State AGs Want to Police Robocalls, But Not All Are Created Equal
Major carriers such as Verizon and AT&T have teamed up with 51 state attorneys general to commit to principles geared toward decreasing the the number of robocalls. But distinguishing legal calls from illegal calls could get tricky.
August 28, 2019 at 10:00 AM
3 minute read
A set of anti-robocall principles signed by 51 states attorneys general and 12 cell carriers—including Verizon, T-Mobile USA and AT&T—was released last week as part of a new and ongoing collaboration that, among other things, asks providers to locate the source of suspected illegal robocalls and terminate "the party's ability to originate, route, or terminate calls on its network."
But the effort may run into a few challenges given the fact that not all robocalls are created equal. A few, for instance, can be useful, something that anyone who has ever consented to a drug store placing an automated call once a prescription was ready to be picked up, might already know.
➤➤ From banking and tax issues to weed in the workplace, cannabis-related legal work is going mainstream. To find out what it all means for your practice, check out Law.com's special report on cannabis and the legal industry.
"There are instances in which telemarketing calls are legal," said Holly Melton, a partner at Crowell & Moring. "If [providers] make a mistake, then they are potentially blocking automatically dialed or pre-recorded message calls that consumers have actually asked for and want to receive."
Examples of robocalls that typically fall under the "legal" category include calls made by charities, political calls and survey calls. Commercial entities can also deploy robocalls to mobile phones provided they have obtained prior expressed written consent from the consumer.
Still, mistakes do happen. Melton relayed the story of a former colleague whose client wound up on a call-blocking list despite the fact that the client had secured the consent of its customers to receive automated calls.
Similar incidents could potentially be triggered by a bad actor's use of call spoofing to disguise a robocall behind a randomly generated telephone number.
"If a number is randomly generated and it happens to be a number associated with a company that makes legal robocalls, then they are going to land on that hit list and they won't be able to reach customers," Melton said.
Kevin Rupy, a partner at Wiley Rein, indicated that so-called "false positives" are a big topic of concern. But while it can generally be difficult to distinguish robocalls from other traffic on a carrier's network, voice providers aren't approaching the problem from scratch.
The anti-robocall principles require providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN, a technical and procedural framework that would allow voice providers to assign outgoing calls a certificate that, according to the anti-robocall principals, "cannot be faked."
In addition to STIR/SHAKEN, Rupy said voice providers are also using advanced analytics solutions to identify the presence of robocallers. Factors to watch for include a high-volume of calls from a single number or calls that tend be of a very short duration.
"So there are ways that reasonable analytics can pretty accurately determine whether a call is legal or illegal," Rupy said.
Andrew Lustigman, a partner at Olshan, raised the question of whether or not the government could potentially get involved in establishing some kind of guidance or criteria for separating helpful robocalls from harmful ones.
While the issues presented by automated or prerecorded calls have been around a long time—Lustigman's first case on the subject was 10 years ago—the law may still be playing catch up in some regards.
"It's always difficult to regulate when technology changes so rapidly. And that's the biggest problem that I think is there," Lustigman said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1'The Show Must Go On': Solo-GC-of-Year Kevin Colby Pulls Off Perpetual Juggling Act
- 2Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Match Group's Katie Dugan & Herrick's Carol Goodman
- 3Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Eric Wall, Executive VP, Syllo
- 4Battle for Top Talent Accelerates Amid Profit and Demand Surge
- 5Friday Newspaper
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250