Repeated Objectionable Bothering of Consumers on Phones Act
A BILL
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to expand and clarify the prohibition on inaccurate caller identification information and to require providers of telephone service to offer technology to subscribers to reduce the incidence of unwanted telephone calls, and for other purposes.
Sec. 2 Findings
Sec. 3 Expanding and clarifying prohibition on inaccurate caller ID information
“(D) Text message—The term text message means a real-time or near real-time digital message consisting of text, images, sounds, or other information that is transmitted from or received by a device that is identified as the transmitting or receiving device by means of a telephone number. Such term—
“(i) includes a short message service (SMS) message, an enhanced message service (EMS) message, and a multimedia message service (MMS) message; and
“(ii) does not include a real-time, two-way voice or video communication.
“(E) Text messaging service—The term text messaging service means a service that permits the transmission or receipt of a text message, including a service provided as part of or in connection with a telecommunications service or an IP-enabled voice service.”
Sec. 4 Technology requirements
“(4) Technology offered by providers
“(A) Requirements to offer technology—The Commission shall prescribe regulations setting forth technical and procedural standards—
“(i) to require any originating provider to enable, for each subscriber of such provider and for no additional charge, technology that verifies, for any telephone call originated by such subscriber, that the caller identification information indicated for such call accurately identifies such subscriber, or that—
“(I) the subscriber establishes a legitimate need, through the process described in subparagraph (B), to provide misleading or inaccurate information for certain calls, such as for a call made to conduct an activity of a domestic violence shelter or a medical practice; or
“(II) the call is exempted, pursuant to the authority granted to the Commission by subsection (e)(3)(B)(ii), from the prohibition under subsection (e)(1); and
“(ii) to require any receiving provider, for each subscriber of such provider and for no additional charge—
“(I) to enable, and to offer the option to disable, technology that—
“(aa) determines that an incoming telephone call is verified by the technology enabled in accordance with clause (i) as providing caller identification information that accurately identifies the person originating the call; or
“(bb) prevents the subscriber from receiving such a call; and
“(II) to offer the option to enable technology that—
“(aa) identifies an incoming telephone call as originating or probably originating from an automatic telephone dialing system or as using or probably using an artificial or prerecorded voice; and
“(bb) prevents the subscriber from receiving such a call unless the call is made by a public safety entity, including public safety answering points as defined in section 222(h), emergency operations centers, or law enforcement agencies, or unless the subscriber provides prior express consent to receive the call.
“(B) Exemption Process—The standards established under subparagraph (A)(i) shall provide for a process by which—
“(i) a subscriber may demonstrate to the originating provider that—
“(I) such subscriber has a legitimate need, in accordance with subclause (I) of such subparagraph, to provide misleading or inaccurate caller identification information for certain calls; or
“(II) some or all of the calls of such subscriber are exempted, pursuant to the authority granted to the Commission by subsection (e)(3)(B)(ii), from the prohibition under subsection (e)(1); and
“(ii) the originating provider shall ensure, if the provider makes a favorable determination with respect to the calls described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (i), that the technology enabled under subparagraph (A)(i) verifies such calls as originating from such subscriber.
“(C) Appeals Process—The standards established under subparagraph (A)(ii)(II) shall provide for an appeals process by which—
“(i) a person may notify a receiving provider that the technology offered under such subparagraph by the provider is—
“(I) incorrectly identifying the telephone calls of such person as originating or probably originating from an automatic telephone dialing system or as using or probably using an artificial or prerecorded voice; or
“(II) preventing subscribers from receiving calls originated by such person that are permitted in accordance with item (bb) of such subparagraph; and
“(ii) the receiving provider so notified shall, if such provider finds that the circumstance about which the person notified the provider under clause (i) exists, take such action as is reasonably necessary to correct such circumstance.
“(D) Private right of action
“(i) In general—A person may bring, in an appropriate district court of the United States, or, if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State, in an appropriate court of that State—
“(I) an action based on a violation of the regulations prescribed under clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (A) to enjoin such violation;
“(II) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater; or
“(III) both such actions.
“(ii) Enhanced awards—If the court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated such regulations, the court may, in its discretion, increase the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than 3 times the amount available under clause (i)(II) of this subparagraph.
“(E) Rules of Construction
“(i) Prevention of Calls—For purposes of a regulation prescribed under this paragraph, a call shall be considered to be prevented even if the call is recorded or redirected in a manner that allows the called party to be notified of the attempt to make the call, or to have access to a message left by the calling party.
“(ii) Blocking caller identification information—Nothing in this paragraph may be construed to require an originating provider to prevent or restrict any person from blocking the capability of any caller identification service to transmit caller identification information.
“(F) Definitions—In this paragraph:
“(i) Originating provider—The term originating provider means a provider of telecommunications service, or a provider of IP-enabled voice service (as defined in subsection (e)(8)), that permits a subscriber to originate a call that may be transmitted on the public switched telephone network.
“(ii) Receiving provider—The term receiving provider means a provider of telecommunications service, or a provider of IP-enabled voice service (as defined in subsection (e)(8)), that permits a subscriber to receive a call originating or that may be transmitted on the public switched telephone network.”
Sec. 5 Intentional interference with call-blocking technology
“(i) Intentional interference with call-Blocking technology
“(1) In general—It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States, or any person outside the United States if the recipient is within the United States, with the intent to cause harm, to take any action that causes the technology offered under subsection (d)(4)(A)(ii)(II) to—
“(A) incorrectly identify telephone calls as originating or probably originating from an automatic telephone dialing system or using or probably using an artificial or prerecorded voice; or
“(B) prevent (as such term is used in subsection (d)(4)) the called party from receiving a call—
“(i) made by a public safety entity, including public safety answering points as defined in section 222(h), emergency operations centers, or law enforcement agencies; or
“(ii) to which the called party has provided prior express consent.
“(2) Penalties; actions by States—Any person who violates this subsection or the regulations prescribed under this subsection shall be subject to the penalties set forth in paragraph (5) of subsection (e), and to actions by States as set forth in paragraph (6) of such subsection, in the same manner and to the same extent as if such person had violated such subsection or the regulations prescribed under such subsection.”