New Rules for Spoofers

[Jen23514]

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1089A1.pdf

The FCC is encouraging consumers to let the Commission know about ID spoofers by calling 1-888-CALL-FCC or sharing individual experiences on the FCC blog.

 

FCC imposed new rules in June, which gives consumers more rights to deal with spoofers.

 

In accordance with the FCC’s new rules:

 

* Violators are subject to up to $10,000 for each violation, or three times that amount for each day of continuing violation, to a maximum of $1 million for any continuing violation

* The FCC may assess fines against entities it does not traditionally regulate without first issuing a citation

* The FCC can impose penalties more readily than it can under other provisions of the Communications Act

 

 

What does it mean for collectors? Not sure yet, time will tell, but it puts them in a catch-22 spot similar to leaving voicemail IMO. A CA that displays a local number (to improve the likelihood that a person will pick up the phone) would not violate the Act. However, the courts might interpret that strategy as a “scheme to wrongfully obtain something of value,” in which case it would violate the Act. I guess we will find out.

 

On June 22, 2011, the FCC also issued a report to Congress on the matter, Caller Identification Information in Successor or Replacement Technologies, and may be asked to address similar concerns about spoofing practices among emerging communication methods such as social media platforms and text (SMS) messaging.

 

previously wrote: Dealing with various forms of phone harassment...... What can the consumer do? Which is related to this topic and hopefully some case law can be added to that thread soon.

[beli]

This won't help with the offshore illegal payday lenders that use bogus CA's to try and collect and spoof their numbers. Most lawyers will not take cases like that because they will not get paid, and because the CA/and or offshore illegal payday lenders are not in the US. These are the biggest offenders to this.

 

It's a step in the right direction.. don't get me wrong.. just won't help where it's really needed.

[ICANHASMUNY?]

there's a discussion about it here

 

http://www.dwt.com/L...ies?find=424483

 

and the ACA general counsel has an article on it - but it was prior to the rules being published. they seem to believe that it applies to CA's also.

 

http:// accountsrecov...truth-in-caller ( link broken purposefully - just cut and paste it. )

 

also, this act is a result of complaints to the FCC and the FTC over the years.

 

so your complaintis to both agencies are important.

 

here is the FCC link

 

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/caller-id-and-spoofing

[Jen23514]

This won't help with the offshore illegal payday lenders that use bogus CA's to try and collect and spoof their numbers. Most lawyers will not take cases like that because they will not get paid, and because the CA/and or offshore illegal payday lenders are not in the US. These are the biggest offenders to this.

 

It's a step in the right direction.. don't get me wrong.. just won't help where it's really needed.

 

let the FCC know this.

[ICANHASMUNY?]

There appears to be no right to private action - only the FCC and FTC can prosecute.

 

however, if a CA is spoofing a caller ID to with either a name of a number to decieve a consumer into believing that they are;

 

not a CA, an attorney, a goverment enitity or a credit bureau,

 

then this should fall under the FDCPA;

 

Section 807(14) [1692e(14)] True business name

 

Section 807(9) [1692e(9)] Misrepresenting affiliation

 

Section 807(3) [1692e(3)] Impersonating an attorney

Section 807(1) [1692e(1)] Misrepresenting affiliation with government

 

Section 807(16) [1692e(16)] Impersonating a credit bureau

 

 

 

 

(I do like how they had to give all the intelligence agencies a waiver...)

 

 

[Jen23514]

There appears to be no right to private action - only the FCC and FTC can prosecute.

 

the topic was regarding the FCC wanting comments.

[PunisherSD]

There appears to be no right to private action - only the FCC and FTC can prosecute.

I must be tired. When I first read this I thought you said only the FCC and FTC can prostitute...and I was like umm...that isn't far from the truth.

[JunkBuyersWorstNightmare]

There appears to be no right to private action - only the FCC and FTC can prosecute.

I must be tired. When I first read this I thought you said only the FCC and FTC can prostitute...and I was like umm...that isn't far from the truth.

 

:rofl:

[ICANHASMUNY?]

Sorry that we wandered off ( some further than others, PunisherSD.....)

 

 

- the post was in repsonse to Beli's comment ; which i should have quoted ...

 

This won't help with the offshore illegal payday lenders that use bogus CA's to try and collect and spoof their numbers. Most lawyers will not take cases like that because they will not get paid, and because the CA/and or offshore illegal payday lenders are not in the US. These are the biggest offenders to this.

 

so that's why I mentioned no right to private action, and the FDCPA.

[Jen23514]

you're forgetting the TCPA.

 

 

Beli - seriously if you have time it would be worth it to write your comments in to the link provided above.

 

Bump for today's crew.

[ICANHASMUNY?]

bumped again for the evening crowd and request for a pinned topic.

[TampaDude]

What's needed is an ANI style function for caller identification, like SS7 uses in the PSTN. It is out of band and cannot be spoofed, enabling customers to have the TRUE telephone # that is calling them. The heavy fines are a step in the right direction, though.

[pryan67]

I believe that spoofing itself would fall under FDCPA...using unfair or unconscionable means to collect a debt...

[breeze]

False and misleading?

[andy1964]

I had a CA text me the other day acting like an attorney. Since I am seeking another suit against a creditor I thought it was an attorney I contacted. When I called the number back, the person on the phone acted like an attorney, and threatened me with a lawsuit. Over 285.00. lol. My question is, how does this effect the law under a CA contacting your cell phone by text, threatening legal action and pretending to be an attorney?

[NeverQuietHere]

I had a CA text me the other day acting like an attorney. Since I am seeking another suit against a creditor I thought it was an attorney I contacted. When I called the number back, the person on the phone acted like an attorney, and threatened me with a lawsuit. Over 285.00. lol. My question is, how does this effect the law under a CA contacting your cell phone by text, threatening legal action and pretending to be an attorney?

 

This is against the law if they are NOT an attorney and/or not going to file a lawsuit.

 

Sorry for bumping an old thread, but I have some CA calling me that is spoofing their number. When I call it back, an hour later, it says it is not a working number. Needless to say, here I am checking on these laws again.

[uncertainly]

I had a CA text me the other day acting like an attorney. Since I am seeking another suit against a creditor I thought it was an attorney I contacted. When I called the number back, the person on the phone acted like an attorney, and threatened me with a lawsuit. Over 285.00. lol. My question is, how does this effect the law under a CA contacting your cell phone by text, threatening legal action and pretending to be an attorney?

This is against the law if they are NOT an attorney and/or not going to file a lawsuit.

Sorry for bumping an old thread, but I have some CA calling me that is spoofing their number. When I call it back, an hour later, it says it is not a working number. Needless to say, here I am checking on these laws again.

 

NeverQuietHere

Im new to this site , but is there a thread or a link to updated information about these laws?

This thread almost exactly one year old. Happy 4th of July !

 

Thank You

uncer

[ICANHASMUNY?]

I had a CA text me the other day acting like an attorney. Since I am seeking another suit against a creditor I thought it was an attorney I contacted. When I called the number back, the person on the phone acted like an attorney, and threatened me with a lawsuit. Over 285.00. lol. My question is, how does this effect the law under a CA contacting your cell phone by text, threatening legal action and pretending to be an attorney?

This is against the law if they are NOT an attorney and/or not going to file a lawsuit.

Sorry for bumping an old thread, but I have some CA calling me that is spoofing their number. When I call it back, an hour later, it says it is not a working number. Needless to say, here I am checking on these laws again.

 

NeverQuietHere

Im new to this site , but is there a thread or a link to updated information about these laws?

This thread almost exactly one year old. Happy 4th of July !

 

Thank You

uncer

 

it's robocaller that won't accept incoming calls.

 

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/caller-id-and-spoofing

 

that text is a violation of the FDCPA.

 

http://www.acainternational.org/news-truth-in-caller-id-act-amends-tcpa-18181.aspx

 

The Truth in Caller ID Act is not limited to only individuals engaged in telemarketing services. Rather, the Act broadly applies to any person attempting to manipulate caller ID information to display inaccurate information with the intent to cause harm or deceive a consumer. Therefore, the Act applies to any individual including third-party debt collectors, creditors and asset buyers.

 

text of the act as published in the federa register.

 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-20/pdf/2011-18165.pdf#page=1

 

 

harm - is defined as being harrased