DCUC Joins Broad Coalition of Financial, Banking, and Technology Associations in FCC Filing Opposing Foreign Call Center Rule Proposal

WASHINGTON, DC – The Defense Credit Union Council (DCUC) recently joined a broad coalition of national banking, credit union, financial services, payments, housing, fintech, and student loan trade associations in submitting formal comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC): ​

“The American Bankers Association, American Financial Services Association, America’s Credit Unions, Bank Policy Institute, Consumer Bankers Association, Defense Credit Union Council, Electronic Transactions Association, Financial Technology Association, Housing Policy Council, Mortgage Bankers Association, Payments Leadership Council, and Student Loan Servicing Alliance (collectively, the Associations) appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Federal Communications Commission’s (Commission or FCC) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Proposal) that would impose certain requirements on the customer call centers of telecommunications companies that are located abroad.” 
 
The Associations commended the Commission’s recent actions targeting illegal call spoofing, including stronger “know your customer” requirements for originating providers and “know your upstream provider” obligations for voice service networks. The Associations expressed support of ongoing enforcement actions aimed at disrupting illegal robocalling operations and fraudulent call schemes. 
 
However, the Associations state that the proposed foreign call center requirements would not advance the Commission’s fraud prevention goals and that neither the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) nor Section 251(e) of the Communications Act provides clear statutory authority for such sweeping regulation of business call center operations. 
 
“As the FCC is aware, Congress passed the TCPA in 1991 in response to the public’s outcry over abusive, automated telemarketing practices that were found to invade consumers’ privacy and threaten public safety by continually dialing emergency, hospital, and other medical phone numbers, blocking access for consumers in need of assistance. Congress found that the use of certain automated calling technologies—autodialers11 and prerecorded voice messages— allowed telemarketers to place large numbers of calls to consumers’ residential and cell phone lines at negligible cost to the telemarketer, leading to an “increasing number of consumers complaints.” In response, Congress enacted the TCPA, which imposed specific restrictions on autodialed and prerecorded voice calls, including a requirement that these calls may be placed only with the recipient’s prior express consent.” 
 
The Associations continued, stating:  
“Nothing in the TCPA or its legislative history provides support for extending the TCPA regulations to cover call centers, which existed in 1991, but were not among the issues Congress sought to address. Interpreting the statute that way would distort its purpose and stretch a consumer-protection law beyond the problem Congress set out to solve. The TCPA targets abusive calls to American consumers using a certain technology, not the location where the calls are placed or the English language skills of the caller. Similarly, section 251(e) of the Communications Act addresses the distribution and administration of telephone numbers to ensure the assignment of numbers to consumers and businesses is done uniformly, competitively, and in the public’s interest. Section 251(e) says nothing about how businesses may operate their call centers. It is not a grant of authority to regulate the foreign call centers of non-telecommunications companies.” 
 
The official comments also raised constitutional concerns under the “major questions doctrine,” explaining that the FCC lacks clear congressional authorization to impose operational mandates that would fundamentally alter how businesses manage customer service communications, particularly those involving foreign-based support operations. 
 
“Both the text of the TCPA and its legislative history clearly answer that the Act does not provide the Commission with this authority. The TCPA’s core provision prohibits autodialed or prerecorded or artificial voice calls without the prior express consent of the called party. In addition, section 227(c) of the TCPA requires the Commission to prescribe methods and procedures to “protect residential telephone subscribers’ privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone solicitations to which they object.” Section 227(d) requires the Commission to “prescribe technical and procedural standards for systems that are used to transmit any artificial or prerecorded voice message via telephone.” None of these provisions – or any other provision in the TCPA – authorizes the regulation of calls based on the location from which the call originated or to address perceived deficiencies in the English language skills of callers.” 
 
The Associations encourage the FCC to continue pursuing targeted, legally grounded actions that directly address illegal spoofing and fraudulent calling practices without disrupting legitimate customer service operations: 
 
“The Associations support the Commission’s policy and enforcement actions targeting illegal call spoofing, and we urge the Commission to finalize its proposals that would provide stronger “know your customer” and “know your upstream provider” requirements on voice service providers. But the Proposal would not advance the Commission’s anti-fraud policy agenda. Instead, it would regulate valued customer-service communications between our members--which are not telecommunications providers—and their customers. And the Commission would regulate these communications involving legitimate businesses’ foreign call centers without congressional authorization to do so. We urge the Commission not to advance these aspects of the Proposal.” 
 
View the full text for the Associations’ filing here.