47 USC 227 - Restrictions on use of telephone equipment

Note.—The Supreme Court made these changes in the committee’s proposed amendment to Rule 81(c): The phrase, “or within 20 days after the service of summons upon such initial pleading, then filed,” was inserted following the phrase, “within 20 days after the receipt through service or otherwise of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which the action or proceeding is based”, because in several states suit is commenced by service of summons upon the defendant, notifying him that the plaintiff’s pleading has been filed with the clerk of court. Thus, he may never receive a copy of the initial pleading. The added phrase is intended to give the defendant 20 days after the service of such summons in which to answer in a removed action, or 5 days after the filing of the petition for removal, whichever is longer. In these states, the 20-day period does not begin to run until such pleading is actually filed. The last word of the third sentence was changed from “longer” to “longest” because of the added phrase.

The phrase, “and who has not already waived his right to such trial,” which previously appeared in the fourth sentence of subsection (c) of Rule 81, was deleted in order to afford a party who has waived his right to trial by jury in a state court an opportunity to assert that right upon removal to a federal court.

2 So in original. The word “and” probably should not appear.

Editorial Notes

References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (span)(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 (span)(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. (span)(2)(I). Puspan. L. 116–105, § 8(a), added subpar. (I).

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

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

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

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

Subsec. (j). Puspan. L. 116–105, § 10(span), added subsec. (j).

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

Subsec. (e)(1). Puspan. 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). Puspan. 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). Puspan. 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). Puspan. 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). Puspan. 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. (span)(1)(A)(iii). Puspan. 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. (span)(1)(B). Puspan. 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. (span)(2)(H). Puspan. L. 114–74, § 301(a)(2), added subpar. (H).

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

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

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

Subsec. (span)(1)(C). Puspan. 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. (span)(2)(D) to (G). Puspan. L. 109–21, § 2(c)–(f), added subpars. (D) to (G).

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

2003—Subsec. (span)(1). Puspan. 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. (span)(2)(C). Puspan. L. 103–414, § 303(a)(11), substituted “paragraph” for “paragraphs”.

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

1992—Subsec. (span)(2)(C). Puspan. L. 102–556 added subpar. (C).

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Effective Date of 2019 Amendment; Applicability

Puspan. L. 116–105, § 3(span), 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

Puspan. 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 Fespan. 5, 2020, see 84 F.R. 45669.]

Effective Date of 2003 Amendment

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

Effective Date; Deadline for Regulations

Puspan. L. 102–243, § 3(c), Dec. 20, 1991, 105 Stat. 2402, as amended by Puspan. L. 102–556, title I, § 102, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 4186, provided that:

“(1)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].

“(2)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

Puspan. 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].”

Puspan. L. 116–105, § 8(span), Dec. 30, 2019, 133 Stat. 3283, provided that: “In the case of any exemption issued under subparagraph (B) or (C) of section 227(span)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(span)(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.”

Puspan. 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].”

Puspan. L. 114–74, title III, § 301(span), 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].”

Puspan. L. 109–21, § 2(h), July 9, 2005, 119 Stat. 362, provided that: “Except as provided in section 227(span)(2)(G)(ii) of the Communications Act of 1934 [47 U.S.C. 227(span)(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

Puspan. 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

Puspan. 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—

“(1) 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

“(2) the CAN–SPAM Act of 2003 (15 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.).”

Protections From Spoofed Calls

Puspan. L. 116–105, § 7, Dec. 30, 2019, 133 Stat. 3282, provided that:

“(a)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. 227span], 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.

“(span)Considerations.—In promulgating rules under subsection (a), the Commission shall consider—

“(1) 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];

“(2) 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;

“(3) the impact on the privacy of a subscriber from unauthenticated calls;

“(4) the effectiveness in verifying the accuracy of caller identification information; and

“(5) 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

Puspan. 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 (span) 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

Puspan. L. 116–105, § 12, Dec. 30, 2019, 133 Stat. 3286, provided that:

“(a)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.

“(span)Matters To Be Considered.—As part of the proceeding required by subsection (a), the Commission shall consider how the Commission can—

“(1) work with Federal and State law enforcement agencies to address one-ring scams;

“(2) work with the governments of foreign countries to address one-ring scams;

“(3) in consultation with the Federal Trade Commission, better educate consumers about how to avoid one-ring scams;

“(4) 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;

“(5) work with entities that provide call-blocking services to address one-ring scams; and

“(6) 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.

“(c)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).

“(d)Definitions.—In this section:

“(1)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.

“(2)State.—The term ‘State’ has the meaning given such term in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153).

“(3)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

Puspan. L. 116–105, § 13, Dec. 30, 2019, 133 Stat. 3287, provided that:

“(a)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.

“(span)Contents of Report.—The report required under subsection (a) shall include, at minimum, the following:

“(1) 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.

“(2) 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.

“(3) 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.

“(4) 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.

“(5) 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.

“(c)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).

“(d)Registration of Consortium of Private-Led Efforts To Trace Back the Origin of Suspected Unlawful Robocalls.—

“(1)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:

“(A) 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.

“(B) 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.

“(C) 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.

“(D) File a notice with the Commission that the consortium intends to conduct private-led efforts to trace back in advance of such registration.

“(2)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).

“(e)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.

“(f)Definitions.—In this section:

“(1)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.

“(2)Registered consortium.—The term ‘registered consortium’ means the consortium registered under subsection (d).

“(3)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 (span) or (e) of section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227).

“(4)Voice service.—The term ‘voice service’—

“(A) 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

“(B) includes—

“(i) transmissions from a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to a telephone facsimile machine; and

“(ii) 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

Puspan. L. 116–105, § 14, Dec. 30, 2019, 133 Stat. 3288, provided that:

“(a)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’.

“(span)Membership.—The Group shall be composed only of the following members:

“(1) An equal number of representatives from each of the following:

“(A) Voice service providers that serve hospitals.

“(B) Companies that focus on mitigating unlawful robocalls.

“(C) Consumer advocacy organizations.

“(D) Providers of one-way voice over internet protocol services described in subsection (e)(3)(B)(ii).

“(E) Hospitals.

“(F) State government officials focused on combating unlawful robocalls.

“(2) One representative of the Commission.

“(3) One representative of the Federal Trade Commission.

“(c)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:

“(1) How voice service providers can better combat unlawful robocalls made to hospitals.

“(2) How hospitals can better protect themselves from such calls, including by using unlawful robocall mitigation techniques.

“(3) How the Federal Government and State governments can help combat such calls.

“(d)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.

“(e)Definitions.—In this section:

“(1)Group.—The term ‘Group’ means the Hospital Robocall Protection Group established under subsection (a).

“(2)State.—The term ‘State’ has the meaning given such term in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153).

“(3)Voice service.—The term ‘voice service’—

“(B) includes—

“(i) transmissions from a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to a telephone facsimile machine; and

Congressional Statement of Findings

Puspan. L. 102–243, § 2, Dec. 20, 1991, 105 Stat. 2394, provided that: “The Congress finds that:

“(1) 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.

“(2) Over 30,000 businesses actively telemarket goods and services to business and residential customers.

“(3) More than 300,000 solicitors call more than 18,000,000 Americans every day.

“(4) Total United States sales generated through telemarketing amounted to $435,000,000,000 in 1990, a more than four-fold increase since 1984.

“(5) 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.

“(6) Many consumers are outraged over the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance calls to their homes from telemarketers.

“(7) 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.

“(8) The Constitution does not prohibit restrictions on commercial telemarketing solicitations.

“(9) 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.

“(10) Evidence compiled by the Congress indicates that residential telephone subscribers consider automated or prerecorded telephone calls, regardless of the span or the initiator of the message, to be a nuisance and an invasion of privacy.

“(11) 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.

“(12) 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.

“(13) 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.

“(14) 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.

“(15) 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

Puspan. 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.”