[ad_1]
Unsolicited automated calls would have totaled 26.3 billion calls in 2018, prompting more and more consumer complaints from the FCC and the FTC, and increased legislative and regulatory activity to combat this practice. Some automated calls are beneficial, such as school closure announcements, bank fraud warnings and medical notices. Some impersonations of the appellant's identity are justified, such as certain purposes of law enforcement or investigation and the use of shelters for victims of domestic violence . However, consumers have been inundated with spam calls – often spoofed area codes – that display fictitious information about the identity of the caller or bypbad ID technology. of the caller in order to increase the likelihood that consumers will respond or defraud consumers. In order to combat the wave of unwanted calls, Congress and federal regulators have advanced several measures in 2019 and states have beefed up their own telecommunications privacy laws in the past year. For example, over the past week, the governor of Arkansas promulgated SB 514, which strengthens criminal penalties for illegal impersonation of callers and creates a monitoring process for providers of telecommunications.
Even before this wave of regulatory and legislative attention, a number of federal laws sought to restrict certain unwanted calls, such as the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Appellants Identification Act and various regulations. concerning Call Log and Telemarketing Rule of Sale, which by law are enforced by the FCC or the FTC. In 2017, the FCC adopted rules allowing the telephone companies to proactively block illegal automated calls and, in February 2019, proposed a regulation to further combat illegal SMS and international calls, as well as to prevent illegal calls. 39, a report on regulatory and industry progress in combating illegal automated calls. Legislatively, over the past week, the Senate Trade Committee has favorably stated that a bipartite bill, S.151 (the TRACED Act), would have the effect of strengthening the limitation period for FCC actions to enforce illegal bidding. the FCC must promulgate rules regarding the blocking of unauthenticated calls and compel providers to take additional measures to counter unwanted automated calls, including the implementation of the SHAKEN / STIR authentication framework, a technology that uses certificates to validate the source of each call.
At the state level, regulators and legislatures have also taken action, including the recently enacted Arkansas bill, which strengthens protections under existing consumer protection laws and strengthens criminal penalties for the protection of consumers. 39, illegal call scam. The Arkansas law primarily prohibits a person from "ensuring that an applicant's identification service conveys misleading or inaccurate information if the purpose is to defraud, cause harm or harm." "Unjustifiably obtain anything that is of value" or to use a third party to display or cause to be displayed misidentified caller identification information for any reason whatsoever in the absence of certain exceptions relating to law enforcement and public safety. In addition, telecommunications providers are required to report annually to state regulators on how they are applying current technologies – such as SHAKEN / STIR – to block illegal automated calls. Arkansas's lawsuit on spoofing follows laws pbaded by other states in the past year that strengthened existing laws. For example, in 2018, South Carolina signed the "Telephone Privacy Protection Act", which, among other things, prohibited the call or the hang-up. texting. Louisiana pbaded SB 204, which strengthened remedies against the appellants' impersonation, and Maryland had enacted the "ban on usurping the identity of the appellant." 39, appellant "(2018). Other states, including Illinois, Mbadachusetts, and Ohio, are currently debating bills banning certain call-back practices.
It remains to be seen whether federal and national regulations and the adoption of authentication technology will limit spam calls and texts. Entities that transmit automated calls or use the appellant's identity theft for purposes other than solicitation must re-examine and monitor the evolution of the legal landscape in this area.
Tags: laws on the identity of the appellant, law on the protection of privacy, impersonation, state laws, telecommunication
Source link
