FTC Comment Before the Federal Communications Commission Regarding Liability for Telemarketing Calls Under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), CG Docket No. 11-50

Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Petitions Seeking Rulings on
Certain Definitions under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 and its
Related Rules
)
)
) 	CG Docket No. 11-50
)
)
)
COMMENT OF THE
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
The Federal Trade Commission appreciates this opportunity to provide
comments in response to the Public Notice (DA 11-594) released on April 4, 2011. That
Public Notice requested comments on two questions:
1. 	“Under the TCPA, does a call placed by an entity that markets the seller’s goods
or services qualify as a call made on behalf of, and initiated by, the seller, even if
the seller does not make the telephone call (i.e., physically place the call)?”
2. 	“What should determine whether a telemarketing call is made ‘on behalf of’ a
seller, thus triggering liability for the seller under the TCPA? Should federal
common law agency principles apply? What, if any, other principles could be
used to define ‘on behalf of’ liability for a seller under the TCPA?”1
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”)2 urges the Federal Communications
Commission (“FCC”) to hold that: (1) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(“TCPA”), a call placed by an entity that markets the seller’s goods or services does,
indeed, qualify as a call made on behalf of, and initiated by, the seller even if the seller
did not place the call; and (2) the plain meaning of “on behalf of” should be employed
when determining whether a seller should be held liable for a marketer’s violative
1 The Public Notice also states: “Additionally, we solicit comments addressing the applicability of
federal agency law and federal joint venture law to the TCPA liability questions presented herein.”
2 One of the petitions that led to the FCC’s initiation of this proceeding arose from a Telemarketing Sales
Rule enforcement action against DISH Network that is being litigated by the United States Department of
Justice (“DOJ”) on behalf of the FTC. United States and the States of California, Illinois, North Carolina and
Ohio v. DISH Network, LLC, Case No. 09-cv-3073, Order (C.D. Ill. order of February 4, 2011) (directing the
parties to seek FCC guidance under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction). That case involves tens of
thousands of complaints that consumers filed with the FTC, evidence of DISH Network and its marketers
calling consumers whose telephone numbers were on the Do Not Call Registry, and evidence of DISH
Network marketers improperly using pre-recorded telemarketing messages.

2
telephone calls made to market or sell the seller’s goods or services. The FTC also urges
the FCC to rule that the TCPA creates a statutory cause of action that imposes liability
on a seller or a marketer for its violations, unless the seller or marketer can show that it
satisfies the requirements set forth in the safe harbor. As described below, protecting
consumers’ privacy demands a uniform and comprehensive interpretation of “on behalf
of.” The plain meaning of the words “on behalf of,” as well as the regulatory
framework of the TCPA itself support this interpretation. Similarly, Congress’s intent
in passing the TCPA strongly militates against any attempt to import federal agency
law and joint-venture law into the TCPA and its related rules. A more restrictive
interpretation could jeopardize Congress’s privacy-protection goals.
Background
The FTC is an independent administrative agency charged with promoting
consumer protection, competition, and the efficient functioning of the marketplace. Our
law enforcement authority in the consumer protection arena is primarily based on
Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), which prohibits “unfair or
deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce,”3 as well as various statutes and
rules, including the Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”).4 As illustrated by the FTC’s case
against DISH Network,5 enforcing the Do Not Call provisions of the TSR is one of the
FTC’s core consumer-protection responsibilities in the arena of safeguarding
Americans’ privacy.
In 1991, Congress found that telemarketing had grown substantially and that
calls seeking to sell products and services “can be an intrusive invasion of privacy.”6
Congress further found that “[o]ver half the States now have statutes restricting various
uses of the telephone for marketing, but telemarketers can evade their prohibitions
through interstate operations.” 7 A Congressional committee recognized that, “federal
legislation [was] needed to both relieve states of a portion of their regulatory burden
and protect legitimate telemarketers from having to meet multiple legal standards.”8
Congress accordingly enacted the TCPA to give the FCC the authority to regulate
interstate and intrastate telemarketing. 9 Pursuant to the TCPA, the FCC in 1992
3 15 U.S.C. § 45(a).
4 16 CFR Part 310.
5 See fn.2, supra.
6 Pub. L. No. 102-243, §§ 2(4), 2(5), 105 Stat. 2394 (1991). See 47 U.S.C. § 227 notes.
7 Id.
8 H.R. Rep. 102-317 (1991), at 10.
9 See generally 47 U.S.C. § 227. Beyond empowering the FCC and the state Attorneys General to enforce
the statute, see 47 U.S.C. § 227(f)(1), (3), the TCPA creates a private right of action. This right of action
allows individuals to seek injunctive relief and damages if they have “received more than one telephone
footnote continues …

3
promulgated rules, including the “entity-specific” Do Not Call Rule, that allows
consumers to tell particular sellers and their telemarketers to stop calling. 10
To further address issues related to deceptive and abusive telemarketing,
Congress passed the Telemarketing Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act11 (the
“Telemarketing Act”) in 1994. In the Telemarketing Act, Congress authorized the FTC
to adopt rules “prohibiting … abusive telemarketing acts or practices,” including any
“pattern of unsolicited telephone calls which the reasonable consumer would consider
coercive or abusive of such consumer’s right to privacy.” 12 Pursuant to this authority,
the FTC promulgated the TSR in 1995. The TSR, as originally promulgated, also
contained an entity-specific Do Not Call Rule.
In 2000, the FTC began a formal proceeding to review the effectiveness of the
TSR. Consumer comments submitted during that review overwhelmingly sounded the
theme that the entity-specific Do Not Call regime was inadequate to protect privacy and
stop the intrusion of unwanted sales calls.13 Accordingly, the FTC amended the TSR in
2003 to create a nationwide Do Not Call Rule that allowed consumers to list their
personal telephone numbers on the national Do Not Call Registry and required sellers
and telemarketers to remove these registered numbers from their call lists.
At about the same time, the FCC undertook to amend its TCPA-related rules to
better harmonize them with the FTC’s national Do Not Call Rule and to utilize the new
Registry. 14 The FTC and the FCC’s Do Not Call Rules prohibit sellers and marketers
… continued footnote
call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the regulations
prescribed under this subsection.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5). See also 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3) (creating private
right of action for violation of restrictions on use of automated telephone equipment).
10 47 CFR § 64.1200.
11 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101-6108.
12 15 U.S.C. §§ 6102(a)(1), (a)(3)(A).
13 Consumer comments criticized the then-existing rule’s ineffectiveness because: the entity-specific
approach required them to repeat their “do-not-call” request with each and every telemarketer that
called; telemarketers routinely ignored their repeated requests to be placed on a “do-not-call” list; they
had no way to verify whether their names had been taken off a company’s call list; and attempting to
vindicate privacy rights through the TCPA’s private right of action was a complex, time consuming
process that placed an excessive evidentiary burden on the consumer to keep detailed lists of who called
and too often failed to result in an enforceable judgment.
14 Similarly, both the FTC and the FCC’s telemarketing rules prohibit the use of artificial or prerecorded
voices to deliver telephone solicitations (“robocalls”) without the prior consent of the called party. 16
CFR § 310.4(b)(1)(v), 47 CFR § 64.1200(a)(2). Both agencies have taken recent action to ensure that their
approach to robocalls remains effective and consistent. See
http://www.ftc.gov/os/fedreg/2008/august/080829tsr.pdf and
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-18A1.pdf.

4
from calling numbers on the Registry (or employing robocalls) unless they can
demonstrate either that they comply with the safe-harbor provisions or that their calls
fall within the “established business relationship” or “prior consent” exceptions. Both
Rules impose liability on sellers and marketers who fail to fulfill those legal
obligations. 15 The Do Not Call Rules and the other complementary privacy-protecting
provisions of both the FTC and the FCC’s regulatory regimes advance substantial
government interests of protecting the privacy of individuals in their homes and
protecting consumers against the risk of fraudulent and abusive solicitations. 16
The FTC takes seriously its responsibility to enforce the TSR to protect consumer
privacy and protect consumers against deceptive and unfair telemarketing practices.
Since the National Do Not Call Registry was established in 2003, the FTC has filed 59
law enforcement actions alleging Do Not Call violations.17 Twenty-eight of those cases
focused exclusively on violations of the Do Not Call and related privacy protection
provisions of the TSR (as opposed to other provisions of the TSR which prohibit, among
other activities, abusive and deceptive acts and practices). Virtually all of the
Commission’s TSR enforcement actions result in permanent injunctions that prohibit
defendants’ deceptive or abusive marketing or sales practices and in some cases ban
defendants entirely from telemarketing. Overall, the FTC’s TSR enforcement actions
have resulted in orders providing for more than $540 million in consumer restitution or
disgorgement of funds to the United States Treasury. In addition, through cases filed
on its behalf by DOJ,18 the FTC has obtained civil penalty orders and equitable
monetary relief totaling nearly $31 million since 2003.
15 See 47 CFR § 64.1200(c)(2) and 16 CFR § 310.4(b)(3). See also Report to Congress Pursuant to the Do Not
Call Implementation Act on Regulatory Coordination in Federal Telemarketing Laws at 1 (2003) (noting that the
FTC and the FCC’s Do Not Call Rules are largely the same) (available at
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/09/dnciareport.pdf).
16 See, e.g., Mainstream Marketing Servs., Inc. v. FTC, 358 F.3d 1228, 1237 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 812
(2004) (“The government asserts that the do-not-call regulations are justified by its interests in
1) protecting the privacy of individuals in their homes, and 2) protecting consumers against the risk of
fraudulent and abusive solicitation. See 68 Fed.Reg. 44144; 68 Fed.Reg. at 4635. Both of these
justifications are undisputedly substantial governmental interests.”).
17 The FTC has an extensive record of robust law enforcement against fraudulent and abusive
telemarketers. Since promulgation of the original TSR in 1995, the FTC has brought more than 300 cases
aimed at halting various telemarketing frauds. The Commission’s anti-fraud TSR enforcement has
targeted unauthorized debiting of consumers’ financial accounts and deceptive sales of various goods
and services (e.g., work-at-home scams, advance-fee credit frauds, bogus government grant schemes,
sweepstakes and prize promotions). Prior to the enactment of the TSR, the FTC brought 110
telemarketing cases pursuant to Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or
practices in or affecting commerce.” 15 U.S.C. § 45(a).
18 Civil penalty actions are filed by the United States Department of Justice on behalf of the FTC. In
general, under the FTC Act, the FTC must notify the Attorney General of its intention to commence,
defend, or intervene in any civil penalty action under the Act. 15 U.S.C. § 56(a)(1). DOJ then has 45 days,
from the date of the receipt of notification by the Attorney General, in which to commence, defend or
footnote continues …

5
As both agencies have recognized, uniform application of the Do Not Call Rules
is beneficial to consumers and businesses alike. Accordingly, the FTC recommends that
the FCC ensure that its approach to telemarketing enforcement remains consistent with
the FTC’s longstanding approach. Conformity in this regard is essential to promote key
law enforcement goals and to effectuate Congress’s mandate to create a federal
standard for protecting consumers’ privacy.
Analysis
The first question posed by the FCC’s Public Notice asks whether, under the
TCPA, a call placed by an entity that markets the seller’s goods or services qualifies as a
call made on behalf of, and initiated by, the seller, even if the seller does not make the
telephone call. To comport with FCC precedent and to ensure that law enforcement
approaches to combat telemarketing violations under TCPA parallel those under the
Telemarketing Act, the answer to this question should be yes. To reach any other
conclusion would thwart Congress’s goals in passing legislation to combat
telemarketing abuses.
FCC precedent establishes that an entity can be liable under the TCPA for a call
made on its behalf even if the entity did not itself place the call. In 1995, the FCC stated
in a Memorandum Opinion and Order (the “1995 Order”) that “rules generally establish
that the party on whose behalf a solicitation is made bears ultimate responsibility for
any violations.” 19 Thus, as the FCC has explained, “[c]alls placed by an agent of a
telemarketer are treated as if the telemarketer itself placed the call.” 20 The FCC’s
interpretation of its rules in the 1995 Order—that, for an entity to be liable for calls it did
not place, the calls must have been placed “on behalf of” the entity—is consistent with
the language of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), which establishes the private right of
action for persons who have received more than one unlawful telemarketing call “by or
on behalf of” the same entity. Thus, under those circumstances, the entity is properly
deemed to have initiated the call through the person or entity that actually placed the
call.
Subsequent FCC precedent confirms this interpretation. In a 2005 declaratory
ruling that addressed telemarketing calls made by agents on behalf of an insurance
company, the FCC “t[ook] th[e] opportunity to reiterate that a company on whose
behalf a telephone solicitation is made bears the responsibility for any violation of our
… continued footnote
intervene in the suit. Id. If DOJ does not act within the 45-day period, the FTC may file the case in its
own name, using its own attorneys. Id.
19 Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Memorandum Opinion
and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 12391, 12397 ¶ 13 (1995).
20 Id.

6
telemarketing rules and calls placed by a third party on behalf of that company are
treated as if the company itself placed the call.”21 And, reflecting a similar
understanding of the TCPA, the FCC has approved consent decrees that concluded
investigations into possible TCPA violations by entities on whose behalf third-party
telemarketers made allegedly unlawful calls.22 Thus, in response to the Public Notice’s
first question, it is clear that an entity may be held liable under the TCPA and the FCC’s
regulations for calls made on its behalf, even though the entity did not itself place those
calls.
Similarly, the FTC has consistently maintained that sellers are responsible for
their marketers’ telephone calls to solicit purchases of the seller’s goods or services.
Although the TSR uses the verb “cause” rather than “initiate,” the FTC’s approach to
protecting consumers’ privacy is the same: a seller cannot escape liability for the
telemarketing violations of its marketer. In its cases against DirecTV and ADT Security
Services, for example, the FTC alleged that both sellers were responsible for the
violations of their authorized dealers.23 As then-Chairman Majoras noted in connection
with the DirecTV settlement, “This multimillion dollar penalty drives home a simple
point: Sellers are on the hook for calls placed on their behalf. The Do Not Call Rule
applies to all players in the marketing chain, including retailers and their
telemarketers.” 24
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois has reached a similar
conclusion in the DISH Network case. In denying DISH Network’s motion to dismiss,
the court held that no formal principal-agent relationship was necessary to impose
TCPA liability on DISH Network.25 Rather, it was sufficient if DISH retailers “acted as
DISH Network’s representatives, or for the benefit of DISH Network.” 26
21 Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991; Request of State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Company for Clarification and Declaratory Ruling, Declaratory Ruling, 20 FCC
Rcd 13664, 13667 ¶ 7 (2005) (citing 1995 Order ¶ 13).
22 See, e.g., In the Matter of T-Mobile, USA, Inc., Order, 20 FCC Rcd 18272 (2005); In the Matter of NOS
Communications, Inc., Order, 22 FCC Rcd 19396 (2007).
23 See United States v. DirecTV, Case No. 8:05-cv-01211 (C.D. Cal. complaint filed Dec. 14, 2005) (FTC
matter no. 042-3039), press release available at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/12/directv.shtm; and
United States v. ADT Security Services, Inc., Case No. 9:07-cv-81051 (S.D. Fla. complaint filed Nov. 6, 2007)
(FTC matter no. 042-3091), press release available at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/11/dncpress.shtm.
24 See http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/12/directv.shtm.
25 See fn.2, supra.
26 United States v. DISH Network, LLC, 667 F. Supp. 2d 952, 963 (C.D. Ill. 2009), certification of interlocutory
appeal denied, No. 09-3073, 2010 WL 376774, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8957 (C.D. Ill. Feb. 4, 2010). A finding
that liability can extend to sellers for their marketers’ telemarketing violations, however, does not end the
inquiry. Both the FCC and the FTC’s telemarketing rules contain a “safe-harbor” provision. See 47 CFR §
64.1200(c)(2) and 16 CFR § 310.4(b)(3). A seller or marketer may avoid liability if it can show that it
complies with the safe-harbor provisions.

7
The FCC’s Public Notice also seeks comment on the question: “What should
determine whether a telemarketing call is made ‘on behalf of’ a seller, thus triggering
liability for the seller under the TCPA? Should federal common law agency principles
apply? What, if any, other principles could be used to define ‘on behalf of’ liability for a
seller under the TCPA?”27
The FTC believes that the term “on behalf of” as used in the TCPA and the FCC’s
TCPA regulations is clear and unambiguous. As the Supreme Court has said, “absent
sufficient indication to the contrary, Congress intends the words in its enactments to
carry ‘their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.’”28 Similarly, if an undefined
term in a regulation is clear and unambiguous, it is applied according to its plain
meaning. 29 	Accordingly, the term “on behalf of” should be accorded its common
meaning.
The common meaning of “on behalf of” is “in the interest of” 30 or “as a
representative of” or “for the benefit of.” 31 This definition is plain and unambiguous.32
A solicitation is therefore “on behalf of” an entity if it is in the entity’s “interest,” in its
“aid,” or for its “benefit.” There is no requirement that the person making the
solicitation be the entity’s “agent.” Thus, the issue of whether the marketer’s efforts are
“on behalf of” the seller, which efforts might have triggered a TCPA violation, turns
upon whether the marketer’s solicitations are in the seller’s “interest” or “aid” or for the
seller’s “benefit.”
Importantly, this common definition also ensures that sellers will not be
rewarded for turning a blind eye to those who market sellers’ goods or services and
whose marketing efforts inure to sellers’ benefit. The seller alone is in the best position
to monitor the manner in which its products are marketed because it knows who is
marketing and because it benefits most substantially from those marketing activities. A
seller’s simple ploy of creating and maintaining an attenuated relationship with the
marketer that induces sales of the seller’s products—and creates a revenue stream
27 The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals noted in Charvat v. EchoStar Satellite, LLC, that the FCC has not
defined the term “on behalf of” with respect to the TCPA and its related rules and that the FCC
supported referral of the issue under the “primary jurisdiction” doctrine. 630 F.3d 459, 465-468 (6th Cir.
2010).
28 Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380 (1993), citing Perrin v. United
States, 444 U.S. 37, 42 (1979).
29 Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576, 588 (2000); Paragon Health Network, Inc. v. Thompson, 251 F.3d
1141, 1145 (7th Cir. 2001).
30 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 103 (10th ed. 1999).
31 Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 198 (2002). See also United States v. Frazier, 53 F.3d 1105,
1112 (10th Cir. 1995); Craven v. United States, 215 F.3d 1201, 1207 (11th Cir. 2000).
32 Madden v. Cowen & Co., 556 F.3d 786, 796-97 (9th Cir. 2009).

8
running directly to the seller—should not insulate that seller from liability for invading
consumers’ privacy rights under the TCPA.
Indeed, a narrower interpretation of “on behalf of” would result in a variety of
scenarios that could completely subvert Congress’s privacy-protection goals. For
example, unless a seller in the United States bears responsibility and liability for calls
placed on its behalf, it would have a strong incentive to set up an attenuated marketing
structure involving entities marketing from overseas to U.S. citizens, possibly offering
deeply discounted services because they can avoid the cost of subscribing to the
Registry and scrubbing their call lists. Because these overseas marketers would not be
within ready reach of United States law enforcement, the seller—who enjoys virtually
all of the benefit generated by the calls—must be liable to foreclose the opportunity to
circumvent the Do Not Call Rules.
Similarly, in the case of entity-specific Do Not Call Rules, it would be
unworkable to hold only the marketer liable for violations. A marketer could commit
telemarketing violations wholly based on the seller’s wrongdoing and an overly-
restrictive interpretation of “on behalf of” could absolve the seller, even if the fault for
the violations lies at the seller’s door. Suppose, for example, that a seller engages
Company A to market the seller’s products. Because Company A interfaces with
recipients of the earlier telemarketing calls, Company A controls the intake point for
consumers’ entity-specific Do Not Call requests, and Company A should see to it that
the information necessary to effectuate those requests is recorded and compiled into an
entity-specific Do Not Call list. Now suppose that the seller terminates its relationship
with Company A and engages Company B to market the seller’s products. If the seller
does not ensure that Company A’s entity-specific Do Not Call list gets transferred to
Company B (or to the seller’s other marketers), the seller and Company B will proceed
as though none of the consumers who told Company A to stop calling had asserted
their entity-specific Do Not Call rights. In such a case, Company B could very likely
violate the entity-specific Do Not Call Rules by placing calls to the seller’s customers
who had asked not to be called. Under these circumstances, if an overly-restrictive
definition of “on behalf of” were used, only Company B would be breaking the law
even though the seller was the bad actor who should be held responsible.
Law enforcement efforts would also be thwarted if the government were
required to sue each marketer separately rather than bring an action against the
ultimate seller. Sellers may have thousands of “independent” marketers, and suing one
or a few of them is unlikely to make a substantive difference for consumer
privacy. Another marketer can simply spring up in its place and violate the law. Also,
in a large network of marketers, it can be difficult and inefficient for the government to
identify which marketers are violating the law. Sellers instead are in the best position to
monitor and enforce compliance of their own marketers. Any other approach would
amount to a game of “whack a mole,” in which the FTC or FCC would sue a marketer

9
or group of marketers, but the overall number of Do Not Call violations would not
decrease.
The FTC and states have sought to stop invasions of consumers’ privacy in the
litigation against DISH Network, LLC, and in prior enforcement actions against other
sellers who operate through similar networks of purportedly “independent” marketers.
By interpreting “on behalf of” to hold sellers liable for marketers’ violative telephone
calls made to market the sellers’ goods or services, the FCC’s approach will be
consistent with current law-enforcement efforts and will effectuate Congress’s
consumer-protection goals.
As the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote when it upheld the national Do Not
Call Rules in 2004:
The national do-not-call registry offers consumers a tool with which they
can protect their homes against intrusions that Congress has determined
to be particularly invasive. Just as a consumer can avoid door-to-door
peddlers by placing a “No Solicitation” sign in his or her front yard, the
do-not-call registry lets consumers avoid unwanted sales pitches that
invade the home via telephone, if they choose to do so.33
A comprehensive interpretation of “on behalf of” will have at least two beneficial
effects to further Congress’s goal. First, it will effectuate consumers’ desire to protect
their privacy and avoid telemarketing calls by encouraging sellers to oversee how their
goods and services are marketed. If sellers know that they will face liability for
telemarketing violations made on sellers’ behalf, sellers will be much more likely to
heed consumers’ telemarketing complaints and discipline the marketers whose
activities generate those complaints. Second, it will help to ensure that the FTC and the
FCC can effectively protect consumers’ privacy by holding both sellers and their
marketers liable for violations of Do Not Call and Robocall Rules. A clear and
comprehensive interpretation of “on behalf of” is critical for effective TCPA
enforcement.
To rely on federal common-law precedents based on agency and/or joint-
venture principles would be to import into the TCPA standards that have no place in
this statutory cause of action. Indeed, there is no basis for adopting a standard
incorporating common law agency principles, such as inquiry into the principal’s
control over the purported agent’s activities. Neither the TCPA nor 47 CFR § 64.1200
contains any reference to these common-law standards. If Congress had intended for
common law standards to determine an entity’s liability for violating the TCPA, it could
33 Mainstream Marketing Servs., Inc. v. FTC, 358 F.3d 1228, 1233 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 812 (2004).

10
easily have omitted the “on behalf of” phrase and defined how “agents” could expose
their “principals” or how “joint venturers” could expose each other to such liability.
Similarly, in promulgating rules pursuant to the TCPA, there would have been little
reason for the FCC to spell out a detailed safe harbor, such as that found in 47 CFR
§ 64.1200(c)(2), if federal common-law principles already limited who might be liable.
Limiting the reach of TCPA liability by applying such principles would be contrary to
the statute’s broad consumer-protection and privacy goals.
Conclusion
The FTC is pleased to share its experience in enforcing consumer protection laws
and rules governing telemarketing and to assist the FCC in crafting policies to help
protect Americans’ privacy and to safeguard consumers from unfair and deceptive
telemarketing practices.