Overview
Title
To strengthen certain provisions relating to restrictions on robocalls and telemarketing, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 7116 wants to make rules to stop robocalls and trick phone calls from bothering people. It says companies have to tell people if they're using smart computers to make calls and promises to block annoying calls for free.
Summary AI
H.R. 7116, known as the "Do Not Disturb Act," aims to strengthen regulations on robocalls and telemarketing in the United States. The bill proposes amendments to the Communications Act and the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, focusing on limiting robocalls and text messages, especially those that use artificial intelligence. It includes measures like requiring disclosure when AI is used in calls or texts and enhancing penalties for violations involving AI impersonations. Additionally, the bill mandates providers to offer robocall-blocking services at no extra cost to users.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, known as the "Do Not Disturb Act," seeks to enhance and update rules and restrictions regarding robocalls and telemarketing, addressing recent technological advances such as artificial intelligence (AI). The bill is structured into two primary sections: one directed at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the other at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FCC's focus includes tightening robocall definitions and penalties, especially those involving AI, requiring free robocall-blocking services, and setting VoIP-specific rules. Meanwhile, the FTC's efforts broaden telemarketing definitions to cover text messages and enforce disclosure when AI is used.
Summary of Significant Issues
A crucial challenge inherent to the bill is the ambiguity in defining certain technological aspects, such as "artificial intelligence" in the context of robocalls and the vague criteria for "substantial human intervention." These unclear definitions could lead to various interpretations, complicating consistent enforcement and compliance.
Equally significant is the amendment altering the frequency of robocall reports from annually to every three years, which might inadvertently reduce effective oversight on telecommunication abuses, allowing potentially harmful trends to persist longer. Furthermore, certain sections related to voice service providers involve substantial compliance requirements, which could overwhelm smaller companies, possibly reducing competitive diversity within the telecommunications market.
Public Impact
For the general public, the bill's crackdown on robocalls, especially those using AI, could lead to a significant reduction in annoying and potentially fraudulent calls. These measures aim to safeguard personal privacy and security, making telecommunication more consumer-friendly. On the flip side, the vague definitions might create loopholes that could be exploited, potentially minimizing the effectiveness of these provisions.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For consumers, the bill may offer a beneficial reduction in unsolicited and intrusive calls, thus promoting greater trust in telecommunications. However, there are concerns about enforcement clarity and technological advancements outpacing legislative oversight.
For businesses and service providers, particularly smaller VoIP companies, the rigorous compliance requirements could present financial challenges and technical burdens, potentially leading to market exit for businesses unable to meet the new demands. Meanwhile, larger telecom providers might shoulder increased initial costs of compliance, though they are likely better positioned to absorb these changes financially than their smaller counterparts.
From a regulatory perspective, both the FCC and FTC will have intensified roles in supervising and enforcing these rules. This increase in regulatory scope might require enhancements in resources and capabilities to adequately manage compliance and enforcement efforts.
Overall, while the "Do Not Disturb Act" represents a robust attempt to address increasingly sophisticated telecommunications challenges, it also reflects the complexities and potential pitfalls inherent in legislating technological regulation. The effectiveness of its implementation will hinge largely on how ambiguities are resolved and how different stakeholders, including enforcers and businesses, interpret and adhere to the provisions.
Issues
The definition of 'substantial human intervention' in Section 101 lacks clarity, potentially leading to inconsistent interpretations and enforcement challenges of what constitutes a 'robocall'.
The amendment of reporting frequency in Section 103 from annually to every 3 years could reduce oversight on robocall abuses, allowing problematic trends to persist unaddressed for longer periods.
Sections 104 and 105 addressing AI in robocalls lack clear definitions of 'artificial intelligence' and enforcement mechanisms, potentially leading to ambiguity in how rules are applied and compliance is ensured.
Section 102's vague 'authentication framework' and undefined budget for the trace back study could result in impractical implementations and excessive costs, impacting the scope and effectiveness of the study.
Section 106 places significant compliance responsibilities and potential liabilities on VoIP service providers, which could particularly challenge smaller providers, affecting market competition.
The absence of defined penalties for non-compliance with AI disclosure requirements in telemarketing in Section 203 limits the potential effectiveness of the rule.
The text includes extensive technical and legal terminology that may not be easily accessible or understandable to the general public, which might affect informed public discourse and engagement with the legislation.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title; table of contents Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Do Not Disturb Act is divided into two main titles related to communications. Title I outlines various measures for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), including restrictions and penalties for robocalls, especially those involving AI. Title II deals with the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) regulations, expanding the scope of telemarketing to include text messages, and setting stricter rules for AI use in telemarketing.
101. Robocall restrictions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section of the bill modifies the Communications Act of 1934 to clarify the definition of "robocalls" and specifies that those are calls or text messages sent using automated systems or prerecorded messages, unless substantial human intervention is involved. It also updates restrictions and technical standards related to robocalls, adjusts rules on caller identification, and mandates annual reports to Congress about robocall violations and misleading caller IDs.
102. Text message authentication and trace back study Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section mandates the Commission to study the possibility of creating a system to verify text messages and to help trace their origins, by consulting with key stakeholders. It requires the Commission to report their findings to Congress within 18 months, and it defines "text message" in accordance with the Communications Act of 1934.
103. Annual robocall report Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section modifies the way notices are sent out regarding robocalls, changing the frequency from every year to every three years. It also clarifies that a suspected unlawful robocall does not include a text message.
104. Disclosure required for robocalls using AI Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
To comply with a new rule in the Communications Act of 1934, any person making a robocall that uses artificial intelligence to sound like a human must let the person receiving the call or text know right at the start that AI is being used.
105. Enhanced penalties for violations involving AI voice or text message impersonation Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The new section of the law doubles the penalties for anyone caught using artificial intelligence to impersonate someone in voice or text messages with the intent to cheat, cause harm, or obtain something of value. This will apply to any violations happening after the law is passed.
106. Certain requirements for VoIP service providers Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section provides that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) must create rules requiring VoIP service providers to verify customer identities, monitor for robocall activity, and investigate potential violations within a year. If a customer is found making illegal robocalls, the provider must take action and report to the FCC. Additionally, company leaders and major owners are held accountable for compliance, and non-compliant providers risk being suspended from a database that helps manage robocalls.
107. Tracking of top 100 illegal robocall campaigns Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill requires the Commission to create a system within one year to track the top 100 illegal robocall campaigns, and to publish a monthly report on these campaigns online. It also defines a "robocall" based on the Communications Act of 1934.
108. Offering of robocall-blocking service at no charge to customer Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Section 108 of the amendment to the Communications Act of 1934 mandates that voice service providers must offer a free robocall-blocking service to their customers. This service enables customers to block calls that are likely to be illegal, and the regulations for implementing this requirement must be established within 180 days of the enactment.
109. Telephone solicitation Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Section 109 of the bill amends the definition of "telephone solicitation" within the Communications Act of 1934 to include calls or text messages made with the intent to deceive, commit fraud, or promote the sale or rental of goods and services. However, it excludes calls or messages sent with prior consent, to those with an existing business relationship, or made by nonprofit organizations.
110. Commission defined Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section, the term "Commission" is defined as the Federal Communications Commission.
201. Addition of text message to the definition of telemarketing Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act expands the definition of telemarketing to include text messages, which cover various types of messaging like SMS, MMS, and RCS, but it specifically excludes real-time voice or video communications.
202. Adoption of regulations on inbound telephone calls and expanded calling time restrictions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Commission to update rules for telemarketing within one year, focusing on two main areas: inbound calls, making sure they don't involve deceptive or abusive practices, except for catalog-related calls, and calling time restrictions, which will prevent telemarketers from calling anyone's home outside the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. based on the local time where the person being called lives.
203. Disclosure required for telemarketing using AI Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill requires the Commission to update the Telemarketing Sales Rule within 180 days to ensure that any telemarketing call or text message using artificial intelligence to mimic a human must disclose the use of AI at the start of the interaction. The terms “telemarketing” and “text message” will align with definitions from existing legislation, as modified by this Act.
204. Enhanced penalties for violations of telemarketing rules involving AI voice or text message impersonation Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section introduces enhanced penalties for telemarketing violations involving AI voice or text impersonation, doubling the maximum civil penalties for cases where AI is used to impersonate someone with the intent to defraud or cause harm. These changes apply to violations occurring after the law is enacted.
205. Commission defined Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section, the term “Commission” is defined as the Federal Trade Commission.