Telemarketing
On August 7, 2024 the Federal Communications Commission proposed new consumer protections against AI-generated robocalls and robotexts. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking broadens the FCC’s efforts to address AI’s impact on the rights of consumers under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The NPRM seeks comment on the definition of AI-generated calls, requiring callers to disclose their use of AI-generated calls and text messages, supporting technologies that alert and protect consumers from unwanted and illegal AI robocalls, and protecting positive uses of AI to help people with disabilities utilize the telephone networks.
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to define “AI-generated calls,” and introduces such a definition that would include calls using artificial intelligence generate voice or text. For purposes of identifying the types of calls that would be subject to the new proposed rules, the FCC proposes to define “AI generated call” as “a call that uses any technology or tool to generate an artificial or prerecorded voice or a text using computational technology or other machine learning, including predictive algorithms, and large language models, to process natural language and produce voice or text content to communicate with a called party over an outbound telephone call.”
The definition proposed by the FCC is broad enough to encompass existing and evolving AI technologies. Importantly, it is limited to outbound calls. AI technologies that are used to answer inbound calls are not within the scope of the proposed definition of “AI-generated calls.”
“We believe this definition is consistent with federal and state AI definitions cited in the AI NOI,
The FTC recently announced various examples of how the agency works to ensure that small businesses and consumer are not the victims of unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition.
Here are some recent examples.
“Made in the USA” Must Mean Made in the USA
Many small businesses make an effort to keep manufacturing jobs in their communities. If they meet the standards established in the FTC’s Made in USA Labeling Rule and Statement on U.S. Origin Claims, they may be able to lawfully label or advertise their products as “Made in the USA.” However, the FTC’s long record of law enforcement establishes that many manufactureres and marketers seek to undermine those efforts by falsely including an unqualified U.S. origin statement on products even though significant parts, processing and labor are not U.S.-based. Consult with an experienced Made in USA attorney to discuss agency guidance and enforcement of domestic origin claims.
Right-to-Repair Legislation
After addressing “misconceptions” about product repair in its Nixing the Fix report and bringing law enforcement actions to challenge illegal terms in product warranties, the FTC continues to work toward ensuring that dealers compete fairly with independent third-party repair businesses. One example is our work in support of state right-to-repair laws. For example, the FTC recently testified before the Colorado General Assembly’s Committee on Business Affairs and Labor in support of proposed legislation to expand the state’s right-to-repair statute to include digital electronics.
As previously blogged about here, the Federal Communications Commission recently published the final, single-seller, one-to-one lead generator consent rule (the “Rule”). The Rule amends the definition of “prior express written consent” for purposes of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and will dramatically impact the lead generation industry.
How Does the New One-to-One, Single Seller Rule Impact Lead Generation?
When utilizing regulated technologies such as automatic telephone dialing systems (“ATDS”), artificial or prerecorded voice telephone calls, artificial intelligence voice telephone calls, outbound interactive voice response, and voicemail technology using artificial or pre-recorded voice messages, consumers will be required to select each “seller” – the ultimate provider – of a product or service from whom they want to receive telephone calls from.
Note that manual dialing may not provide cover, including insofar as telephone numbers on a do-not-call registry and various state legal regulations are concerned.
Further note that single “seller” consent does not encompass lead generators and other intermediaries, with potentially limited exception. Furthermore, it also appears that sharing consent across corporate affiliates will also be considered a Rule violation.
The cost of violating any of the Rule’s provisions are potentially devastating. Plaintiffs’ attorneys will be ready to pounce. Do not attempt to secure compliance on your own. Contact an FTC lawyer to discuss legal regulatory considerations for keeping you and your business from becoming low hanging fruit.
The effective date for the single seller provisions of the Rule is January 2025.
On March 7, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced a final rule extending telemarketing fraud protections to businesses and updating the rule’s recordkeeping requirements as a result of developments in technology and the marketplace.
FTC lawyers also announced a proposed rule that would provide the agency with significant new tools to combat tech support scams.
Both actions are part of the FTC’s current review of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), which includes the Do Not Call Registry (DNC) rules and provisions banning nearly all telemarketing robocalls to consumers.
Importantly, the FTC also affirms the TSR’s prohibitions on robocalls using voice cloning technology.
“Today’s changes provide important new protections for small business and will help ensure that the FTC can take action against deceptive marketers who use AI robocalls and other emerging technology,” said FTC attorney Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “We look forward to comments from the public on the additional proposals that would deter tech support scams and aid the Commission’s efforts to put money back into the pockets of defrauded consumers.”
The TSR became effective in 1995 and applies to virtually all “telemarketing” activities, both in the United States and international sales calls to consumers in the United States. The rule generally applies only to outbound calls made by telemarketers to consumers, with some exceptions, and protects consumers in a range of ways.
For example and without limitation,
On December 6, 2023, Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel announced a new initiative to strengthen and formalize the cooperation between the FCC and its state partners on privacy, data protection and cybersecurity enforcement matters.
As part of the work of the FCC’s Privacy and Data Protection Task Force, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau has signed Memoranda of Understanding with Attorneys General of Connecticut, Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania to share expertise, resources and coordinated efforts in conducting privacy, data protection and cybersecurity-related investigations to protect consumers.
The Memoranda of Understanding
The new MOU affirm that the FCC and State Attorneys General “share close and common legal interests in working cooperatively to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute or otherwise take enforcement action in relation to privacy, data protection or cybersecurity issues” under sections 201 and 222 of the Communications Act.
Coordinated action and information sharing will take place under all applicable federal and state laws, and privacy protections.
Federal and State Comments
FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel said, in pertinent part, that “[d]efending consumer privacy is an all-of-government responsibility and a shared challenge. Today we take on evolving consumer threats with new formal partnerships with state law enforcement leaders, which have already been successful in obtaining record-breaking results in combatting illegal robocalls.”
FCC Enforcement Bureau Chief Loyann A. Egal said, in pertinent part, that “[u]se of information and communications technology and services have significantly enhanced our lives while at the same time increasing vulnerabilities to our privacy and sensitive data.
On December 13, 2023, the Federal Communications Commission adopted new rules designed to protect consumers from “scam communications” by directly addressing some of the “biggest vulnerabilities” in America’s robotext defenses and closing the “lead generator” robocall/robotexts loophole.
The new rules allow blocking of “red flagged” robotexting numbers, codifies Do-Not-Call rules for texting, and encourages an opt-in approach for delivering email-to-text messages.
Closing the Lead Generator Loophole
The new rules close a loophole through which “unscrupulous robocallers and robotexters inundate consumers with unwanted and illegal robocalls and robotexts.” The new rules make it unequivocally clear that comparison shopping websites and lead generators must obtain consumer consent to receive robocalls and robotexts one seller at a time – rather than have a single consent apply to multiple telemarketers at once.
Combating Robotext Sources
The new rules allow the FCC to “red flag” certain numbers, requiring mobile carriers to block texts from those numbers. The rules also codify that Do-Not-Call list protections apply to text messaging, making it illegal for marketing texts to be sent to numbers on the registry. And the order encourages providers to make email-to-text messages an opt-in service, which would limit the effectiveness of a major source of unwanted and illegal text messages.
Groundwork for Future Steps
In addition to the rules, the FCC also proposed and will take public comment on additional steps it might take against robotexts. The FCC proposes additional blocking requirements when the FCC notifies a provider of a likely “scam text-generating number.” The FCC will also seek further comment on text message authentication – modeled on the implementation of STIR/SHAKEN protocols for phone calls – including on the status of any industry standards in development.
One of the key issues relating to the NPRM pertains to consent being sent directly to/obtained by one seller at a time.
The FCC has now circulated its proposed rule. It has not been adopted yet but it looks like it will be in December when voted upon. It looks like the rule will become effective in or around August or September of 2024.
In pertinent part, the FCC ruling would require terminating mobile wireless providers to block all texts from a particular number when notified by the FCC of illegal texts from that number; codify that the National Do-Not-Call Registry’s protections extend to text messages; and close the lead generator loophole by making unequivocally clear that comparison shopping websites must get consumer consent one seller at a time.
Additionally, as amended “prior express written consent” shall be revised to read, as follows: “The term prior express written consent means an agreement, in writing, that bears the signature of the person called that clearly and conspicuously authorizes no more than one identified seller to deliver or cause to be delivered to the person called advertisements or telemarketing messages using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice.” The “seller” is not the a lead generator. It is the provider of the products or services
Moreover, “calls must be logically and topically associated with the interaction that prompted the consent and the agreement must identify the telephone number to which the signatory authorizes such advertisements or telemarketing messages to be delivered.” “[R]obotexts and robocalls that result from consumer consent obtained on comparison shopping websites must be logically and topically related to that website.
On September 21, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it has joined the Federal Communications Commission in signing a renewed memorandum of understanding (MOU) between public authorities who are members of the Unsolicited Communications Enforcement Network (UCENet). The MOU aims to promote cross-border collaboration to combat unsolicited communications, including email and text spam, scams, and illegal telemarketing.
“The FTC is committed to using all of its tools to fight robocalls and other unsolicited communications that try to prey on consumers,” said FTC attorney and Chair Lina M. Khan. “This scourge does not respect borders, and our recommitment to this MOU underscores the importance of international communication and cooperation to combat this problem.”
UCENet members agreed to renew and make evergreen the MOU, a non-binding instrument which the FTC and its partners signed in 2016.
The 2016 MOU was aimed at facilitating information sharing, capacity building, and enforcement assistance among the partners. For the past seven years, it also has facilitated communication about emerging threats and complaint trends related to spam, scams, and illegal telemarketing.
The UCENET MOU is part of the FTC’s continuing to work to fight harms that can arise from unwanted messages. According to the announcement, unsolicited communications in the form of illegal and spoofed robocalls, text messages, and emails are often the source of scams that harm millions of consumers in the United States each year. The revised MOU also has been signed by UCENet partners in Canada,
The Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (“FTSA”) has long been criticized for numerous reasons, including an overly broad and vague autodialer definition. Florida’s Governor recently signed HB 761, which makes significant, telemarketer friendly changes, to the FTSA (Fla. Stat. § 501.059).
Fewer Types of Telemarketing Equipment Covered
The amendments narrow the types of telemarketing equipment covered by the statute.
For example, prior the the amendments, autodialing restrictions applied to “automated system[s] for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers.” Now, the amended autodialing restrictions apply only to “automated system[s] for the selection and dialing of telephone numbers.” The foregoing effectively eliminates the legal argument that a dialing or texting platform falls under the statute even if the calling party manually selects or dials a telephone number to be called or texted.
Caveat, the amended version of the statutes continues to restrict “the playing of a recorded message when a connection is completed to a number called, or the transmission of a prerecorded voicemail.”
Text Message Notice and Cure Period
The revised statute provides for a fifteen (15) day notice and cure period before a plaintiff is permitted to initiate formal legal action. For example, by responding “STOP” to message.
Expanded Definition of “Signature”
The modified statute has a broadened definition of “signature” and includes “checking a box” and “responding affirmatively to receiving text messages.” Digital signatures may be acceptable to obtain prior express written consent provided that “such form of signature is recognized as a valid signature under applicable federal law or state contract law.”
Retroactive Application
Florida Telephone Solicitation Act class action cases that are not certified prior to the effective date of the statutory amendments are subject to the retroactive application of the new legislation.
As previously blogged about here, the FCC recently proposed a rule that would turn the lead generation on its head. The proposed new rule goes quite a bit further than simply requiring wireless carriers to block texts from illegitimate numbers.
In addition to carrier investigation and blocking obligations, as well as an extension of DNC protections to text messages, the FCC proposes:
“…to ban the practice of obtaining a single consumer consent as grounds for delivering calls and text messages from multiple marketers on subjects beyond the scope of the original consent.”
In an illustration of the issue, Company A describes a website that purports to enable consumers to comparison shop for insurance. The website sought consumer consent for calls and texts from insurance companies and other various entities, including Company A’s ‘partner companies.’ The ‘partner companies’ were listed in a hyperlink on the web page (i.e., they were not displayed on the website without clicking on the link) and the list of ‘partner companies’ included both insurance companies and other entities that did not appear to be related to insurance.”
Public Knowledge, an influential non-profit Washington, D.C.-based public interest group argues that lead generators and data brokers use hyperlinked lists to harvest consumer telephone numbers and consent agreements on a website and pass that information to telemarketers and scam callers. Commentors have argued that the telemarketer that obtains the consumer’s contact information from the lead generator may believe that it has the consumer’s prior express consent,
Topics
Archives
About This Blog and Hinch Newman’s Advertising + Marketing Practice
Hinch Newman LLP’s advertising and marketing practice includes successfully resolving some of the highest-profile Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys general digital advertising and telemarketing investigations and enforcement actions. The firm possesses superior knowledge and deep legal experience in the areas of advertising, marketing, lead generation, promotions, e-commerce, privacy and intellectual property law. Through these advertising and marketing law updates, Hinch Newman provides commentary, news and analysis on issues and trends concerning developments of interest to digital marketers, including FTC and state attorneys general advertising compliance, civil investigative demands (CIDs), and administrative/judicial process. This blog is sponsored by Hinch Newman LLP.