Two important TCPA proceedings are underway at the FCC. The first proceeding addresses the potential creation of a reassigned number database and the second proceeding involves a host of key issues in the wake of the D.C. Circuit ruling in ACA International v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 15-1211 (D.C. Cir. March. 16, 2018), including reassigned number liability, revocation of consent and the definition of an “automatic telephone dialing system.” Cf. 47 U.S. Code § 227(a)(1).
Drinker Biddle filed comments on behalf of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (“RILA”), a leading trade association for the retail industry, addressing a potential reassigned number database with an accompanying safe harbor for liability, which were covered by Law360 here. RILA’s comments urged the FCC to establish a comprehensive database of reassigned numbers along with a safe harbor for companies that make use of the registry. More than forty comments were filed to the docket by industry participants, compliance vendors, advocacy groups, and carriers. Several other “express comments” were filed by members of the public. Reply comments are due on July 9th.
Given its significance, the second proceeding drew comments from more than sixty interested parties. Drinker Biddle filed comments on behalf of RILA, National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago, and International Pharmaceutical & Medical Device Privacy Consortium. Reply comments are due on June 28th.
Drinker Biddle’s TCPA team will continue to closely monitor these important proceedings as they move forward.
The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.