Protecting Consumers From Unauthorized Carrier Changes and Related Unauthorized Charges: Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION <CFR>47 CFR Part 64</CFR> <DEPDOC>[CG Docket No. 17-169, CC Docket No. 98-170; FCC 25-41; FR ID 308892]</DEPDOC> <SUBJECT>Protecting Consumers From Unauthorized Carrier Changes and Related Unauthorized Charges: Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format</SUBJECT> <HD SOURCE="HED">AGENCY:</HD> Federal Communications Commission. <HD SOURCE="HED">ACTION:</HD> Proposed rule. <SUM> <HD SOURCE="HED">SUMMARY:</HD> In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission seeks comment on whether the current slamming and truth-in-billing rules remain necessary today to protect consumers. The Commission proposes changes to modernize and simplify these rules to reflect the evolution of the telecommunications marketplace, retain core consumer protections against unauthorized carriers switches and charges, and reduce regulatory burdens. The Commission seeks comment on whether the slamming rules remain necessary, and if such rules are necessary, the document proposes to modernize and streamline the current rules consistent with the statutory requirements of section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act). The Commission seeks comment on whether the truth-in-billing rules remain necessary and if such rules are necessary, the Commission seeks comment on streamlining them. </SUM> <EFFDATE> <HD SOURCE="HED">DATES:</HD> Comments are due on or before September 22, 2025 and reply comments are due on or before October 21, 2025. </EFFDATE> <HD SOURCE="HED">ADDRESSES:</HD> You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket No. 17-169 and CC Docket No. 98-170, by any of the following methods: • <E T="03">Electronic Filers:</E> Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: <E T="03">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.</E> • <E T="03">Paper Filers:</E> Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by commercial courier, or by U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. • Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. • Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building. <E T="03">People with Disabilities.</E> To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to <E T="03">FCC504@fcc.gov</E> or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice). <FURINF> <HD SOURCE="HED">FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:</HD> Mika Savir of the Consumer Policy Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at <E T="03">Mika.Savir@fcc.gov</E> or (202) 418-0384. </FURINF> <SUPLINF> <HD SOURCE="HED">SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:</HD> This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in CG Docket No. 17-169 and CC Docket No. 98-170; FCC 25-41, adopted on July 24, 2025 and released on July 25, 2025. The full text of this document is available online at <E T="03">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-41A1.pdf.</E> This matter shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's <E T="03">ex parte</E> rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 <E T="03">et seq.</E> Persons making oral <E T="03">ex parte</E> presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. <E T="03">See</E> 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other rules pertaining to oral and written <E T="03">ex parte</E> presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in § 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1206(b). <HD SOURCE="HD1">Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis</HD> This document may contain proposed new or modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on any information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, <E T="03">see</E> 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how to further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. <HD SOURCE="HD1">Synopsis</HD> 1. In this document, the Commission seeks comment on whether slamming, billing comprehension, and cramming are still such a consumer problem that the Commission should keep the current slamming and truth-in-billing rules. If so, the Commission proposes and seeks comment on modernizing and simplifying the rules while preserving the core consumer protections. The Commission proposes to adopt a unified approach to the slamming and billing rules to favor rules that are clear, enforceable, easy-to-understand and implement, and that do not unnecessarily impede innovation. The existing slamming and billing rules may be outdated due to changes in the telephone service market or technology more generally. 2. The Commission promulgated the slamming rules decades ago when consumers frequently had separate local and interexchange carriers and when slamming was a significant consumer issue. Slamming no longer appears to be a consumer problem, yet the current rules prescribe detailed methods of proving consumer consent to a switch. Are the consumer harms that gave rise to the rules still enough of a problem to justify the rules? Can the Commission eliminate the slamming rules and still enforce section 258's requirement that carriers “submit or execute a change in a subscriber's selection of a provider of telephone exchange service or telephone toll service . . . in accordance with such verification procedures as the Commission shall prescribe.” 3. The Commission promulgated the truth-in-billing rules more than a quarter century ago, at a time when confusion about bills and the possibility of third-party scam charges were much more prominent, along with the slamming that the rules made easier to detect. Are the consumer harms that gave rise to the rules still enough of a problem to justify bill regulation? Are consumers protected in other ways that suggest they no longer need federal rules, or at least Commission rules, to protect them? What are the harms of continuing to keep the rules in terms of compliance costs and to innovation in billing and pricing? 4. If the slamming and truth-in-billing rules remain necessary, the Commission seeks comment on proposals to modernize and streamline the rules in order to protect consumers, promote innovation and competition, and avoid imposing unnecessary costs or regulatory burdens on carriers. In addition to the rule language itself, the Commission proposes to consolidate both subjects into a single rule section. Under this proposal, the Commission would consolidate the rules in a single subpart that is titled “Protecting Consumers from Unauthorized Charges and Provider Switches.” Would this make compliance easier? Would it help consumers to more easily locate and understand the rules' related protections? 5. Does the Commission's proposed consolidation promote the goal of rules that are clear, enforceable, easy-to-understand and implement, and that do not unnecessarily impede innovation that benefits consumers? Are there other ways the Commission might reorganize the rules to serve the same goals? Are there other rules that could be consolidated into this subsection to further promote these principles? Would a consolidated and streamlined approach better reflect both current market offerings and the way consumers receive communications services? Are there disparate compliance burdens between large and small carriers that necessitate additional rules changes? 6. <E T="03">Slamming.</E> If slamming rules are retained, the Commission proposes to modernize and streamline the current rules consistent with the statutory requirements of section 258 of the Communications Act. The Commission proposes to replace the prescriptive rules for verifying consumer switches with a simple requirement that would ensure consumers authorize carrier switches, but also give providers flexibility in how they demonstrate that authorization. The Commission proposes to eliminate the rules related to Third Party Verification, Letters of Agency, an electronic authorization, and state-enacted verification procedures applicable to intrastate service. The Commission also proposes to eliminate the requirement that providers ensure consumers can stop, or freeze, any attempt to switch their provider. The Commission proposes this because slamming appears to be a waning consumer issue and thus the need for detailed authorization rules no longer appears necessary. 7. In addition, the Commission proposes to delete “Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, for resolution of the complaint” from § 64.1150(b). This language is not necessary because informal complaints are filed with the Commission, generally through its website, and, although the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau traditionally processes such complaints ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ Preview showing 10k of 48k characters. Full document text is stored and available for version comparison. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━