ABA's Letter to FCC re: Reply to Written Ex Parte Filing

Dear Ms. Dortch:

The American Bankers Associationappreciates the opportunity to submit this reply pursuant toRule § 1.1206(iv) to the ex parte filing submitted this past Friday, May 31, 2019, by Twilio Inc.

We are responding to Twilio’s assertion that calls placed using its platform, which are oftenplaced to a large number of recipients during an emergency, “could be blocked or mislabeled if acarrier’s call-blocking algorithm is based on large bursts of calls in a short timeframe, lowaverage call duration, or low call-completion ratio.”

ABA shares Twilio’s concerns that the Declaratory Ruling, if adopted as drafted, would result inthe erroneous blocking of lawful calls, including fraud alerts and other informational calls placedby banks. For these calls, the bank initiates a large volume of outbound calls from a number in ashort period of time, which (as described in Twilio’s ex parte filing) is one analytical factor usedby voice service providers and third-party services to determine whether a call is labeled as“Potential Spam”, “Suspected Spam”, “Spam Number”, “Nuisance Label”, or “Debt Collector”.

Many of the bank calls that are at risk of being blocked are not “unwanted” calls; rather, they areplaced by the bank in response to a customer’s request. One large bank reports that 76% of itsautomated outbound calls and text messages are placed in response to a customer’s request; forexample, they are responses to one-time passcode requests or low-balance alerts. An additional5% of its automated outbound calls and texts are placed for fraud prevention purposes, such as to notify a customer of suspicious or atypical activity in the customer’s account. Less than 20% ofthe bank’s automated outbound calls and texts are related to collections, which some mightcharacterize as “unwanted.” However, as we have explained previously, blocking collectionscalls may prevent the bank from establishing live contact with a distressed or delinquentborrower. It is well-established that the earlier a creditor is able to communicate with afinancially distressed borrower, the more likely that the creditor will be able to offer theborrower a loan modification, interest rate reduction, or forbearance on interest and fees, whichwill help limit avoidable late fees and negative credit reports.

ABA continues to urge the Commission to seek comment on the proposals in the draftDeclaratory Ruling by recasting the Declaratory Ruling as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking(NPR). As part of that NPR, the Commission should clarify that blocking would apply only tothe blocking of illegal—not “unwanted”—calls. In addition, the Commission should propose thatthere be sufficient notice of blocking to the caller and to the call recipient, such as through use ofan intercept message when a call is blocked, and propose to provide a mechanism for promptrelease of any erroneously blocked numbers.

These steps would advance the Commission’s goal, which we share, to reduce illegal automatedcalls while minimizing the risk that consumers will miss important, often time-sensitive callsfrom their bank.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Thessin
Senior Counsel, Regulatory Compliance and Policy