Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls

<RULE> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION <CFR>47 CFR Part 64</CFR> <DEPDOC>[CG Docket No. 17-59; FCC 25-15; FR ID 285031]</DEPDOC> <SUBJECT>Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls</SUBJECT> <HD SOURCE="HED">AGENCY:</HD> Federal Communications Commission. <HD SOURCE="HED">ACTION:</HD> Final rule. <SUM> <HD SOURCE="HED">SUMMARY:</HD> In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) modifies its existing call blocking rules. Specifically, the Commission requires all domestic voice service providers to block based on a reasonable do-not-originate (DNO) list. Second, it requires voice service providers to return Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) code 603+ when calls are blocked based on reasonable analytics. </SUM> <EFFDATE> <HD SOURCE="HED">DATES:</HD> Effective March 25, 2026, except for the amendment to 47 CFR 64.1200(o) which are delayed indefinitely. The amendments to 47 CFR 64.1200(o) will become effective following publication of a document in the <E T="04">Federal Register</E> announcing approval of the information collection and the relevant effective date. </EFFDATE> <FURINF> <HD SOURCE="HED">FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:</HD> Jerusha Burnett, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, email at <E T="03">jerusha.burnett@fcc.gov</E> or by phone at (202) 418-0526. For information regarding the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) information collection requirements contained in the PRA, contact Cathy Williams, Office of Managing Director, at (202) 418-2918, or <E T="03">Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov</E> . </FURINF> <SUPLINF> <HD SOURCE="HED">SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:</HD> This is a summary of the Commission's <E T="03">Report and Order,</E> in CG Docket No. 17-59, FCC 25-15, adopted on February 27, 2025, and released on February 28, 2025. The full text of this document is available online at <E T="03">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-15A1.pdf</E> . To request this document in accessible formats for people with disabilities ( <E T="03">e.g.,</E> Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format) or to request reasonable accommodations ( <E T="03">e.g.,</E> accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART), send an email to <E T="03">fcc504@fcc.gov</E> or call the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530. <HD SOURCE="HD1">Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis</HD> This document contains new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. This document will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the new or modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. <HD SOURCE="HD1">Congressional Review Act</HD> The Commission sent a copy of the <E T="03">Report and Order</E> to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, <E T="03">see</E> 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). <HD SOURCE="HD1">Synopsis</HD> 1. In this Report and Order, the Commission strengthens its call blocking and robocall mitigation rules in key areas. First, the Commission expands its requirement to block calls based on a reasonable do-not-originate (DNO) list to include all U.S.-based providers in the call path. The Commission next establishes Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) code 603+ as the exclusive code to notify callers when calls on internet Protocol (IP) networks are blocked based on reasonable analytics to better correct erroneous blocking. <HD SOURCE="HD1">Requiring All Providers To Block Using a Reasonable Do-Not-Originate List</HD> 2. The Commission adopts its proposal to require all providers in the call path to block calls that are highly likely to be illegal based on a reasonable DNO list. Requiring all providers to block using a reasonable DNO list ensures that this type of blocking protects all voice customers. Even if some providers use more limited lists that are nonetheless reasonable, either out of concern that lawful calls may be blocked or because of technical limitations, consumers will be better protected because other providers in the call path may use more extensive lists, or even slightly different lists. The Commission therefore agrees with commenters that broadly support extension of the DNO blocking requirement to all voice service providers. The Commission makes this requirement effective 90 days after publication of a notice of Office of Management and Budget approval in the <E T="04">Federal Register</E> . 3. While the Commission agrees with USTelecom that many providers already block based on such lists, it disagrees with it that this makes a mandate unnecessary. Requiring more providers to block based on a DNO list will ensure that more consumers are protected from illegal calls. Further, the Commission is unpersuaded that any potential inefficiencies that stem from requiring all providers to block based on a reasonable DNO list outweigh the potential benefits. A provider may implement this requirement in whatever method makes sense for its network, so long as the list is applied to all calls that transit the provider's network. The Commission also declines to adopt a safe harbor for blocking based on a reasonable DNO list, as Cloud Communications Alliance suggests, because it is unclear what liability a provider would face for blocking based on a such a list and the Commission is unaware of any provider facing such liability since the Commission first authorized this blocking in 2017. 4. <E T="03">Scope of the List.</E> Consistent with the Commission's rule for gateway providers and messaging providers, the Commission does not mandate the use of a specific list, but allows providers to use any DNO list so long as the list is reasonable. The Commission similarly does not change the scope of numbers that may be included on a reasonable DNO list. This ensures that its rule for gateway providers is consistent with the Commission's rule for all other providers and ensures that the categories of numbers from which there is no valid reason for calls to originate can be included on the list. Such a list may include only invalid, unallocated, and unused numbers, as well as numbers for which the subscriber has requested blocking. The Commission clarifies that, to be considered reasonable, a list may include only the above-referenced categories of numbers and need not include all possible covered numbers. This is particularly true for unused numbers, which may be difficult for some providers to identify in some cases. The Commission may, however, deem unreasonable a list so limited in scope that it leaves out obvious numbers that could be included with little effort. The Commission finds that the current categories of numbers appropriately balance the certainty that calls are highly likely to be illegal with the need to protect consumers from those calls. The Commission therefore agrees with commenters that ask it not to change the scope of numbers that may be included on a reasonable DNO list. 5. Consistent with the Commission's rule, it does not adopt a single uniform list or establish a minimum list. Providers must constantly update DNO lists, especially if they include unused numbers that could go into use at any time, and there is not currently a standardized way to ensure that these updates would happen in real time for all providers. While this is true of either a centralized list or a provider-maintained list, a provider-maintained list may, for example, include only unused numbers assigned to that provider and automate number drop-off upon putting the number into use—or simply leave off these numbers if they cannot reasonably do so. Additionally, as Neustar notes, some voice service providers may have “limitations in the number of DNO numbers that they can use” due to “older or less capable networking equipment.” A provider-selected list better accounts for this issue than a uniform list, and technical limitations provide a valid reason for some numbers to be excluded. The Commission also recognizes that providers know their own networks and may be better positioned to determine what types of numbers should be prioritized. By contrast, a central list would need to include rules prioritizing particular numbers across the U.S. network, which may not be the best approach in all cases. The Commission therefore agrees with Neustar that granting flexibility to providers allows them “to adapt or customize their DNO list based on their customer base, traffic profile, and other reasonable considerations. This will help those voice service providers maximize protections for their customers.” 6. The Commission therefore disagrees with commenters who argue that it should adopt a uniform list or establish a minimum list, require a more comprehensive list, or “set the criteria for inbound-only numbers to be the same as for government inbound-only numbers.” Because of the potential technological limitations discussed above, the Commission declines to mandate a more extensive list at this time. The Commission also maintains its previous approach, which allows providers to exercise discretion as to what numbers they include on their lists, so long as the list includes, at a minimum: (1) “any inbound-only government numbers where the government entity has requested the number be included;” and (2) “private inbound-only numbers that have been used in imposter scams, when a request is made by the private entity assigned such a number.” Providers may, of course, include inbound-only numbers that have not been used in imposter scams if they are capable of doing so. 7. Moreover, while Somos correctly notes that “the mor ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ Preview showing 10k of 65k characters. Full document text is stored and available for version comparison. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━