FTC根据 2007 年“请勿致电登记费延期法案”向国会提交的 2022 和 2023 财年两年期报告

FederalTradeCommission

December2023

BiennialReporttoCongress

UndertheDoNotCallRegistryFeeExtensionActof2007

−1−

Do-Not-CallRegistryFeeExtensionActof2007

FederalTradeCommission

BiennialReporttoCongress

ReportingonFiscalYears2022-2023

I.ReportOverview

InFebruaryof2008,CongresspassedtheDo-Not-CallRegistryFeeExtensionActof

0F

2007(“FeeExtensionAct”),1requiringthisbiennialreportontheNationalDoNotCallRegistry(“Registry”).IncompliancewiththeFeeExtensionAct,thisReportcontainsasummaryofthecurrentoperationsoftheRegistry,theimpactontheRegistryofnewtelecommunication

technologies,andtheimpactoftheestablishedbusinessrelationshipexceptioninourenforcementefforts.

TheRegistrycurrentlyhasover249millionactiveregistrations.DuringFY2023,the

Registryincreasedbymorethan2.6millionphonenumbers.Over10,000sellers,telemarketers,andexemptorganizationssubscribedtoaccesstheRegistryinFY2023,andnearly2,000of

thoseentitiespaidfeestotalingnearly$15million.

II.Introduction

1F

TheRegistryhasbeeninoperationsincethesummerof2003.2Consumerscontinueto

registertheirtelephonenumbers,verifyregistrationofnumbers,andsubmitcomplaintsof

suspectedviolationsatahighrate.Duringthelast20years,theRegistryhasalsosuccessfully

servedbusinesses,astheyaccessedtheRegistry,andlawenforcement,astheyinvestigated

violationsoftheDoNotCallrules.TheFTCcontinuestolookforandmakeimprovementsto

thesystemtobetterserveconsumers,telemarketers,andlawenforcerswhilemaintainingthe

efficientmanagementandaccuracyoftheRegistry.FTCstaffcontinuestoworkcloselywiththecontractoroverseeingtheRegistrytoensurethattheintegrityoftheRegistryismaintained.

TheFeeExtensionActrequiredtheFTC,inconsultationwiththeFederal

CommunicationsCommission(“FCC”),tofirstreporttoCongressontheRegistrybyDecember31,2009,andbienniallythereafter.Specifically,theFeeExtensionActrequiresthattheFTC’sreportprovidethefollowinginformation:

•thenumberofconsumerswhohaveplacedtheirtelephonenumber(s)ontheRegistry;

•thenumberofpersonspayingfeesforaccesstotheRegistryandtheamountofsuchfees;

•theimpactontheRegistryof

−2−

othefive-yearre-registrationrequirement;

onewtelecommunicationtechnology;

onumberportabilityandabandonedtelephonenumbers;and

•theimpactoftheestablishedbusinessrelationshipexceptiononbusinessesandconsumers.

ThisbiennialReportprovidesanoverviewoftheoperationoftheRegistryforFY2022and2023.

III.NumberofConsumersWhoPlacedTheirTelephoneNumbersontheNational

Registry

AmericanscontinuetoutilizetheRegistryinveryhighnumbers.Inthefirstfourdays

followingthelaunchoftheRegistryonJune27,2003,morethan10millionnumberswere

registered.AsofSeptember30,2003,atotalof51,968,777telephonenumbershadbeen

registered.Witheachfiscalyear,thenumberhassteadilyincreased.BytheendofFY2022,thenumberofactiveregistrationswas246,820,600.AsofSeptember30,2023,theRegistryhad

2F

249,498,621activeregistrations.3

IV.NumberofEntitiesPayingFeesforAccesstotheNationalRegistry

InFY2022,atotalof2,116entitiespaidfeestotaling$14,302,172foraccesstothe

Registry.InFY2022,atotalof1,963entitiespaidfeestotaling$14,940,652foraccesstothe

3F

Registry.4Inaddition,certainentitiescanaccessdatafromtheRegistrywithouthavingtopayafee.Theseincludeentitiesthataccessfiveorfewerareacodesofdatainayear,aswellas

exemptorganizations(suchascharitableorganizations)thatarenotrequiredtoaccessthe

4F

Registrytocomplywithdo-not-callrequirementsunderfederallaw,butvoluntarilyaccesstheRegistrytoavoidcallingconsumerswhodonotwishtoreceivecalls.5InFY2022,8,502

entitiessubscribedtoaccessfiveorfewerareacodesatnocharge,and567entitiesclaiming“exemptorganization”statusobtainedfreeaccess.InFY2023,7,814entitiessubscribedtoaccessfiveorfewerareacodesatnocharge,and570entitiesclaiming“exemptorganization”statusobtainedfreeaccess.

V.ImpactontheNationalRegistryoftheFive-YearRe-RegistrationRequirement,

NewTelecommunicationsTechnology,andNumberPortabilityandAbandonedTelephoneNumbers

A.Five-YearRe-RegistrationRequirement

−3−

WhentheRegistrywasfirstimplementedin2003,registrationswerescheduledtoexpireafterfiveyears.OutofconcernthattheexpirationofnumbersontheRegistrywouldbe

5F

detrimentaltoconsumers,theFTC,inthefallof2007,pledgednottodropanynumbersfromtheRegistry,pendingfinalCongressionalaction.6ThefollowingFebruary,Congresspassedthe

6F

Do-Not-CallImprovementActof2007(“DNCIA”),eliminatingtheautomaticremovalofnumbersfromtheRegistry.7

AtthetimetheDNCIAwaspassedinFebruary2008,noregistrationshadyetexpired,

becausethefirstregistrationsweremadeinlateJune2003,lessthanfiveyearsearlier.

Consequently,noconsumerseverhadtore-registertheirnumbers.TheFTCcontinuestobelievethateliminatingthere-registrationrequirementhasnotdecreasedtheaccuracyoftheRegistry,

butthatithasenabledconsumerstomaintaintheirrighttoprivacywithoutinterruptionandmadeitpossibletoavoidthecostassociatedwitheducatingconsumersabouttheneedtore-register.

B.NewTelecommunicationsTechnology

TheFTCalsocontinuestotrackhowtechnologyaffectstheRegistryandtheconsumersandtelemarketerswhoaccessit.Advancementsintechnologyhavemadeiteasierforbadactorstoplaceillegalcalls.Forexample,VoiceoverInternetProtocol(VoIP)technologyallows

callers,includinglaw-breakers,tomakehighervolumesofcallsinexpensivelyfromanywhereintheworld.Technologicaldevelopmentsalsoallowillegaltelemarketerstoeasilyfake,or

“spoof,”thecallerIDinformationthataccompaniestheircalls,whichallowsthemtoconceal

theiridentityfromconsumersandlawenforcement.Further,manytelemarketersuseautomateddialingtechnologytomakecallsthatdeliverprerecordedmessages(commonlyreferredtoas

“robocalls”),whichallowviolatorstomakeveryhighvolumesofillegalcallswithoutsignificantexpense.Theneteffectofthesetechnologicaldevelopmentsisthatbadactorswhorefuseto

complywiththeRegistryorothertelemarketinglaws,areabletomakemorecheapandillegaltelemarketingcallsusingmethodsthatmakeitdifficultfortheFTCandotherlawenforcementagenciestofindthem.

Asaresultofthesetechnologicaldevelopments,consumercomplaintsaboutillegal

calls—especiallyrobocalls—initiallyincreasedsignificantly.Inthefourthquarterof2009,theFTCreceivedapproximately63,000complaintsaboutillegalrobocallseachmonth.In2021,thatnumbermorethanquintupledandtheFTCreceivedmorethan275,000complaintsaboutillegalrobocallseachmonth.Since2021,consumercomplaintshavesteadilydecreased.InFY2022,theFTCreceivedanaverageofmorethan150,000complaintsaboutrobocallspermonth.InthefirstthreequartersofFY2023,theFTCreceivedanaverageofmorethan95,000complaints

aboutrobocallspermonth.

7F

ThedecreaseincomplaintsisattributableinparttotheFTC’slawenforcementstrategies.TheFTChaspursuedVoIPproviderswhofacilitateillegalcallsthroughlawenforcementactionsandwarninglettersaspartofitsProjectpointofNoEntry.8TheFTChasalsosueddialing

8F

platformsandsoundboardtechnologyproviderswhohelpprovidethesoftwareusedtoblastillegalrobocalls.9OnJuly18,2023,theFTCannouncedOperationStopScamCalls,a

−4−

9F

coordinatedsweepinvolvingmorethan180actionsbroughtbymorethan100federalandstatelawenforcementpartners.10

TohelpendcallerIDspoofing,amongotherpurposes,CongresspassedthePallone-

10F

ThuneTelephoneRobocallAbuseCriminalEnforcementandDeterrenceAct(“TRACEDAct”)attheendof2019.11TocombatillegalcallerIDspoofing,andasdirectedbytheTRACEDAct,theFCCrequiredthatvoiceserviceprovidersimplementtheSTIR/SHAKENcallerID

11F

authenticationframeworkintheirInternetProtocol(IP)networksandtakereasonablemeasurestoimplementacallerIDauthenticationsolutionfornon-IPnetworksbyJune30,2021.12

ConsistentwiththeTRACEDAct,theFCCextendedthedeadlineforSTIR/SHAKEN

12F

implementationforsmallandothereligiblevoiceserviceprovidersuntilJune30,2023;howevertheagencyrecentlyshortenedthesmallvoiceserviceproviderextensionforthoseproviderstheFCCdeterminedaremostlikelytobethesourceofillegalrobocalls.13OncefullimplementationofSTIR/SHAKENiscomplete,itshouldbemuchmoredifficultforillegalcallerstospoofcallerIDinformationoncallstransitingIPnetworks.Non-IPlegacynetworksdonotsupport

STIR/SHAKEN,butpursuanttotheTRACEDActandFCCregulation,providerswithnon-IPnetworksmustparticipateineffortstodevelopanon-IPcallerIDauthenticationframework.

AnyproviderthathasnotyetimplementedSTIR/SHAKENalsomustengageinotherformsofrobocallmitigation.MoreinformationontheFCC’simplementationoftheTRACEDAct

appearsbelowinthisReport’supdateontheFCC’sresponsetonewtelecommunicationstechnology.

Tocombatthetechnologiesthattelemarketersusetomakeillegalcalls,FTCstaffhas

undertakenanumberofinitiatives,describedbelow,designedtospurthedevelopmentand

availabilityoftechnologythatwillprotectconsumersfromillegalcalls.FTCstaffhaveworkedcloselywithindustrygroups,academicexperts,andcounterpartsatfederal,state,and

internationalgovernmentbodiestoencouragethedevelopmentofnewtechnologiesandtelecommunicationsstandardstocombatillegalcalls.

TheFTChasheldfourpublicchallengesdesignedtospurprivatesectordevelopmentoftechnologicalsolutionsthatwillstopillegaltelemarketingcalls.TheFTChelditsfirstpublic

challengeinconjunctionwithits2012RobocallSummit,offeringa$50,000prizetothe

individualorsmallteamwhoproposedthebesttechnologicalsolutionthatblocksrobocallson

13F

consumers’landlinesandmobilephones.Afterreviewing798submissions,theFTCannouncedthreewinningsolutionsonApril2,2013.14Oneofthewinners,“NomoRobo,”wasonthe

14F

marketandavailabletoconsumersbyOctober2013—just6monthsafterbeingnamedoneofthewinners.NomoRobo,whichreportsblockingnearly2.4billioncalls,isbeingoffereddirectlytoconsumersbyanumberoftelecommunicationsproviders,andisavailableasanapponiPhonesandAndroidphones.15Followingonthesuccessofthefirstchallenge,theFTCconductedits

15F

secondcontest,“ZappingRachel,”inAugust2014,whereitawarded$17,000inprizestofivewinnerswhodevelopedsolutionsthatimprovedtelephonehoneypots—asystemofphonelinesthatcollectinformationanddataaboutillegalcallingpatterns.16In2015,theFTCconductedtwomorechallenges:“DetectaRobo”and“Robocalls:HumanityStrikesBack.”TheFTCheld“DetectaRobo”inconjunctionwiththe2015NationalDayofCivicHackinginJune2015,and

−5−

16F

askedcontestantstocreatepredictivealgorithmsthatcanidentifyrobocalls.17“Robocalls:

HumanityStrikesBack”followed,inAugust2015,andchallengedcontestantstobuildsolutionsthatnotonlyblockrobocallsfromreachingconsumers,butenableconsumerstoforwardthose

unwantedrobocallstoacrowd-sourcedhoneypotsothatlawenforcementandindustry

17F

18F

stakeholderscanusethedatacollected.18Winnersforthe2015challengewereannouncedonAugust17,2015.19

Thechallengescontributedtoashiftinthedevelopmentandavailabilityoftechnologicalsolutionsinthisarea,particularlycall-blockingandcall-filteringproducts.Allofthemajor

19F

voiceserviceprovidersnowoffercall-blockingorcall-filteringproductstosomeoralloftheircustomers.20Inaddition,thereareagrowingnumberoffreeorlow-costappsavailablefor

20F

downloadonwirelessdevicesthatoffercall-blockingandcall-filteringsolutions.21

TheFTChastakenadditionalmeasurestosupportanalyticscompaniesandvoiceserviceproviderswiththeircall-blockingandcall-filteringefforts.InAugust2017,theFTCbegan

releasingadailylistofDoNotCallandrobocallcomplaints,includingthecallerIDnumber,thedateandtimetheunwantedcallwasreceived,thetopicofthecall,andwhetherthecallwasa

21F

robocall.Severalanalyticsfirmsandcall-blockingcompaniesreportthatthisdailydatareleaseimprovedtheirabilitytoidentifyabusiveandfraudulentcalls.22

TheFCChastakenamulti-prongedapproachtocombatingillegalcalls,includingthosemadebytelemarketers.

22F

First,liketheFTC,theFCChaslookedtocallblockingasameansofcombatingillegalrobocalls.TheFCChasencouragedvoiceserviceproviders(includingterminatingvoiceserviceprovidersandintermediateproviders)toblockrobocallsincertaininstancesandprotectedthoseprovidersfromliabilityundertheFCC’srulesiftheyblockinerror.23

In2017,theFCCtookaclear,bright-lineapproachbyauthorizingvoiceservice

providers,includingintermediateproviders,toblockcallsthatpurporttobefrominvalid,

23F

unallocated,orunusednumberswithoutfirstobtainingcustomerconsent.24TheFCCalso

permittedblockingofcallsusingado-not-originatelist,whichincludesnumbersthatshould

neverbeusedtooriginatecalls.TheFCCdeterminedthat,alongwithcallsoriginatingwithin

theUnitedStates,theserulesapplytoforeign-originatedcallsthatpurporttooriginatefromU.S.NorthAmericanNumberingPlan(NANP)numbersonthegroundsthatmanyillegalcalls

originatefromcallcentersabroad.

SubsequentFCCactionsensuredthatterminatingvoiceserviceproviderscanrespondtotheevolvingtacticsofbadactors.In2019,theFCCmadeclearthatterminatingvoiceservice

providersmayblockcallsbasedonreasonableanalyticssolongasconsumersaregiventhe

24F

opportunitytooptoutofsuchblocking.25In2020,theFCCadoptedasafeharborfrom

violationsoftheActandtheFCC’srulesforterminatingvoiceserviceprovidersthatblockbasedonreasonableanalyticsdesignedtoidentifyunwantedcalls,solongastheanalyticstakeinto

accountcallerIDauthenticationinformationandconsumersaregiventheopportunitytoopt

−6−

25F

out.26TheFCCalsoestablishedasafeharborforvoiceserviceproviders(including

intermediateproviders)toblockcallsfromabad-actorupstreamproviderthatfailstoeffectivelymitigateillegaltrafficafterbeingnotifiedofsuchtrafficbytheFCC.Atthesametime,theFCCtookstepstoreducetheriskoferroneousblocking.

InDecember2020,theFCCexpandedthesafeharborforblockingbasedonreasonableanalyticstoincludecertainnetwork-levelblocking,withoutconsumeroptout,designedto

26F

identifycallsthatarehighlylikelytobeillegal.27Thesafeharborisavailabletoterminating

voiceserviceprovidersthatdisclosetoconsumersthattheyareengaginginsuchblocking.TheFCCalsoadoptedenhancedtransparencyandredressrequirementsforvoiceserviceprovidersthatblockcalls.

Beyondblocking,theFCChasestablishedthreeaffirmativeobligationsthatapplyto

voiceserviceproviders(includingintermediateproviders).First,voiceserviceprovidersmustrespondtoalltracebackrequestsfromtheFCC,lawenforcement,ortheindustrytraceback

consortium,fullyandtimely.Second,voiceserviceprovidersmusttakestepstoeffectively

mitigateillegaltrafficwhennotifiedofsuchtrafficbytheFCC.Finally,voiceserviceprovidersmustadoptaffirmative,effectivemeasurestopreventnewandrenewingcustomersfromusingthenetworktooriginateillegalcalls.

TheFCCauthorizedcreationofaReassignedNumbersDatabasethatlaunchedon

27F

November1,2021.28Thedatabaseenablescallerstodeterminewhethernumberstheywishtocallhavebeendisconnectedsincetheyobtainedconsumerconsent,andthereforewhethertheconsenttheyhavetocalleachnumberremainsvalid.

Inaddition,theFCChaspushedindustrytodevelopanddeploytheSTIR/SHAKEN

callerIDauthenticationstandards,aprotocoltoverifythatthepersondialingthecallhas

authoritytousethedisplayedcallerIDnumber.STIR/SHAKENareacronymsfortheSecure

TelephonyIdentityRevisited(STIR)workinggroupoftheInternetEngineeringTaskForce,

whichdevelopedseveralprotocolsforauthenticatingcallerIDinformationandtheSignature-

basedHandlingofAssertedinformationusingtoKENs(SHAKEN)specificationproducedbytheAllianceforTelecommunicationsIndustrySolutionsandtheSIPForum,whichstandardizeshowtheprotocolsproducedbySTIRareimplementedacrosstheindustry.

DeploymentofSTIR/SHAKENwillhelpreducecallerIDspoofingandassist

telecommunicationsandanalyticscompaniesindeterminingwhichcallstheyshouldblock.

However,itshouldbenotedthatthisprotocolappliesexclusivelytocallsthatareoriginatedanddeliveredusingInternetProtocol(IP)technology;existingtechnologydoesnotpermit

STIR/SHAKENtoworkwithcallsdeliveredusingnon-IPtechnology,includingtraditionaltime-divisionmultiplexingtechnology.TheFCCrequiredvoiceserviceproviderstoimplement

STIR/SHAKENontheirIPnetworksbyJune30,2021,subjecttosomeextensions.Voice

serviceprovidersthatreceivedanextensionarerequiredtoperformrobocallmitigationoncallstheyoriginateuntiltheyhaveimplementedSTIR/SHAKEN.

−7−

Throughout2019,severalofthelargertelecommunicationscompaniesissuedpressreleasesstatingthattheyhadbegunbetatestingandaphased-inimplementationof

28F

STIR/SHAKEN.29AlthoughSTIR/SHAKENwillnotbeapanacea,boththeFTCandFCCbelievethatitwillbeanotherusefultoolforimprovingtrustinthetelephonenetworkand

reducingthenumberofspoofedcalls.

TheFTCandtheFCCalsoshareinformationtohelpfacilitatetechnologicalsolutions,

suchascallblocking,includingcalltopiccategoriesforconsumerstochoosefromtohelpthe

FTCandFCCidentifytrends.TheFTCsharesanonymizedcomplaintdatainaneasily

reviewableformonitspublicTableau.InFY2023,thetopfivetopicsselectedbyconsumersforunwantedcallcomplaintsfiledwiththeFTCwere:

•Imposters(callspretendingtobegovernment,businesses,orfamilyandfriends)

•Medicalandprescriptions

•Reducingdebt(creditcards,mortgage,studentloans)

•Energy,solar,&utilities

•Warranties&Protectionplans

C.NumberPortabilityandAbandonedTelephoneNumbers

29F

AccordingtoFCCregulations,peoplechangingserviceprovidersareabletoretaintheirphonenumbers,i.e.,areabletoporttheirnumbertothenewserviceprovider.30AstheFTC

developedprocedurestoidentifynumberstoremovefromtheRegistry,theFTCconsideredhowtoidentifytheseportednumbersanddifferentiatethemfromabandonedordisconnected

numbers.Toincreasethelikelihoodthatportednumbersarenotremovedbutabandoned

numbersare,theFTC’scontractorfirstidentifiesthenumbersthathavebeendesignatedasnewconnectionsinthecompileddisconnectionandreassignmentdata.AnumberisdesignatedasdisconnectedandreassignedforpurposesofremovingitfromtheRegistryonlyifneitherthe

namenortheaddressforthenewaccountmatchthenameoraddressassociatedwiththepreviousaccountforthatnumber.

Consequently,theonlynumbersremovedfromtheRegistryarethosethathavebeen

disconnected(orabandoned)andthenreconnectedtoadifferentaccountholderatadifferent

address.Thisprocess,whichisperformedmonthly,ensuresthatnumbersthathavebeenportedarenotremoved,butnumbersthattrulyhavebeenabandonedaredeleted.

VII.ImpactofEstablishedBusinessRelationshipExceptiononConsumersand

Businesses

TheFTC’sTelemarketingSalesRule(TSR)andtheFCC’srulescontainexemptionsthatpermitasellerortelemarketertocallapersonwhohaslistedhisorhertelephonenumbersontheRegistryifthecallistoapersonwithwhomthesellerhasan“establishedbusiness

−8−

30F

relationship.”31AnestablishedbusinessrelationshipundertheTSRandtheFCCrulesisarelationshipbasedon:1)theconsumer’spurchase,rental,orleaseoftheseller’sgoodsorservices,orafinancialtransactionbetweentheconsumerandseller,withinthe18months

immediatelyprecedingthedateofatelemarketingcall;or2)aconsumer’sinquiryorapplicationregardingaproductorserviceofferedbythesellerwithinthethreemonthsimmediately

31F

precedingthedateofatelemarketingcall.32Thisexceptionallowssellersandtheir

telemarketerstocallcustomerswhohaverecentlymadepurchasesormadepayments,andto

returncallstoprospectivecustomerswhohavemadeinquiries,eveniftheirtelephonenumbers

areontheRegistry.Consumershavetheoptiontorequesttobeputontheseller'sentity-

specific-do-not-calllist.Sucharequestterminatestheestablishedbusinessrelationshipwiththatsellerforpurposesofmakingtelemarketingcallseveniftheconsumercontinuestodobusinesswiththeseller.OnNovember18,2015,theFTCamendedtheTSRtomakeclearthatsellersandtelemarketershavetheburdenofprooftodemonstratetheexistenceofanestablishedbusiness

32F

relationship.33UndertheTSR,therelationshipmustbedirectly“betweenaselleranda

33F

consumer.”34

Manybusinessesrelyonthisexemptiontoconducttelemarketingcampaignsdirectedatrecentorlong-timecustomers,orconsumerswhohaveexpressedaninterestinbecoming

customers.Manyconsumers,however,perceivetelemarketingcallsthatfallwithinthis

exemptiontobeinconsistentwiththeRegistrybecausetheconsumersareunawareoftheexceptionordonotrealizethattheyhavearelationshipwiththesellerthatfallswithinthedefinitionofanestablishedbusinessrelationship.

Suchperceptionsbyconsumersareespeciallylikelywhentherelationshipbetweenthe

consumerandthesellerarisesfromabrief,one-timetransaction,orwhentheselleridentifiedinthetelemarketingcallandthesellerwithwhomtheconsumerhasarelationshiparepartofthe

samelegalentity,butareperceivedbyconsumerstobedifferentbecausetheyusedifferent

namesoraremarketingdifferentproducts.BoththeFTCandtheFCChavestatedthattheissueofwhethertheexemptionappliestocallsbyoronbehalfofsellerswhoareaffiliatesand

subsidiariesofanentitywithwhichaconsumerhasanestablishedbusinessrelationshipdependsonconsumerexpectations.TheFTCcharacterizestheissueasfollows:“wouldconsumerslikelybesurprisedbythatcallandfinditinconsistentwithhavingplacedtheirtelephonenumberon

34F

thenational‘do-not-call’registry?”35

ForboththeFTCandtheFCC,thefactorstobeconsideredinthisanalysisinclude:

1)whetherthesubsidiary’soraffiliate’sgoodsorservicesaresimilartotheseller’s;and2)

whetherthesubsidiary’soraffiliate’snameisidenticalorsimilartotheseller’sname.The

greaterthesimilaritybetweenthenatureandtypeofgoodsorservicessoldbythesellerandanysubsidiaryoraffiliate,andthegreaterthesimilarityinidentitybetweenthesellerandany

35F

subsidiaryoraffiliate,themorelikelyitisthatthecallwillfallwithintheestablishedbusinessrelationshipexemption.36

−9−

Somebusinesses,seekingtocircumventtheRegistry,havesoughttoexploitthe

establishedbusinessrelationshipexemptionbymakingcallstopersonswhohavenothadthe

requisitecontactwiththeseller.Forexample,somemarketersclaimingabusinessrelationshiphaveimproperlyplacedtelemarketingcallstoconsumersafteracquiringtheconsumers’

telephonenumbersfromothers.So-called“leadgenerators”collectinformationonconsumer

intereststhroughwebadvertising,byofferingcouponsorsamples,orsimplyby“coldcalling”

consumersinordertodeterminewhethertheconsumerhasanyinterestinaparticularproductorservice,suchasdebtrelieforhomealarms.Leadgeneratorsresponsiblefortheseso-called“callverified,”“permission-based,”or“opt-in”leadsoftenfailtoremovenumberslistedonthe

Registrybeforecallingconsumers.Lead-generatingcompaniesthathaveengagedinthistypeof“coldcalling”haveagreedtopaycivilpenaltiestosettlechargesthattheircallsviolatedthe

36F

TSR.37Atthesametime,sometelemarketersandsellershaveacquiredleadsfromlead

generatorsandusedthemintelemarketingcampaignswithoutscreeningthenumberstoremovethoselistedontheRegistry.Inthisway,asinglesalespitchcanproducemultipleillegalcalls,generatingoneormorecallsfromboththeleadgeneratorsandthetelemarketer.

Telephonecallsfromtelemarketerstophonenumbersprovidedbyleadgenerators

generallydonotfallwithintheestablishedbusinessrelationshipexceptionbecause,whilethe

consumersmayhavearelationshipwiththeleadgenerator,theydonothaveanestablished

businessrelationshipwiththesellerwhohaspurchasedtheleads.Unlesstheconsumerinquiredintotheservicesofaspecifiedseller,ortheleadgeneratormadedisclosuresthatwouldalerttheconsumerthatheorsheshouldexpecttelemarketingcallsfromthesellerasaresultofhisorhercommunicationswiththeleadgenerator,thesellercannotclaimthatithasarelationshipwiththeconsumersuchthatitcanignoretheconsumer’srequestnottoreceivetelemarketingcalls.In

37F

severalenforcementactions,businessesthatmadetelephonecallstoconsumersontheRegistryafteracquiringtheconsumers’namesfromaleadgenerator,agreedtopaycivilpenaltiestosettlechargesthattheircallsviolatedtheTSR.38

OtherbusinesseshavesoughttocircumventtheRegistrybyutilizingsweepstakesentry

formsasawaytoexploittheestablishedbusinessrelationshipexemption,arguingthatthe

submissionofasweepstakesentryformcreatesanestablishedbusinessrelationshipforpurposesoftheTSR.TheTSR,however,doesnotpermitcompaniestocircumventtheRegistryinthis

38F

mannerbecauseasweepstakesent