ABA Reiterates Call for FCC to Require Notification When Bank Calls Are Blocked

Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Room TW-A325
Washington, DC 20554

Dear Ms. Dortch,

This letter serves as the notice of ex parte telephone calls that representatives of the AmericanBankers Association, ACA International, American Association of Healthcare AdministrativeManagement, American Financial Services Association, Consumer Bankers Association, CreditUnion National Association, Mortgage Bankers Association, National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions, and the Student Loan Servicing Alliance (the Associations) had withJoseph Calascione, Legal Advisor for Wireline and Consumer Protection for CommissionerBrendan Carr; Travis Litman, Chief of Staff and Senior Legal Advisor for Wireline and PublicSafety for Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel; Diane Holland, Legal Advisor for Media andConsumer Protection for Commissioner Geoffrey Starks; Justin Perkins with CommissionerStarks’ office; and Arielle Roth, Wireline Legal Advisor to Commissioner Michael O’Rielly.The participants to the meetings are identified in the appendix to this letter.

In the meetings, the Associations expressed support for the Commission’s goal to eliminateillegal automated calls. At the same time, it is critical that the Commission’s rules governingcall-blocking practices protect consumers from the risk that they might not receive important,often time-sensitive, calls from health care providers, finance companies, banks, credit unions,other participants in the financial services marketplace, retailers, and other legitimate businesses.When outbound calling numbers used by legitimate businesses are mislabeled as “fraud” or“spam,” or calls from those numbers are blocked, consumers are harmed because they may notreceive lawful calls affecting their health, safety, or financial well-being. These calls include, forexample, safety alerts, fraud alerts, data security breach notifications, product recall notices,healthcare and prescription reminders, power outage updates, and other necessary accountupdates needed to maintain financial health. It is critical for consumers that these calls becompleted without delay, and that the caller and call recipient are notified immediately when acall is blocked. When those calls are blocked, the Commission’s rules should ensure thatbusinesses can promptly have the block removed.

The Associations also offered specific feedback on the draft Third Report and Order released onJune 25, 2020 (Draft Order).The Draft Order provides a safe harbor for telephone companies(voice service providers) that block calls based on “reasonable analytics designed to identifyunwanted calls,” as long as the analytics incorporates call authentication information into theblocking decision.

During the meetings, the Associations discussed the points raised in their July 2, 2020, ex parteletter in this docket. Specifically, the Associations asked that the Commission make thefollowing modifications to the Draft Order in order to protect consumers against illegal callswhile ensuring that all voice service providers and third-party call-labeling service providershave the incentive to avoid mislabeling and erroneously blocking time-sensitive, legal calls onwhich consumers rely:

• The Commission should require an entity that blocks calls to notify callers immediatelythat it is blocking their calls.
• The Commission should require a voice service provider to remove an erroneous blockwithin 24 hours of the provider’s learning of the block.
• The Commission should clarify and confirm that a terminating service provider thatblocks calls is prohibited from imposing a charge on callers for reporting, investigating,resolving, and, as appropriate, removing erroneous blocks promptly.
• The Commission should confirm that the obligation on terminating voice serviceproviders to provide callers with effective redress options applies equally to mislabeledoutbound calling numbers.
• The Commission should confirm that implementing the required redress mechanism is acondition of receiving the protections of the safe harbor.
• The Commission should prohibit terminating voice service providers from blocking afully authenticated call unless the provider can determine with a high degree of certaintythat the call is unlawful through application of objective, defined criteria, and afterinvestigation into the call.

How a voice service provider redresses the mislabeling of outbound calling numbers anderroneous blocking of calls is a critical data point for determining whether that provider’sanalytics accurately and consistently distinguishes between legal and illegal calls. If an entityblocks a caller’s call, but does not provide notification of the block, it is very difficult todetermine if that entity’s analytics accurately identified an illegally placed call, because the callermay not know that its call has been blocked and therefore may not have the opportunity tochallenge the blocking. However, if the blocking is transparent — i.e., notification is provided tothe caller — the caller has an opportunity to challenge the blocking, and the provider canimprove its analytics. Thus, transparency and effective redress provide critical feedback toblocking entities that will improve the accuracy of the blocking determination, to the benefit ofcallers and consumers alike.

As stated above, we urge the Commission to require an entity that blocks calls to notify the callerimmediately that it has blocked the caller’s calls. To the extent that the Commission wishes toconsider imposing a requirement that entities use a certain means by which to provide suchnotification, we suggest that the Commission seek comment in the Fourth Further Notice ofProposed Rulemaking on the efficacy of different notification mechanisms as a means to advisethe caller immediately that its call has been blocked.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Thessin
Vice President/Senior Counsel
Consumer & Regulatory Compliance
Regulatory Compliance and Policy