Re: Ex Parte Presentation, CG Docket Nos. 02-278, 18-152
Ms. Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
Dear Ms. Dortch:
The American Bankers Association (ABA) appreciates the opportunity to provide additional information to the Federal Communications Commission (Commission), as the Commission considers how it should interpret certain provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
ABA appreciates the actions that the Commission has taken to combat those who place illegal automated calls and cause harm to consumers. On December 13, 2019, the Commission proposed a forfeiture of $10 million against Kenneth Moser, who ran a telemarketing enterprise under the name Marketing Support Systems, for allegedly making 47,610 illegally “spoofed” calls over a two-day calling campaign. In these calls, Moser provided inaccurate caller ID information in an effort to mislead recipients of the calls about his identity. ABA has supported, and will continue to support, the Commission’s efforts to stop these bad actors.
At the same time, it is critical that the Commission’s TCPA interpretations facilitate the important, and often time-sensitive, informational calls that banks place to their customers, including fraud alerts, data breach notifications, past due notices, and loan modification outreach. Many of these communications must be placed immediately after a transaction or other event, requiring the use of automated technology. Because of the Commission’s past, expansive interpretation of the statutory definition of an “automatic telephone dialing system,” however, unless the bank has the customer’s documented consent, a bank may not be able to place these critical calls using automated technology.
Customers appreciate and benefit from these informational calls and may be harmed when the bank is not able to place the calls because of the existing TCPA legal regime. One large bank provided the attached list of statements from customers, which show their appreciation of the time-sensitive informational text messages they receive. The statements also show how customers are harmed when the bank, because of TCPA litigation and regulatory risk, is not able to place these valued text messages to their customers.
An interpretation of the statutory definition of an autodialer that conforms to the text of the statute — i.e., that encompasses only equipment that uses a random or sequential number generator — would permit banks to send these important messages to a substantially greater number of customers. The Commission has an opportunity to issue TCPA interpretations that facilitate the ability of banks and other businesses to use modern technologies to communicate with their customers effectively and efficiently. The Commission can advance these reforms without impairing its important work to combat illegal automated calls. We look forward to continuing to work with the Commission to achieve these results.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Thessin
Senior Counsel
Consumer & Regulatory Compliance
Regulatory Compliance and Policy
