47 U.S.C. §§ 223–227

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title II, § 223, as added Pub. L. 90–299, § 1, May 3, 1968, 82 Stat. 112; amended Pub. L. 98–214, § 8(a), (b), Dec. 8, 1983, 97 Stat. 1469, 1470; Pub. L. 100–297, title VI, § 6101, Apr. 28, 1988, 102 Stat. 424; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7524, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4502; Pub. L. 101–166, title V, § 521(1), Nov. 21, 1989, 103 Stat. 1192; Pub. L. 103–414, title III, § 303(a)(9), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4294; Pub. L. 104–104, title V, § 502, Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 133; Pub. L. 105–244, title I, § 102(a)(14), Oct. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1621; Pub. L. 105–277, div. C, title XIV, § 1404(b), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–739; Pub. L. 108–21, title VI, § 603, Apr. 30, 2003, 117 Stat. 687; Pub. L. 109–162, title I, § 113(a), Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 2987; Pub. L. 113–4, title XI, § 1102, Mar. 7, 2013, 127 Stat. 135; Pub. L. 119–12, § 2, May 19, 2025, 139 Stat. 55.)

Editorial Notes

References in Text

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, referred to in subsec. (b)(6), are set out in the Appendix to Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (h)(1)(A), was in the original “this Act”, meaning act June 19, 1934, ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064, known as the Communications Act of 1934, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 609 of this title and Tables.

Section 1104 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act, referred to in subsec. (h)(1)(C), is section 1104 of title XI of div. C of Pub. L. 105–277, which is set out in a note under section 151 of this title. The term “Internet” is defined in section 1105 of Pub. L. 105–277, which is set out in the same note under section 151 of this title.

The Library Services and Construction Act, referred to in subsec. (h)(5), is act June 19, 1956, ch. 407, 70 Stat. 293. Title III of the Act was classified generally to subchapter III (§ 355e et seq.) of chapter 16 of Title 20, Education, and was repealed by Pub. L. 104–208, div. A, title I, § 101(e) [title VII, § 708(a)], Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–233, 3009–312.

Amendments

2025—Subsec. (e)(1). Pub. L. 119–12, § 2(b), substituted “, (d), or (h)” for “or (d)”.

Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 119–12, § 2(a)(2), added subsec. (h). Former subsec. (h) redesignated (i).

Subsec. (i). Pub. L. 119–12, § 2(a)(1), (c), redesignated subsec. (h) as (i) and inserted heading.

2013—Subsec. (a)(1)(A). Pub. L. 113–4, § 1102(1), struck out “annoy,” after “intent to” in concluding provisions.

Subsec. (a)(1)(C). Pub. L. 113–4, § 1102(2)(B), which directed the substitution of “harass any specific person” for “harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication”, was executed by making the substitution for “harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications”, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

Pub. L. 113–4, § 1102(2)(A), struck out “annoy,” after “intent to”.

Subsec. (a)(1)(E). Pub. L. 113–4, § 1102(3), substituted “harass any specific person” for “harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication”.

2006—Subsec. (h)(1)(C). Pub. L. 109–162 added subpar. (C).

2003—Subsec. (a)(1)(A). Pub. L. 108–21, § 603(1)(A), substituted “or child pornography” for “, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent” in concluding provisions.

Subsec. (a)(1)(B). Pub. L. 108–21, § 603(1)(B), substituted “child pornography” for “indecent” in concluding provisions.

Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 108–21, § 603(2), substituted “is obscene or child pornography” for “, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs” in concluding provisions.

1998—Subsec. (h)(2). Pub. L. 105–277 substituted “230(f)(2)” for “230(e)(2)”.

Subsec. (h)(4). Pub. L. 105–244, which directed amendment of section 223(h)(4) of the Telecommunications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(4)) by substituting “section 1001” for “section 1141”, was executed to this section, which is section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–104, § 502(1), added subsec. (a) and struck out former subsec. (a) which read as follows: “Whoever—

“(1) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communication by means of telephone—

“(A) makes any comment, request, suggestion or proposal which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent;

“(B) makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number;

“(C) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or

“(D) makes repeated telephone calls, during which conversation ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number; or

“(2) knowingly permits any telephone facility under his control to be used for any purpose prohibited by this section,

shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.”

Subsecs. (d) to (h). Pub. L. 104–104, § 502(2), added subsecs. (d) to (h).

1994—Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 103–414 substituted “defendant restricted access” for “defendant restrict access”.

1989—Subsecs. (b), (c). Pub. L. 101–166 added subsecs. (b) and (c) and struck out former subsec. (b) which read as follows:

“(1) Whoever knowingly—

“(A) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communication, by means of telephone, makes (directly or by recording device) any obscene communication for commercial purposes to any person, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call; or

“(B) permits any telephone facility under such person’s control to be used for an activity prohibited by clause (i);

shall be fined in accordance with title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

“(2) Whoever knowingly—

“(A) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communication, by means of telephone, makes (directly or by recording device) any indecent communication for commercial purposes to any person, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call; or

“(B) permits any telephone facility under such person’s control to be used for an activity prohibited by clause (i),

shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.”

1988—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 100–690 amended subsec. (b) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (b) read as follows:

“(1) Whoever knowingly—

“(A) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communication, by means of telephone, makes (directly or by recording device) any obscene or indecent communication for commercial purposes to any person, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call; or

“(B) permits any telephone facility under such person’s control to be used for an activity prohibited by subparagraph (A),

shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

“(2) In addition to the penalties under paragraph (1), whoever, in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communication, intentionally violates paragraph (1)(A) or (1)(B) shall be subject to a fine of not more than $50,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each day of violation shall constitute a separate violation.

“(3)(A) In addition to the penalties under paragraphs (1) and (2), whoever, in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communication, violates paragraph (1)(A) or (1)(B) shall be subject to a civil fine of not more than $50,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each day of violation shall constitute a separate violation.

“(B) A fine under this paragraph may be assessed either—

“(i) by a court, pursuant to a civil action by the Commission or any attorney employed by the Commission who is designated by the Commission for such purposes, or

“(ii) by the Commission after appropriate administrative proceedings.

“(4) The Attorney General may bring a suit in the appropriate district court of the United States to enjoin any act or practice which violates paragraph (1)(A) or (1)(B). An injunction may be granted in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”

Pub. L. 100–297, in par. (1)(A), struck out “under eighteen years of age or to any other person without that person’s consent” after “to any person”, redesignated par. (3) as (2) and struck out former par. (2) which read as follows: “It is a defense to a prosecution under this subsection that the defendant restricted access to the prohibited communication to persons eighteen years of age or older in accordance with procedures which the Commission shall prescribe by regulation.”, redesignated par. (4) as (3) and substituted “under paragraphs (1) and (2)” for “under paragraphs (1) and (3)”, and redesignated par. (5) as (4).

1983—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 98–214, § 8(a)(1), (2), designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and substituted “$50,000” for “$500” in provisions after par. (2).

Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 98–214, § 8(b), inserted “facility” after “telephone”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 98–214, § 8(a)(3), added subsec. (b).

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Effective Date of 1998 Amendments

Pub. L. 105–277, div. C, title XIV, § 1406, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–741, provided that: “This title [enacting section 231 of this title, amending this section and section 230 of this title, and enacting provisions set out as notes under sections 231 and 609 of this title] and the amendments made by this title shall take effect 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 21, 1998].”

Amendment by Pub. L. 105–244 effective Oct. 1, 1998, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 105–244, see section 3 of Pub. L. 105–244, set out as a note under section 1001 of Title 20, Education.

Effective Date of 1989 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 101–166 effective 120 days after Nov. 21, 1989, see section 521(3) of Pub. L. 101–166, set out as a note under section 152 of this title.

Effective Date of 1988 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–297 effective July 1, 1988, see section 6303 of Pub. L. 100–297, set out as a note under section 1071 of Title 20, Education.

Severability

Pub. L. 119–12, § 5, May 19, 2025, 139 Stat. 62, provided that: “If any provision of this Act [see Short Title of 2025 Amendment note set out under section 609 of this title], or an amendment made by this Act, is determined to be unenforceable or invalid, the remaining provisions of this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not be affected.”

Construction of 2006 Amendment

Pub. L. 109–162, title I, § 113(b), Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 2987, provided that: “This section [amending this section] and the amendment made by this section may not be construed to affect the meaning given the term ‘telecommunications device’ in section 223(h)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 [47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)], as in effect before the date of the enactment of this section [Jan. 5, 2006].”

Expedited Review

Pub. L. 104–104, title V, § 561, Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 142, provided that: Three-Judge District Court Hearing.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any civil action challenging the constitutionality, on its face, of this title [see Short Title of 1996 Amendment note set out under section 609 of this title] or any amendment made by this title, or any provision thereof, shall be heard by a district court of 3 judges convened pursuant to the provisions of section 2284 of title 28, United States Code. Appellate Review.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order of the court of 3 judges in an action under subsection (a) holding this title or an amendment made by this title, or any provision thereof, unconstitutional shall be reviewable as a matter of right by direct appeal to the Supreme Court. Any such appeal shall be filed not more than 20 days after entry of such judgment, decree, or order.”

Regulations; Disposition of Complaints Pending on December 8, 1983

Pub. L. 98–214, § 8(c), (d), Dec. 8, 1983, 97 Stat. 1470, provided that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issue regulations pursuant to subsec. (b)(2) of this section not later than 180 days after Dec. 8, 1983, and that the FCC was to act on all complaints alleging violation of this section pending on Dec. 8, 1983, within 90 days of that date.

(Pub. L. 119–12, § 3, May 19, 2025, 139 Stat. 59.)

Editorial Notes

References in Text

The Federal Trade Commission Act, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), (B), is act Sept. 26, 1914, ch. 311, 38 Stat. 717, which is classified generally to subchapter I (§ 41 et seq.) of chapter 2 of Title 15, Commerce and Trade. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 58 of Title 15 and Tables.

This Act, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(C), is Pub. L. 119—12, May 19, 2025, 139 Stat. 55, which enacted this section, amended section 223 of this title, and enacted provisions set out as notes under this section and sections 223 and 609 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 2025 Amendment note set out under section 609 of this title.

Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks Act, also known as the TAKE IT DOWN Act, and not as part of the Communications Act of 1934 which comprises this chapter.

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Definitions

Pub. L. 119–12, § 4, May 19, 2025, 139 Stat. 61, provided that: “In this Act [see Short Title of 2025 Amendment note set out under section 609 of this title]: Commission.—The term ‘Commission’ means the Federal Trade Commission. Consent; digital forgery; identifiable individual; intimate visual depiction.—The terms ‘consent’, ‘digital forgery’, ‘identifiable individual’, ‘intimate visual depiction’, and ‘minor’ have the meaning given such terms in section 223(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223[(h)]), as added by section 2.Covered platform.— In general.—The term ‘covered platform’ means a website, online service, online application, or mobile application— that serves the public; and that primarily provides a forum for user-generated content, including messages, videos, images, games, and audio files; or for which it is in the regular course of trade or business of the website, online service, online application, or mobile application to publish, curate, host, or make available content of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions. Exclusions.—The term ‘covered platform’ shall not include the following: A provider of broadband internet access service (as described in section 8.1(b) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, or successor regulation). Electronic mail. Except as provided in subparagraph (A)(ii)(II), an online service, application, or website— that consists primarily of content that is not user generated but is preselected by the provider of such online service, application, or website; and for which any chat, comment, or interactive functionality is incidental to, directly related to, or dependent on the provision of the content described in subclause (I).”

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title II, § 224, as added Pub. L. 95–234, § 6, Feb. 21, 1978, 92 Stat. 35; amended Pub. L. 97–259, title I, § 106, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1091; Pub. L. 98–549, § 4, Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 2801; Pub. L. 103–414, title III, § 304(a)(7), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4297; Pub. L. 104–104, title VII, § 703, Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 149.)

Editorial Notes

Amendments

1996—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 104–104, § 703(1), inserted first sentence and struck out former first sentence which read as follows: “The term ‘utility’ means any person whose rates or charges are regulated by the Federal Government or a State and who owns or controls poles, ducts, conduits, or rights-of-way used, in whole or in part, for wire communication.”

Subsec. (a)(4). Pub. L. 104–104, § 703(2), inserted “or provider of telecommunications service” after “system”.

Subsec. (a)(5). Pub. L. 104–104, § 703(3), added par. (5).

Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 104–104, § 703(4), inserted “, or access to poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way as provided in subsection (f),” after “conditions”.

Subsec. (c)(2)(B). Pub. L. 104–104, § 703(5), substituted “the services offered via such attachments” for “cable television services”.

Subsec. (d)(3). Pub. L. 104–104, § 703(6), added par. (3).

Subsecs. (e) to (i). Pub. L. 104–104, § 703(7), added subsecs. (e) to (i).

1994—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 103–414 substituted “The Commission” for “Within 180 days from February 21, 1978, the Commission”.

1984—Subsec. (c)(3). Pub. L. 98–549 added par. (3).

1982—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 97–259 struck out subsec. (e) which provided that, upon expiration of 5-year period that began on Feb. 21, 1978, provisions of subsec. (d) of this section would cease to have any effect.

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–549 effective 60 days after Oct. 30, 1984, except where otherwise expressly provided, see section 9(a) of Pub. L. 98–549, set out as a note under section 521 of this title.

Effective Date

Section effective on thirtieth day after Feb. 21, 1978, see section 7 of Pub. L. 95–234, set out as an Effective Date of 1978 Amendment note under section 152 of this title.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title II, § 225, as added Pub. L. 101–336, title IV, § 401(a), July 26, 1990, 104 Stat. 366; amended Pub. L. 104–104, § 3(d)(1), Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 61; Pub. L. 111–260, title I, § 103(a), Oct. 8, 2010, 124 Stat. 2755.)

Editorial Notes

References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (b)(2), was in the original “this Act”, meaning act June 19, 1934, ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064, known as the Communications Act of 1934, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 609 of this title and Tables.

Amendments

2010—Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 111–260 amended par. (3) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “The term ‘telecommunications relay services’ means telephone transmission services that provide the ability for an individual who has a hearing impairment or speech impairment to engage in communication by wire or radio with a hearing individual in a manner that is functionally equivalent to the ability of an individual who does not have a hearing impairment or speech impairment to communicate using voice communication services by wire or radio. Such term includes services that enable two-way communication between an individual who uses a TDD or other nonvoice terminal device and an individual who does not use such a device.”

1996—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 104–104 substituted “section 153” for “section 153(h)”.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title II, § 226, as added Pub. L. 101–435, § 3, Oct. 17, 1990, 104 Stat. 987; amended Pub. L. 101–555, § 4, Nov. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 2760; Pub. L. 102–538, title II, § 207, Oct. 27, 1992, 106 Stat. 3543; Pub. L. 103–414, title III, §§ 303(a)(10), 304(a)(8), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4294, 4297.)

Editorial Notes

References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (i), was in the original “this Act”, meaning act June 19, 1934, ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064, known as the Communications Act of 1934, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 609 of this title and Tables.

Amendments

1994—Subsec. (d)(2) to (4). Pub. L. 103–414, § 303(a)(10), redesignated pars. (3) and (4) as (2) and (3), respectively, and struck out heading and text of former par. (2). Text read as follows: “The Commission shall initiate the proceeding required under paragraph (1) within 60 days after October 17, 1990, and shall prescribe regulations pursuant to the proceeding not later than 210 days after October 17, 1990. Such regulations shall take effect not later than 45 days after the date the regulations are prescribed.”

Subsec. (e)(1). Pub. L. 103–414, § 304(a)(8), struck out “within 9 months after October 17, 1990,” after “The Commission,” in introductory provisions.

1992—Subsec. (d)(4)(A). Pub. L. 102–538 inserted “and aggregators” after “operator services”.

1990—Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 101–555, § 4(a), substituted “90 days” for “30 days”.

Subsec. (b)(1)(J). Pub. L. 101–555, § 4(b), struck out subpar. (J) which read as follows: “not bill an inter­exchange telephone call to a billing card number which—

“(i) is issued by another provider of operator services, and

“(ii) permits the identification of the other provider,

unless the call is billed at a rate not greater than the other provider’s rate for the call, the consumer requests a special service that is not available under tariff from the other provider, or the consumer expressly consents to a rate greater than the other provider’s rate.”

Subsecs. (b)(2), (c)(1), (h)(1)(A). Pub. L. 101–555, § 4(a), substituted “90 days” for “30 days”.

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Congressional Findings

Pub. L. 101–435, § 2, Oct. 17, 1990, 104 Stat. 986, provided that: “The Congress finds that— the divestiture of AT&T and decisions allowing open entry for competitors in the telephone marketplace produced a variety of new services and many new providers of existing telephone services; the growth of competition in the telecommunications market makes it essential to ensure that safeguards are in place to assure fairness for consumers and service providers alike; a variety of providers of operator services now compete to win contracts to provide operator services to hotels, hospitals, airports, and other aggregators of telephone business from consumers; the mere existence of a variety of service providers in the operator services marketplace is significant in making that market competitive only when consumers are able to make informed choices from among those service providers; however, often consumers have no choices in selecting a provider of operator services, and often attempts by consumers to reach their preferred long distance carrier by using a telephone billing card, credit card, or prearranged access code number are blocked; a number of State regulatory authorities have taken action to protect consumers using intrastate operator services; from January 1988 through February 1990, the Federal Communications Commission received over 4,000 complaints from consumers about operator services; those consumers have complained that they are denied access to the inter­exchange carrier of their choice, that they are deceived about the identity of the company providing operator services for their calls and the rates being charged, that they lack information on what they can do to complain about unfair treatment by an operator service provider, and that they are, accordingly, being deprived of the free choice essential to the operation of a competitive market; the Commission has testified that its actions have been insufficient to correct the problems in the operator services industry to date; and a combination of industry self-regulation and government regulation is required to ensure that competitive operator services are provided in a fair and reasonable manner.”

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title II, § 227, as added Pub. L. 102–243, § 3(a), Dec. 20, 1991, 105 Stat. 2395; amended Pub. L. 102–556, title IV, § 402, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 4194; Pub. L. 103–414, title III, § 303(a)(11), (12), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4294; Pub. L. 108–187, § 12, Dec. 16, 2003, 117 Stat. 2717; Pub. L. 109–21, §§ 2(a)–(g), 3, July 9, 2005, 119 Stat. 359–362; Pub. L. 111–331, § 2, Dec. 22, 2010, 124 Stat. 3572; Pub. L. 114–74, title III, § 301(a), Nov. 2, 2015, 129 Stat. 588; Pub. L. 115–141, div. P, title IV, § 402(i)(3), title V, § 503(a)(1)–(4)(A), Mar. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 1089, 1091, 1092; Pub. L. 116–105, §§ 3(a), 8(a), 10(a), (b), Dec. 30, 2019, 133 Stat. 3274, 3283, 3284.)

Editorial Notes

References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (b)(4)(A), (B) and (e)(5)(A)(i), was in the original “this Act”, meaning act June 19, 1934, ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064, known as the Communications Act of 1934, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 609 of this title and Tables.

Constitutionality

For information regarding the constitutionality of provisions of subsection (b)(1)(A)(iii) of this section, see the Table of Laws Held Unconstitutional in Whole or in Part by the Supreme Court on the Constitution Annotated website, constitution.congress.gov.

Amendments

2019—Subsec. (b)(2)(I). Pub. L. 116–105, § 8(a), added subpar. (I).

Subsec. (b)(4). Pub. L. 116–105, § 3(a)(1), added par. (4).

Subsec. (e)(5)(A)(ii). Pub. L. 116–105, § 3(a)(2)(A), inserted at end “Paragraph (5) of section 503(b) of this title shall not apply in the case of a violation of this subsection.”

Subsec. (e)(5)(A)(iv). Pub. L. 116–105, § 3(a)(2)(B), substituted “4-year” for “2-year” in heading and “4 years” for “2 years” in text.

Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 116–105, § 3(a)(3), added subsec. (h) and struck out former subsec. (h) which related to annual junk fax enforcement report.

Subsec. (i). Pub. L. 116–105, § 10(a), added subsec. (i).

Subsec. (j). Pub. L. 116–105, § 10(b), added subsec. (j).

2018—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 115–141, § 503(a)(3), inserted “misleading or” before “inaccurate” in heading.

Subsec. (e)(1). Pub. L. 115–141, § 503(a)(1), substituted “or any person outside the United States if the recipient is within the United States, in connection with any voice service or text messaging service” for “in connection with any telecommunications service”.

Subsec. (e)(3)(A). Pub. L. 115–141, § 503(a)(4)(A), substituted “The Commission” for “Not later than 6 months after December 22, 2010, the Commission”.

Subsec. (e)(4). Pub. L. 115–141, § 402(i)(3), struck out par. (4). Text read as follows: “Not later than 6 months after December 22, 2010, the Commission shall report to Congress whether additional legislation is necessary to prohibit the provision of inaccurate caller identification information in technologies that are successor or replacement technologies to telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice service.”

Subsec. (e)(8)(A), (B). Pub. L. 115–141, § 503(a)(2)(A), (B), substituted “voice service or a text message sent using a text messaging service” for “telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice service”.

Subsec. (e)(8)(C) to (E). Pub. L. 115–141, § 503(a)(2)(C), added subpars. (C) to (E) and struck out former subpar. (C) which defined IP-enabled voice service.

2015—Subsec. (b)(1)(A)(iii). Pub. L. 114–74, § 301(a)(1)(A), inserted “, unless such call is made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States” after “charged for the call”.

Subsec. (b)(1)(B). Pub. L. 114–74, § 301(a)(1)(B), inserted “, is made solely pursuant to the collection of a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States,” after “emergency purposes”.

Subsec. (b)(2)(H). Pub. L. 114–74, § 301(a)(2), added subpar. (H).

2010—Subsecs. (e) to (h). Pub. L. 111–331 added subsec. (e) and redesignated former subsecs. (e) to (g) as (f) to (h), respectively.

2005—Subsec. (a)(2) to (4). Pub. L. 109–21, § 2(b), added par. (2) and redesignated former pars. (2) and (3) as (3) and (4), respectively. Former par. (4) redesignated (5).

Subsec. (a)(5). Pub. L. 109–21, § 2(b)(1), (g), redesignated par. (4) as (5) and inserted “, in writing or otherwise” before period at end.

Subsec. (b)(1)(C). Pub. L. 109–21, § 2(a), amended subpar. (C) generally. Prior to amendment, subpar. (C) read as follows: “to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine; or”.

Subsec. (b)(2)(D) to (G). Pub. L. 109–21, § 2(c)–(f), added subpars. (D) to (G).

Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 109–21, § 3, added subsec. (g).

2003—Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 108–187 inserted “, or any person outside the United States if the recipient is within the United States” after “United States” in introductory provisions.

1994—Subsec. (b)(2)(C). Pub. L. 103–414, § 303(a)(11), substituted “paragraph” for “paragraphs”.

Subsec. (e)(2). Pub. L. 103–414, § 303(a)(12), substituted “national database” for “national datebase” after “such single”.

1992—Subsec. (b)(2)(C). Pub. L. 102–556 added subpar. (C).

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Effective Date of 2019 Amendment; Applicability

Pub. L. 116–105, § 3(b), Dec. 30, 2019, 133 Stat. 3276, provided that: “The amendments made by this section [amending this section] shall not affect any action or proceeding commenced before and pending on the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 30, 2019].”

Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Pub. L. 115–141, div. P, title V, § 503(a)(5), Mar. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 1092, provided that: “The amendments made by this subsection [amending this section] shall take effect on the date that is 6 months after the date on which the Commission [Federal Communications Commission] prescribes regulations under paragraph (4) [set out as a note under this section].” [Regulations adopted by Order of Federal Communications Commission released Aug. 5, 2019, with final rule effective Feb. 5, 2020, see 84 F.R. 45669.]

Effective Date of 2003 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 108–187 effective Jan. 1, 2004, see section 16 of Pub. L. 108–187, set out as an Effective Date note under section 7701 of Title 15, Commerce and Trade.

Effective Date; Deadline for Regulations

Pub. L. 102–243, § 3(c), Dec. 20, 1991, 105 Stat. 2402, as amended by Pub. L. 102–556, title I, § 102, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 4186, provided that: Regulations.—The Federal Communications Commission shall prescribe regulations to implement the amendments made by this section [enacting this section and amending section 152 of this title] not later than 9 months after the date of enactment of this Act [Dec. 20, 1991]. Effective date.—The requirements of section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 [this section] (as added by this section), other than the authority to prescribe regulations, shall take effect one year after the date of enactment of this Act [Dec. 20, 1991].”

Regulations

Pub. L. 116–105, § 3(c), Dec. 30, 2019, 133 Stat. 3276, provided that: “The Commission [Federal Communications Commission] shall prescribe regulations to implement the amendments made by this section [amending this section] not later than 270 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 30, 2019].”

Pub. L. 116–105, § 8(b), Dec. 30, 2019, 133 Stat. 3283, provided that: “In the case of any exemption issued under subparagraph (B) or (C) of section 227(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)(2)) before the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 30, 2019], the Commission [Federal Communications Commission] shall, not later than 1 year after such date of enactment, prescribe such regulations, or amend such existing regulations, as necessary to ensure that such exemption contains each requirement described in subparagraph (I) of such section, as added by subsection (a). To the extent such an exemption contains such a requirement before such date of enactment, nothing in this section [amending this section] or the amendments made by this section shall be construed to require the Commission to prescribe or amend regulations relating to such requirement.”

Pub. L. 115–141, div. P, title V, § 503(a)(4)(B), Mar. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 1092, provided that: “The Commission [Federal Communications Commission] shall prescribe regulations to implement the amendments made by this subsection [amending this section] not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act [Mar. 23, 2018].”

Pub. L. 114–74, title III, § 301(b), Nov. 2, 2015, 129 Stat. 588, provided that: “Not later than 9 months after the date of enactment of this Act [Nov. 2, 2015], the Federal Communications Commission, in consultation with the Department of the Treasury, shall prescribe regulations to implement the amendments made by this section [amending this secton].”

Pub. L. 109–21, § 2(h), July 9, 2005, 119 Stat. 362, provided that: “Except as provided in section 227(b)(2)(G)(ii) of the Communications Act of 1934 [47 U.S.C. 227(b)(2)(G)(ii)] (as added by subsection (f)), not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act [July 9, 2005], the Federal Communications Commission shall issue regulations to implement the amendments made by this section.”

Separability

Pub. L. 116–105, § 15, Dec. 30, 2019, 133 Stat. 3290, provided that: “If any provision of this Act [see Short Title of 2019 Amendment note set out under section 609 of this title], the amendments made by this Act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.”

Construction

Pub. L. 115–141, div. P, title V, § 503(d), Mar. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 1094, provided that: “Nothing in this section [enacting section 227a of this title, amending this section, and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section], or the amendments made by this section, shall be construed to modify, limit, or otherwise affect any rule or order adopted by the Commission [Federal Communications Commission] in connection with— the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (Public Law 102–243; 105 Stat. 2394) [see Short Title of 1991 Amendment note set out under section 609 of this title] or the amendments made by that Act; or the CAN–SPAM Act of 2003 (15 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.).”

Protections From Spoofed Calls

Pub. L. 116–105, § 7, Dec. 30, 2019, 133 Stat. 3282, provided that: In General.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 30, 2019], and consistent with the call authentication frameworks under section 4 [47 U.S.C. 227b], the Commission [Federal Communications Commission] shall initiate a rulemaking to help protect a subscriber from receiving unwanted calls or text messages from a caller using an unauthenticated number. Considerations.—In promulgating rules under subsection (a), the Commission shall consider— the Government Accountability Office report on combating the fraudulent provision of misleading or inaccurate caller identification information required by section 503(c) of division P of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Public Law 115–141) [132 Stat. 1093]; the best means of ensuring that a subscriber or provider has the ability to block calls from a caller using an unauthenticated North American Numbering Plan number; the impact on the privacy of a subscriber from unauthenticated calls; the effectiveness in verifying the accuracy of caller identification information; and the availability and cost of providing protection from the unwanted calls or text messages described in subsection (a).”

Transitional Rule Regarding Definition of Text Message

Pub. L. 116–105, § 10(d), Dec. 30, 2019, 133 Stat. 3285, provided that: “Paragraph (2) of subsection (i) of section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227), as added by subsection (a) of this section, and paragraph (2) of subsection (j) of such section 227, as added by subsection (b) of this section, shall apply before the effective date of the amendment made to subsection (e)(8) of such section 227 by subparagraph (C) of section 503(a)(2) of division P of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Public Law 115–141) [see 2018 Amendment and Effective Date of 2018 Amendment notes set out above] as if such amendment was already in effect.”

Protection From One-Ring Scams

Pub. L. 116–105, § 12, Dec. 30, 2019, 133 Stat. 3286, provided that: Initiation of Proceeding.—Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 30, 2019], the Commission [Federal Communications Commission] shall initiate a proceeding to protect called parties from one-ring scams. Matters To Be Considered.—As part of the proceeding required by subsection (a), the Commission shall consider how the Commission can— work with Federal and State law enforcement agencies to address one-ring scams; work with the governments of foreign countries to address one-ring scams; in consultation with the Federal Trade Commission, better educate consumers about how to avoid one-ring scams; incentivize voice service providers to stop calls made to perpetrate one-ring scams from being received by called parties, including consideration of adding identified one-ring scam type numbers to the Commission’s existing list of permissible categories for carrier-initiated blocking; work with entities that provide call-blocking services to address one-ring scams; and establish obligations on international gateway providers that are the first point of entry for these calls into the United States, including potential requirements that such providers verify with the foreign originator the nature or purpose of calls before initiating service. Report to Congress.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall publish on its website and submit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report on the status of the proceeding required by subsection (a). Definitions.—In this section: One-ring scam.—The term ‘one-ring scam’ means a scam in which a caller makes a call and allows the call to ring the called party for a short duration, in order to prompt the called party to return the call, thereby subjecting the called party to charges. State.—The term ‘State’ has the meaning given such term in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153). Voice service.—The term ‘voice service’ has the meaning given such term in section 227(e)(8) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(e)(8)). This paragraph shall apply before the effective date of the amendment made to such section by subparagraph (C) of section 503(a)(2) of division P of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Public Law 115–141) [see 2018 Amendment and Effective Date of 2018 Amendment notes set out above] as if such amendment was already in effect.”

Annual Robocall Report

Pub. L. 116–105, § 13, Dec. 30, 2019, 133 Stat. 3287, provided that: In General.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 30, 2019], and annually thereafter, the Commission [Federal Communications Commission] shall make publicly available on the website of the Commission, and submit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, a report on the status of private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls by the registered consortium and the participation of voice service providers in such efforts. Contents of Report.—The report required under subsection (a) shall include, at minimum, the following: A description of private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls by the registered consortium and the actions taken by the registered consortium to coordinate with the Commission. A list of voice service providers identified by the registered consortium that participated in private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls through the registered consortium. A list of each voice service provider that received a request from the registered consortium to participate in private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls and refused to participate, as identified by the registered consortium. The reason, if any, each voice service provider identified by the registered consortium provided for not participating in private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls. A description of how the Commission may use the information provided to the Commission by voice service providers or the registered consortium that have participated in private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls in the enforcement efforts by the Commission. Additional Information.—Not later than 210 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 30, 2019], and annually thereafter, the Commission shall issue a notice to the public seeking additional information from voice service providers and the registered consortium of private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls necessary for the report by the Commission required under subsection (a).Registration of Consortium of Private-Led Efforts To Trace Back the Origin of Suspected Unlawful Robocalls.— In general.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall issue rules to establish a registration process for the registration of a single consortium that conducts private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls. The consortium shall meet the following requirements: Be a neutral third party competent to manage the private-led effort to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls in the judgement of the Commission. Maintain a set of written best practices about the management of such efforts and regarding providers of voice services’ participation in private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls. Consistent with section 222(d)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 222(d)(2)), any private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls conducted by the third party focus on ‘fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful’ traffic. File a notice with the Commission that the consortium intends to conduct private-led efforts to trace back in advance of such registration. Annual notice by the commission seeking registrations.—Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Commission shall issue a notice to the public seeking the registration described in paragraph (1). List of Voice Service Providers.—The Commission may publish a list of voice service providers and take appropriate enforcement action based on information obtained from the consortium about voice service providers that refuse to participate in private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls, and other information the Commission may collect about voice service providers that are found to originate or transmit substantial amounts of unlawful robocalls. Definitions.—In this section: Private-led effort to trace back.—The term ‘private-led effort to trace back’ means an effort made by the registered consortium of voice service providers to establish a methodology for determining the origin of a suspected unlawful robocall. Registered consortium.—The term ‘registered consortium’ means the consortium registered under subsection (d). Suspected unlawful robocall.—The term ‘suspected unlawful robocall’ means a call that the Commission or a voice service provider reasonably believes was made in violation of subsection (b) or (e) of section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227). Voice service.—The term ‘voice service’— means any service that is interconnected with the public switched telephone network and that furnishes voice communications to an end user using resources from the North American Numbering Plan or any successor to the North American Numbering Plan adopted by the Commission under section 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 251(e)(1)); and includes— transmissions from a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to a telephone facsimile machine; and without limitation, any service that enables real-time, two-way voice communications, including any service that requires internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (commonly known as ‘CPE’) and permits out-bound calling, whether or not the service is one-way or two-way voice over internet protocol.”

Hospital Robocall Protection Group

Pub. L. 116–105, § 14, Dec. 30, 2019, 133 Stat. 3288, provided that: Establishment.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 30, 2019], the Commission [Federal Communications Commission] shall establish an advisory committee to be known as the ‘Hospital Robocall Protection Group’. Membership.—The Group shall be composed only of the following members: An equal number of representatives from each of the following: Voice service providers that serve hospitals. Companies that focus on mitigating unlawful robocalls. Consumer advocacy organizations. Providers of one-way voice over internet protocol services described in subsection (e)(3)(B)(ii). Hospitals. State government officials focused on combating unlawful robocalls. One representative of the Commission. One representative of the Federal Trade Commission. Issuance of Best Practices.—Not later than 180 days after the date on which the Group is established under subsection (a), the Group shall issue best practices regarding the following: How voice service providers can better combat unlawful robocalls made to hospitals. How hospitals can better protect themselves from such calls, including by using unlawful robocall mitigation techniques. How the Federal Government and State governments can help combat such calls. Proceeding by FCC.—Not later than 180 days after the date on which the best practices are issued by the Group under subsection (c), the Commission shall conclude a proceeding to assess the extent to which the voluntary adoption of such best practices can be facilitated to protect hospitals and other institutions. Definitions.—In this section: Group.—The term ‘Group’ means the Hospital Robocall Protection Group established under subsection (a). State.—The term ‘State’ has the meaning given such term in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153). Voice service.—The term ‘voice service’— means any service that is interconnected with the public switched telephone network and that furnishes voice communications to an end user using resources from the North American Numbering Plan or any successor to the North American Numbering Plan adopted by the Commission under section 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 251(e)(1)); and includes— transmissions from a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to a telephone facsimile machine; and without limitation, any service that enables real-time, two-way voice communications, including any service that requires internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (commonly known as ‘CPE’) and permits out-bound calling, whether or not the service is one-way or two-way voice over internet protocol.”

Congressional Statement of Findings

Pub. L. 102–243, § 2, Dec. 20, 1991, 105 Stat. 2394, provided that: “The Congress finds that: The use of the telephone to market goods and services to the home and other businesses is now pervasive due to the increased use of cost-effective telemarketing techniques. Over 30,000 businesses actively telemarket goods and services to business and residential customers. More than 300,000 solicitors call more than 18,000,000 Americans every day. Total United States sales generated through telemarketing amounted to $435,000,000,000 in 1990, a more than four-fold increase since 1984. Unrestricted telemarketing, however, can be an intrusive invasion of privacy and, when an emergency or medical assistance telephone line is seized, a risk to public safety. Many consumers are outraged over the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance calls to their homes from telemarketers. Over half the States now have statutes restricting various uses of the telephone for marketing, but telemarketers can evade their prohibitions through interstate operations; therefore, Federal law is needed to control residential telemarketing practices. The Constitution does not prohibit restrictions on commercial telemarketing solicitations. Individuals’ privacy rights, public safety interests, and commercial freedoms of speech and trade must be balanced in a way that protects the privacy of individuals and permits legitimate telemarketing practices. Evidence compiled by the Congress indicates that residential telephone subscribers consider automated or prerecorded telephone calls, regardless of the content or the initiator of the message, to be a nuisance and an invasion of privacy. Technologies that might allow consumers to avoid receiving such calls are not universally available, are costly, are unlikely to be enforced, or place an inordinate burden on the consumer. Banning such automated or prerecorded telephone calls to the home, except when the receiving party consents to receiving the call or when such calls are necessary in an emergency situation affecting the health and safety of the consumer, is the only effective means of protecting telephone consumers from this nuisance and privacy invasion. While the evidence presented to the Congress indicates that automated or prerecorded calls are a nuisance and an invasion of privacy, regardless of the type of call, the Federal Communications Commission should have the flexibility to design different rules for those types of automated or pre­recorded calls that it finds are not considered a nuisance or invasion of privacy, or for noncommercial calls, consistent with the free speech protections embodied in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Businesses also have complained to the Congress and the Federal Communications Commission that automated or prerecorded telephone calls are a nuisance, are an invasion of privacy, and interfere with interstate commerce. The Federal Communications Commission should consider adopting reasonable restrictions on automated or prerecorded calls to businesses as well as to the home, consistent with the constitutional protections of free speech.”

Definition

Pub. L. 116–105, § 2, Dec. 30, 2019, 133 Stat. 3274, provided that: “In this Act [see Short Title of 2019 Amendment note set out under section 609 of this title], the term ‘Commission’ means the Federal Communications Commission.”