Enterprises of Arizona, 150 E Alamo Drive, Suite 9,
Chandler, AZ 85225-1208.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
98 See 47 CFR 1.1914.
99 Id. at 1.16, 1.80(f)(3).
100 See Abramovich FO, 2018 WL 2192429, at *13, paras. 44-45.
16
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-135
STATEMENT OF
CHAIRMAN AJIT PAI
Re: Affordable Enterprises of Arizona, File No.: EB-TCD-17-00024974.
During my tenure as FCC Chairman, I ve had the opportunity to set the agenda for 20 monthly
meetings. And at almost half of those meetings, we ve voted on measures to fight the scourge of
unlawful robocalls. This proactive strategy follows through on what I said shortly after becoming
Chairman: Combating illegal robocalls would be the FCC s top consumer protection priority.
Today, we take further steps to address this priority by approving two major enforcement actions.
The first involves Philip Roesel. By making unsolicited calls to consumers, Roesel generated leads for
insurance products that he sold. Last year, we found he and his company apparently liable for
$82,106,000 for violating the Truth in Caller ID Act. Roesel was responsible for more than 200,000
spoofed robocalls a day 21.5 million altogether, over a three-month period from late 2016 through early
2017.
Roesel s response to the Commission was not persuasive, to say the least. He admits that he
hired a dialing platform. He admits that he intentionally spoofed the caller ID. He admits that he
robocalled consumers. And he does not deny that he failed to obtain prior consent from any consumers
that he robocalled. Nor does he deny he obtained value using his robocalling campaign or that he caused
harm.
Now, Roesel claims that any value obtained was not obtained wrongfully. But it s impossible
to believe that he would have generated the same volume of leads (and potential commissions) had he not
made over 21 million unlawfully spoofed robocalls in violation of the Truth in Caller Act.
He also asserts that any unlawful conduct was cured because consumers who wanted more
information were ultimately given truthful information. But tell this to the millions of innocent
consumers who were misled into answering his calls, or who had no interest in learning more about the
offer. Baiting the hook and casting the line are bad, with or without the sinker.
So today, we reject Roesel s specious arguments and impose a forfeiture of over $82 million for
intentionally including false or misleading spoofed caller ID information with his unlawful robocalls.
The second enforcement action is a Notice of Apparent Liability against Affordable Enterprises
of Arizona. Affordable ran a telemarketing scheme to gain new customers and increase sales of its home
improvement and remodeling services. The company apparently made over two million unlawful spoofed
telemarketing calls in just a 14-month period. So we re proposing a penalty of $37,525,000 for apparent
violations of the Truth in Caller ID Act.
Here s how their scheme apparently worked. First, Affordable would upload a random list of
targeted numbers into a calling platform that would dial the numbers on Affordable s behalf. (Affordable
was apparently aware that many of these numbers were on the national Do No Call Registry.) Next,
Affordable would program the calling platform to display spoofed caller ID information. In other words,
this information did not transmit the originating phone number. The Caller ID displayed was an
unassigned number, an assigned number to a prepaid burner phone, or, in the most egregious instances, a
number already assigned to an innocent consumer.
This design made it virtually impossible for any consumer with a complaint to contact
Affordable s official business line. It also was designed to make it easier for Affordable to hide any link
between the company and its illegal telemarketing calls from law enforcement or potential plaintiffs.
The Enforcement Bureau s able investigation unearthed details about this scheme after
investigating a sampling of 13 separate numbers used by Affordable for caller ID purposes from July 26,
2016 to September 25, 2017. Affordable used these 13 numbers to make 2,341,125 telemarketing calls
17
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-135
during this period. And not one of these numbers displayed correct caller ID information to show that the
calls came from Affordable or otherwise listed Affordable as the subscriber of record.
Most troubling is the fact that four of the sampled numbers used by Affordable for caller ID
purposes were assigned to innocent consumers. One of them claimed to have received more than five
calls a day from people irate that they were receiving unwanted calls from her number and demanding
that she stop. This consumer said that she was overwhelmed by these calls. And no wonder: The
Bureau s investigation confirmed that Affordable had made more than 48,349 calls alone using her phone
number during the period that it was assigned to this consumer. This conduct is outrageous and
unacceptable.
Of course, enforcement actions alone won t solve the problem of unlawful robocalls. That s why
we ve been busy working on a variety of initiatives to address this issue. In response to our charge, the
North American Numbering Council, an FCC Advisory Committee, has set out the next steps for
implementing a nationwide call authentication system designed to stamp out robocalls from bad actors,
and the private sector is now setting up the governance system for authenticating calls industry-wide. We
are carefully monitoring these efforts and will consider whether any Commission action is needed to
ensure that milestones are met in a timely manner.
But make no mistake about it: Penalizing those who spoof caller ID information and flood
Americans phones with unlawful robocalls must be a component of any effective strategy for combatting
this scourge.
I want to thank staff for their careful sleuthing and hard work in bringing these cases forward.
For Roesel, I want to thank Vilma Anderson, Tamara Baxter, Jonathan Garvin, Lisa Gelb, Susan German,
Rosemary Harold, Jermaine Haynes, Rick Hindman, Parul Desai, Matthew Hoke, Lisa Landers, Coly
Marierose, Ann Morgan, Phil Priesman, Nakasha Ramsey, Terrell Richardson, Mary Romano, Stacy
Ruffin-Smith, Mika Savir, Michael Scurato, Daniel Stepanicich, Kimbarly Taylor, Kristi Thompson,
Bridgette Washington, and Lisa Williford of the Enforcement Bureau; Kurt Schroeder, Mark Stone, and
Kristi Thornton of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau; and Terry Cavanaugh, Neil Dellar,
Valerie Hill, Billy Layton, and Rick Mallen in the Office of General Counsel. And for Affordable, I want
to thank Jonathan Garvin, Lisa Gelb, Rosemary Harold, Jermaine Haynes, Rick Hindman, Parul Desai,
Matthew Hoke, Coly Marierose, Nakasha Ramsey, Terrell Richardson, Michael Scurato, Kristi
Thompson, Bridgette Washington, Shante Willis, and Shana Yates of the Enforcement Bureau; John B.
Adams, Jerusha Burnett, Kurt Schroeder, Mark Stone, and Kristi Thornton of the Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau; and Ashley Boizelle, Valerie Hill, Tom Johnson, Rick Mallen, Linda
Oliver, and Bill Richardson in the Office of General Counsel.
18
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-135
STATEMENT OF
COMMISIONER JESSICA ROSENWORCEL
Re: Affordable Enterprises of Arizona, File No.: EB-TCD-17-00024974.
If you think we re drowning in robocalls now, get ready. The Washington Post just reported that
by next year we will reach a new high-water mark. In 2019 nearly half of all cellphone calls will come
from scammers.
This is insane. It s great that this agency is issuing a forfeiture order and notice of apparent
liability today. But it s crazy to think that these individual actions are going to do the trick and staunch
the flow. With this one-by-one effort we are trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon.
We need a better approach. We need to develop a policy statement to articulate this agency s
goals and efforts to reduce robocalls. We need to set deadlines. It has been roughly two years since this
agency identified SHAKEN/STIR as a call authentication technology that can reduce robocalls. In the
meantime, Canada went ahead and set a 2019 deadline to put his technology in place. We should be
doing the same as our neighbors to the north. We should renew the Robocall Strike Force that this this
agency convened a few years ago. We should have field hearings and seek technical expertise from far
and wide. Closer to home, we should respond to every outstanding court remand on robocalls and
petitions before this agency expeditiously.
Just this week, NBC news reported on the same statistic cited by the Washington Post. It
sought comment from this agency. The best we had to offer was an unnamed official who said an
industry led effort is the fastest way and we hope some companies will implement it within the year.
I like hope. But hope alone is not going to fix this problem. It takes effort and it s time for this to agency
to offer real robocall resistance, because the flood of these calls is destroying something essential trust
in our communications network.
19