Telemarketing Company being sued for 82 million dollars

FCC press release and documents:
FCC Proposes $82 Million Fine for Spoofed Telemarketing Robocalls

press release excerpts:
"The Federal Communications Commission today proposed an $82,106,000 fine against an individual who apparently made more than 21 million illegally spoofed robocalls in violation of the Truth in Caller ID Act. ... The FCC found that Best Insurance Contracts and its owner/operator, Mr. Philip Roesel (doing business as Wilmington Insurance Quotes) apparently made millions of illegally spoofed robocalls consumers around the country. Mr. Roesel of Wilmington, North Carolina displayed inaccurate caller ID information when making robocalls in an effort to sell health insurance, which especially targeted vulnerable consumers, including the elderly, the infirm, and low-income families."

I'd guess the harmful "collateral damage" nature of the call campaign outweighed the call count: "In December 2016, a medical paging provider ... complained to Commission staff that robocalling campaigns were disrupting its network."

from Mignon Clyburn's statement: "Just as alarming as it is heartless, by whistleblower accounts, is how this robocall scheme directly and systematically targeted three of the most vulnerable populations: the elderly, the infirmed and poor people. In fact, Mr. Roesel is reported to have told one of his former employees, “the dumber and more broke, the better.”"

Ajit Pai's statement also picked up this arrogant narrowcasting and added that "He was even quoted as repeatedly bragging and “joking” to co-workers that his actions were minor legal violations, akin to driving above the speed limit."

Complaints pulled from the Consumer Sentinel are reproduced as exhibits. Several cite canned messages purporting to be from "the Obamacare Help Line" and teasing that one may "qualify" for a "cash award" and "free" health insurance.

I've examined the threads for all the numbers supplied by the order exhibit. See any pattern there, kids? Phil "Dumb 'n' Broke" Roesel thought he was cute, repeatedly slapping a different area code on the same local number. I've seen something akin to this lazy spoofing before from a medical panic button pusher. The 800Notes complaints line up with the time period stated in the FCC order, and some echo the reported "Obamacare" pitches. I also see signs of heavy call abandonment, which stresses the FTC "safe harbor" for the abuse of autodialers.

https://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-281-211-8439
https://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-727-211-8439
https://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-803-211-8439
https://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-864-211-8439
https://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-904-211-8439
https://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-910-211-8439

Hi Res!

It is encouraging to see the FCC (and FTC) addressing these problems.
Unfortunately, I really doubt the final settlement will be for anything near $80M.
As you are aware, most (if not all) of these scoundrels' payback amounts are SIGNIFICANTLY reduced, because of "inability to pay".

It might be nice to see the final court documents on these cases ... but it will probably be at least a couple of years before the negotiations end and the court appearance (if any) occurs.

Do you have any insight into the "proposed" -vs- "actual" fines involved in these cases?

~~~~~~~~

Something else to throw at the "the gubmint doen't do notin", the "FCC is lazy", and the "FTC and/or the DNC never follow though on complaints/never go after people/etc" posters.

Look at the quotes from the owner. Given these statements and the whistleblower testimony, can we hope that this turns into more of a fraud case, than a telemarketing case?

I'd like to have more than a shrug for you, as I'm unaware of any comprehensive study which compares what regulators asked to what the scofflaws actually paid, and mounting that study myself is simply not in my time budget. I can offer some MUV, or musing of undetermined value.

Judy's title is a bit misleading. This is not a lawsuit. The FCC has direct enforcement power and does not need to wait for a judge to rule like the FTC. It's unclear to me what fighting room Roesel has, but it should be a great deal less than an action passing through judicial review. All of the big three regulators tend to get their homework close to bulletproof before they file their actions, hoping to keep allegations out of dispute. The long arguments usually concern the horse trading for damages. I'm fairly convinced that the feds and state AGs set high money demands, though never more than allowed, knowing they are unrealistic. Any good sales rep knows to do the same.

Absolutely useful for kneejerkers. So far Chairman Pai has lived up to his avowed hatred of illegal automated callers, which continues to puzzle me when placed against his inaugural promises for a "light touch" FCC and his known passion for deregulation.

"... in an effort to sell health insurance..."
Every state regulates health insurance, so won't some state Attorney Generals go after him too?

Also interesting to note that all of those telephone numbers you list are invalid by the North American Numbering Plan (the master plan all telephone companies are to abide by when assigning telephone numbers).
Per the NANP (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Numbering_Plan ), within the central office exchange code (the second three digits of the phone number, "211" in those numbers listed), the third digit of the exchange cannot be 1 if the second digit is also 1 for geographic area codes (non-toll-free area codes).

Yes, I'm familiar with the Plan and I knew something was awry with that exchange. The NANPA website is less than consumer-friendly and did not clear my fog. The reminder is appreciated.

Additional information about N11 codes is available
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N11_code

The defendant's squirming room is found in the penultimate numbered paragraph of the FCC's Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture:

Quote:

The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response to a claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits:  (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year period; (2) financial statements prepared according to generally accepted accounting practices; and (3) any other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner’s current financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the financial documentation.

There was a penalty discount not long ago which cited those very elements. I now struggle to remember which case.

Res -

Thank you for finding that paragraph!  We now have some hope the fine will be a significant one.
If the defendant made an approximate $82M via the calls, methinks we are in the wrong business (grin).