Kelley Drye’s Communications Practice Group presents this tracker of active Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) petitions before the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”).  With the recent increase in litigation regarding alleged violations of the TCPA, many issues relating to the interpretation of the statute have been presented to the FCC by impacted parties.  These petitions can be primary jurisdiction referrals or be presented directly by a litigant in a TCPA action.  The FCC currently has a number of petitions pending related to TCPA interpretation.  The tracker below briefly summarizes each petition and the issues presented in them.

New and Noteworthy

New and Noteworthy:

FCC Releases Agenda for Consumer “Robocall” Webinar

On December 8, 2016 the FCC announced the agenda for an upcoming webinar for consumers entitled “How to Deal with Robocalls.”  The hour-long webinar will be broken out into the following four segments:

(1) A discussion on the FCC’s recent TCPA actions, including the adoption of rules to implement the federal debt collection exemption and the order clarifying how the TCPA would be applied to calls and texts from schools and utility companies in certain instances;

(2) A presentation of the Enforcement Bureau’s perspective on TCPA issues; and

(3) An overview of the FCC’s ongoing initiatives to reduce robocalls.

(4) Questions and answers.

The session will take place on Wednesday, December 14, 2016 from 1:00 PM – 2:00 PM. 

            FCC and CRTC Sign Memorandum of Understanding on Robocalls and Spoofing

On November 17, 2016, the FCC announced that it had signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) that would allow the agencies to collaborate on matters related to robocalls and caller ID spoofing.  While the MOU does not have any legally binding effects, the two agencies made a number of commitments, including to exchange information about investigations and complaints, to coordinate enforcement against cross-border violations of relevant laws, and to collaborate on initiatives to promote technically and commercially viable solutions for robocalls and caller ID spoofing.  Enforcement Bureau Chief Travis LeBlanc signed the MOU on the FCC’s behalf, and in a subsequent blog post highlighted the CRTC agreement as one of several initiatives undertaken by the FCC to work with other agencies both within and outside the U.S. on these issues.  The MOU is similar to an agreement reached earlier this year between the CRTC and Federal Trade Commission to collaborate on efforts to address allegedly unlawful commercial email and telemarketing campaigns.

            “Robotext” Enforcement Advisory

On November 18, 2016, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued a four-page enforcement advisory regarding the “limits of use of autodialed text messages” (so-called “robotexts”).  The FCC has long held that the TCPA applies to both voice calls and text messages.  As such, according to the advisory, the statute’s restrictions on autodialed calls without prior express consent of the recipient apply equally to autodialed text messages. 

The advisory notes that “[t]hose contending that they have prior express consent to make robotexts to mobile devices have the burden of proving that they obtained such consent.”  Interestingly, the advisory states that this requirement would include “text messages from text messaging apps and Internet-to-phone text messaging where the technology meets the statutory definition of an autodialer.”  Citing back to the FCC’s 2015 Omnibus TCPA Order (currently under appeal), the advisory comments that “[t]he fact that a consumer’s wireless number is in the contact list of another person’s wireless phone does not, by itself, demonstrate consent to receive robotexts.” 

The advisory also clarifies that the one-wrong-call safeguard against liability for calls to reassigned numbers adopted in the 2015 Order likewise applies to autodialed text messages. 

Finally, the advisory warns that autodialed text messages sent in violation of the TCPA can result in forfeiture penalties from the FCC of up to nearly $19,000 per violation.  However, a footnote in the advisory clarifies that if the person or entity that allegedly violates the TCPA does not hold an FCC license or other authorization, the FCC must first issue a warning citation before it can attempt to impose or enforce any monetary penalties.

            FCC Denies TCPA Exemption for “Mortgage Servicing Calls”

On November 15, 2016, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) released an order denying a request by the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) for an exemption of the prior-express-consent requirement of the TCPA for “mortgage servicing calls” to wireless phone numbers, such as calls to inform borrowers of their options should they become delinquent or default on their mortgages.  MBA argued that the exemption was “necessary to ensure that the TCPA does not restrict mandated, timely communications with residential mortgage borrowers that are required by other federal and state laws or regulations.” 

CGB used the following three-part test to analyze MBA’s request: (1) whether the messages would be free to the end user; (2) whether the messages are time-sensitive or if there is some other compelling public interest to support the exemption; and (3) whether the caller could apply conditions to the exemption.  After reviewing each of these factors, CGB denied the exemption request.  First, CGB stated that MBA did not clearly establish in its petition that the calls covered by the exemption would not be charged to the called party (i.e. they would not count against any plan limits on the consumer’s voice minutes or texts).  Second, CGB determined that mortgage servicing calls are not time-sensitive because the statutes that mandate them typically “do not require telephone contact until a borrower is at least 20 to 36 days into the delinquency period.”  The decision further noted that, unlike calls to notify consumers about potentially fraudulent transactions or identity theft, there is no compelling public interest that would warrant an exemption to the prior-express-consent requirement.  CGB did not directly address whether MBA’s proposed conditions on exempted calls would be sufficient.

Interestingly, the order observes that “mortgage servicers are free to autodial consumers without an exemption by simply relying on the prior express consent a consumer provides when including their wireless phone number on a mortgage application” or that they could “obtain new consent by one of many available means, including by email.”  Similar to other decisions on requests for prior-express-consent exemptions, the order further posits that callers could avoid the requirement altogether by taking the arduous step of placing mortgage servicing calls without using autodialer technology.

            FCC Grants Seven Retroactive Waivers of Written Consent Requirement

On October 14, 2016, the FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau issued an order in which it granted seven petitions for a retroactive waiver of the Commission’s 2012 rule that required entities to obtain prior express written consent from consumers for autodialed calls.  The waiver recipients were F-19 Holdings, LLC; Kale Realty, LLC; Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, LLC; the National Association of Broadcasters and their members; the National Cable & Telecommunications Association and their members; Papa Murphy’s Holdings, Inc. and Papa Murphy’s International L.L.C.; and Rita’s Water Ice Franchise Company, LLC.  The Bureau determined that there was good cause to grant the waivers because the petitioners “sufficiently demonstrated they incorrectly but reasonably interpreted the Commission’s [2012] order to mean that their old written consents would remain valid after the new rules went into effect.”  However, the retroactive waivers granted in this order were only valid until October 7, 2015.  One petition for reconsideration of the order has been submitted to the FCC, specifically as applied to the Papa Murphy’s petitioners.  Neither the Bureau nor the Commission has responded yet to the request.

Awaiting Decision (Items on “Circulation”)         

None    

Other Pending Petitions

Petitions are grouped by their primary subject matter.

Petitions Relating to “Prior Express Written Consent"

1. bebe stores, inc. (filed November 18, 2016)

• bebe, a retail clothing chain, requests a retroactive waiver of the Commission’s prior express written consent rule adopted in 2012.  bebe claims that, like other petitioners who received waivers of the rule, the company was confused about whether it had to obtain new consent after the rule was adopted from customers who had previously given consent to receive calls.  bebe’s petition notes that the requested waiver would be for the period between October 16, 2013 and October 7, 2015.
• bebe, like many other petitioners, is currently fighting a TCPA class action suit related to telemarketing calls made to former customers.
• On December 2, 2016, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau released a Public Notice (DA 16-1332) seeking comment on the petition.  Comments are due on January 6, 2017 and replies are due on January 23, 2017.

2. Network Communications International Corp. (filed May 10, 2016)

• NCIC is a provider of an inmate calling service (“ICS”) that enables incarcerated individuals to place collect calls from correctional facilities to residential or cellphone lines.  The company explains that inmate calls initiated through an ICS often cannot be completed either because the called party’s cellphone service provider blocks incoming collect calls or the called party does not properly answer the incoming call as he/she often may not recognize the correctional facility’s caller identification number.  NCIC seeks a declaratory ruling that in such an instance, it is permitted to send a single follow-up text message to the called party’s phone number to inform them of the uncompleted call from the inmate, and that such protocol “comports with the Commission’s qualified exemption to the TCPA’s requirement of prior express consent for certain ICS calls made to cellphone numbers.”  NCIC notes that the Commission issued a similar declaratory ruling for a different ICS provider confirming the TCPA exemption.
• On June 7, 2016, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau released a Public Notice (DA 16-628) seeking comment on the petition.  Comments were due on July 7, 2016 and replies are due on July 22, 2016.

3. Mobile Media Technologies (filed March 7, 2016)

• MMT seeks a declaratory ruling to clarify that neither the TCPA nor the FCC’s July 2015 Omnibus order “require a party transmitting a text message to create or make available to consumers a specific or particular method by which a consumer may revoke prior express consent to be texted, including bilateral reply “STOP” text messaging functionality.”  The petition also asks the Commission to clarify that a “reasonable method” of revoking consent “must, at a minimum, be a method that actually reaches the texting party.”  MMT is a text broadcaster, and claims that many of its licensees are facing TCPA litigation, in part because MMT’s system was not previously set up for bilateral text messaging functionality such that a text recipient could revoke consent by texting the word “STOP.”  MMT argues that nothing in the TCPA mandates that a texting party provide consumers any specific or particular method to revoke consent, so long as the method employed is reasonable.  

4. American Bankers Association (filed August 8, 2015)

• The American Bankers Association seeks a reconsideration and modification of the exemptions granted to financial institutions in the Commission's Declaratory Ruling and Order. The exemption permits financial institutions to send automated, free-to-end-user calls and texts to mobile devices concerning potentially fraudulent transactions, breaches of customers' personal data, remediation measures to prevent identity theft, and notification of money transfers. However, the exemption permits calls and texts only to "the wireless telephone number provided by the customer." The ABA argues that this "provided by" limits the value of the exemption and order should be modified to read "exempted calls and texts may be sent only to affected customers and money transfer recipients."

Petitions Relating to “Junk” Faxing Rules

1. Cynosure, Inc. (filed September 30, 2016)

• Cynosure has asked the Commission to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to repeal the requirement to include opt-out language on solicited fax advertisements as well as a declaratory ruling that the opt-out notice requirement does not apply to solicited fax ads.  Cynosure argues that the FCC exceeded its authority under the TCPA in adopting the opt-out notice requirement because the TCPA only applies to unsolicited faxes.  It further argues that the rule violates the First Amendment. 
• Cynosure, like many other petitioners, is currently fighting a TCPA class action suit related to faxes sent on its behalf that purportedly violate the statute.
• On October 28, 2016, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau released a Public Notice (DA 16-1231) seeking comment on the petition.  Comments are due on November 14, 2016 and replies are due on November 21, 2016.

2. RingCentral, Inc. (filed July 6, 2016)

• RingCentral seeks a declaratory ruling that (1) a fax broadcaster whose facilities or services are used by a third party content generator is not itself the "sender" of a facsimile, for purposes of the TCPA’s prohibition against sending unsolicited advertisements by facsimile; and (2) de minimis promotional phrases contained in otherwise bona fide informational, transactional or even another party's unsolicited fax advertising communications do not constitute “unsolicited advertisements” in violation of the TCPA.  Alternatively, RingCentral has asked the Commission to clarify that in certain limited circumstances fax broadcaster “senders” can rely on third party “consent” for sending de minimis promotional information along with a facsimile that is otherwise lawfully sent by the fax broadcaster's customer to a third party recipient. 
• RingCentral filed its petition in part because it has been named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit alleging TCPA violations based on fax advertisements it sent to third party recipients on behalf of its customers.
• On July 29, 2016, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau released a Public Notice (DA 16-863) seeking comment on the petition.  Comments are due on August 29, 2016 and replies were due on September 13, 2016.

3. Kohll's Pharmacy & Homecare, Inc. (filed Mar. 24, 2016)

• The petition, filed by a provider of medical equipment, requests a declaratory ruling that facsimiles sent on its behalf did not violate the TCPA “where the facsimiles simply informed businesses of the health benefits of corporate flu vaccines.”  The petitioner claims that such transmissions do not fit within the definition of an “unsolicited advertisement” because “the purpose of the facsimile transmission was to ‘promote wellness … so that people would get vaccinated and not get ill.’” 
• Kohll’s, like many other petitioners, is currently fighting a TCPA class action suit related to faxes sent on its behalf that purportedly violate the Act.

4. Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc. (filed Nov. 4, 2015)

• Petitioner Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc. (“Ryerson”) has asked the Commission to issue a declaratory ruling that “faxes that initiate in digital form and are received in digital form do not fall within the TCPA.”  Ryerson argues that these types of transitions are more akin to emails than traditional faxes, and therefore should be regulated under the CAN-SPAM Act.  It further argues that applying the TCPA to digital fax transmissions would violate the First Amendment and would be void for vagueness under the First and Fifth Amendments.
• Ryerson, like many other petitioners, is currently fighting a TCPA class action suit related to alleged unsolicited faxes received by the plaintiff from Ryerson.

5. Westfax, Inc. (filed Oct. 23, 2012)

• In its petition, Westfax sought clarification of several issues related to sending e-faxes, noting that he Commission had not updated its rules since 2006.  First, the company asked the Commission to clarify whether e-faxes are considered faxes, as well as whether and to what extent TPCA and Junk Fax Protection Act rules apply to e-faxes.  Second, they ask who is considered the "recipient of an e-fax.
• The petition also requests clarification on a number of questions related to "opt-out" requirements, including whether standard "opt-out" language would be acceptable and the liability of third-party fax broadcasters.

Anda, Inc. Retroactive Waiver.  On October 30, 2014, the FCC released an order addressing an application for review filed by Anda, Inc. and related petitions seeking clarification of the Commission’s rules requiring individuals and entities that send fax advertisements to include certain information on the fax to allow recipients to “opt-out” of receiving such transmissions in the future.  The FCC denied all of the petitions insofar as they requested the FCC to rule that the “opt out” language requirement did not apply to faxes sent with the prior express consent of the recipient, but granted a retroactive waiver to the petitioners and other similarly situated parties because the scope of the opt-out requirement was previously unclear.  Prior to October 30, 2014, there were 24 additional petitions pending that sought clarification of the  “opt-out” notice requirement in Section 64.1200(a)(4)(iv) of the FCC’s rules.  Through the Anda order (FCC 14-164), the Commission granted a retroactive waiver of the opt-out notice requirement): Anda, Inc.; Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Staples, Inc.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Douglas Walburg/Richie Enterprises, LLC; Futuredontics, Inc.; All Granite & Marble Corp.; Purdue Pharma; Prime Health Services, Inc.; TechHealth, Inc.; Crown Mortgage Company; Magna Chek, Inc.; Masimo Corp.; Best Buy Builders, Inc.; S&S Firestone, Inc.; Cannon & Associates d/b/a Polaris Group; Stericycle, Inc.; American CareSource Holdings, Inc.; Carfax, Inc.; Merck and Company, Inc.; UnitedHealth Group, Inc.; MedLearning, Inc. and Medica, Inc.; Unique Vacations, Inc.; and Power Liens, LLC.

Prior to the Anda order, but not addressed in that order, two parties had petitioned for similar relief.  Francotyp-Postalia, Inc. (FP Mailing Solutions, Inc.) (filed October 14, 2014); Allscripts (several petitioners filed this collectively) (filed September 30, 2014).  On November 4, 2014, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau released a Public Notice (DA 14-1598) seeking comment on the petitions.  The Public Notice stated that, as a result of the Anda order, it was not necessary to consider these petitioners’ requests for declaratory ruling.  It sought comment on the requests for retroactive waiver consistent with the Anda order.  Comments were due on November 18, 2014 and replies were due on November 25, 2014.

On August 28, 2015, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau released an Order (DA 15-976) granting retroactive waivers to 117 petitioners, consistent with the FCC’s October 2014 decision in Anda.  Generally, the Bureau Order granted petitions filed before June 23, 2015.  Following the Order, the Commission has received seven applications for review of the decision to grant the waiver.  In response, more than a dozen of the entities that benefited from the retroactive waiver have filed oppositions to these applications.  However, the Commission has not yet responded to the requests.

On December 9, 2015, the FCC issued an Order to address eleven additional requests for a retroactive waiver of the Commission’s “opt-out” language requirements for fax advertisements, similar to the waiver granted in the October 2014 Anda Order.  The Order grants the requests of Megadent, Inc., Costco Wholesale Corporation, Dental Fix Rx, LLC, Scrip Holding Co., and SourceMedia, LLC on the basis that these parties were similarly situated to the entities that received waivers in the Anda Order because they were uncertain about whether the opt-out notice requirement applied to fax advertisements sent with the consent of the recipient.  The Commission was careful, however, to note that “the recipients of the waivers granted herein should already be in compliance after having benefited from the Commission’s previous clarification.”  The Order denies the requests of Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc., Renaissance Systems and Services, LLC, Athena Health, Inc., Ohio National Mutual, Inc., and Prevention Pharmaceuticals, Inc. because these parties admitted in their requests that they were “unaware of the opt-out notice requirement.”  Finally, the Order denies the request of Zimmer Dental, Inc. because the petitioner claims, incorrectly, that “because the faxes at issue were sent to those parties with whom it had an existing business relationship, they were solicited.”  On December 18, 2015, a plaintiff in a class action against Source Media, LLC filed a petition for reconsideration of the Order.  The Commission has not yet responded to that request.

On November 2, 2016, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) issued an Order (DA 16-1242) in response to 26 additional requests for a retroactive waiver of the Commission’s “opt-out” language requirements for fax advertisements, similar to the waiver granted in the October 2014 Anda Order.  The Order grants the request of the following 25 parties on the basis that they were similarly situated to the entities that received waivers in the Anda Order because they were uncertain about whether the opt-out notice requirement applied to fax advertisements sent with the consent of the recipient: Virbac Corporation; Weinberg & Associates; Humana Insurance Company et al.; Posture Pro, Inc.; LKN Communications, Inc., d/b/a ACN, Inc.; Educational Testing Service; Inter-Med, Inc. d/b/a Vista Dental Products; Legal & General America, Inc.; Jeana Fleitz, LLC d/b/a The X-Ray Lady; C. Specialties, Inc.; Buccaneers Limited Partnership; Warner Chilcott Corporation; Wedgewood Village Pharmacy, Inc.; Roche Diagnostics Corporation; Amatheon, Inc.; HomeoPet, LLC; Synchrony Bank d/b/a CareCredit and Synchrony Financial; Cochran Wholesale Pharmaceutical, Inc.; North American Bancard, LLC; Biolase, Inc.; Power Products, LLC d/b/a Del City Wire Co., Inc.; Schwabe North America Incorporated, Nature’s Way Brands, LLC; Integrative Brands, LLC; and Enzymatic Therapy, LLC.  As with previous orders in response to such waiver petitions, CGB noted that “the recipients of the waivers granted herein should already be in compliance after having benefited from the Commission’s previous clarification.”  In addition, the Order grants in part a petition filed by Amsterdam Printing & Litho, Inc., but denies the company’s request with respect to any non-compliant fax sent after April 30, 2015.  Finally, the Order denies the requests of Fetch, Inc. d/b/a Petplan, AZCOMP Technologies, Inc. and Cartridge World North America, LLC because these parties admitted in their requests that they were unaware of the opt-out notice requirement.  Three applications for review of this order were subsequently filed in the TCPA docket, one of which was submitted by a TCPA plaintiff’s group that is currently challenging the original Anda waiver order in the D.C. Circuit Court.  Neither the Bureau nor the Commission has responded to these requests.

The following additional petitions seek retroactive waivers on this issue remain pending:

• Safemark Systems, LP (October 6, 2016)
• United Auto Credit Corporation (October 28, 2016)
• Brigadoon Fitness Inc. (Nov. 7, 2016)

On July 31, 2015 the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau released a Public Notice (DA 15-876) seeking comment on the following petitions: Megadent, Inc.; Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc.; Renaissance Systems and Services, LLC.; Zimmer Dental, Inc.; and Costco Wholesale Corp. Comments were due August 14, 2015 and replies were due on August 21, 2015.

On September 25, 2015 the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau released a Public Notice (DA 15-1077) seeking comment on the following petitions: McVey Associates, Inc.; Dental Fix Rx LLC; Scrip Holding Co.; and SourceMedia LLC.  Comments were due October 9, 2015 and replies were due on October 16, 2015.

On December 4, 2015, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau released a Public Notice (DA 15-1381) seeking comment on the following petitions: Virbac Corporation, Advanced Care Scripts, Inc., and Fetch, Inc. d/b/a Petplan.  Comments were due on December 18, 2015 and replies were due on December 30, 2015.

On January 29, 2016, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau released a Public Notice (DA 16-102) seeking comment on the following petitions: AZCOMP Technologies, Inc.; Weinberg & Associates; Humana Insurance Company et al.  Comments were due on February 12, 2016 and replies were due on February 19, 2016.

On March 25, 2016, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau released a Public Notice (DA 16-317) seeking comment on the following petitions: Posture Pro, Inc.; LKN Communications, Inc. d/b/a ACN, Inc.; and Educational Testing Service.  Comments were due on April 8, 2016 and replies were due on April 15, 2016.

On May 31, 2016, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau released a Public Notice (DA 16-598) seeking comment on the following petitions: Warner Chilcott Corporation and Wedgewood Village Pharmacy, Inc.  Comments were due on June 14, 2016 and replies were due on June 21, 2016.

On August 26, 2016, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau released a Public Notice (DA 16-976) seeking comment on the following petitions: North American Bancard, LLC.  Comments were due on September 9, 2016 and replies were due on September 16, 2016.

On September 30, 2016, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau released a Public Notice (DA 16-1113) seeking comment on the following petitions: Cartridge World North America, LLC; Biolase, Inc.; Power Products, LLC d/b/a Del City Wire Co., Inc.; Schwabe North America Incorporated; and Amsterdam Printing & Litho, Inc.  Comments were due on October 14, 2016 and replies were due on October 21, 2016.

On October 28, 2016, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau released a Public Notice (DA 16-1231) seeking comment on the Safemark Systems, LP petition.  Comments were due on November 14, 2016 and replies were due on November 21, 2016.

On December 2, 2016, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau released a Public Notice (DA 16-1337) seeking comment on the United Auto Credit Corporation and Brigadoon Fitness Inc. petitions.  Comments are due on December 16, 2016 and replies are due on December 23, 2016.

Other Petitions

1. Professional Services Council (filed 8/4/16)

• Professional Services Council seeks reconsideration of a portion of the FCC’s Broadnet declaratory ruling released on July 5, 2016, which found that federal government contractors are not subject to the TCPA.  Specifically, the PSC petition asks the Commission to modify the declaratory ruling in order to “provide TCPA relief to government contractors acting on behalf of the federal government, in accordance with their contract’s terms and the government's directives, without regard to whether a common-law agency relationship exists.”  The petition asserts that by basing the exemption on common-law agency principles, the Commission may have inadvertently narrowed the scope of TCPA relief available to government contractors because, according to PSC, “government contracts often contain language that expressly states the government contractor is not in an agency relationship with the government.” 
• On August 15, 2016, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau released a Public Notice (DA 16-924) seeking comment on the petition.  Comments were due on September 14, 2016 and replies were due on September 29, 2016.

2. Anthem, Inc.; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association; Wellcare Health Plans, Inc.; American Association of Healthcare Administrative Management (filed 7/28/16)

• The joint petitioners seek clarification from the FCC regarding certain statements in the 2015 Omnibus TCPA Order related to non-telemarketing healthcare calls.  Specifically, the petitioners have asked the FCC to issue a declaratory ruling and/or clarify two items: (1) that the provision of a phone number to a “covered entity” or “business associate” (as those terms are defined under HIPAA) constitutes prior express consent for non-telemarketing calls allowed under HIPAA for the purposes of treatment, payment, or health care operations; and (2) that the term “healthcare provider” in paragraphs 141 and 147 of the 2015 Omnibus TCPA Order encompasses “HIPAA covered entities and business associates.”  The petitioners assert that these clarifications are necessary to harmonize the TCPA and HIPAA, and point out that the FCC has previously looked to HIPAA for guidance on how to interpret healthcare calls under the TCPA.
• On August 19, 2016, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau released a Public Notice (DA 16-947) seeking comment on the petition.  Comments were due on September 19, 2016 and replies are due on October 4, 2016.

3. National Consumer Law Center (filed 7/26/16)

• The NCLC, together with a number of legal aid programs and public interest organizations, seeks a stay and reconsideration of the FCC’s July 5, 2016 Declaratory Ruling that grants a TCPA exemption for calls by government contractors.  In its petition, the NCLC argues that the FCC misinterpreted both the TCPA and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez when it determined that government contractors do not fall within the definition of a “person” under the TCPA, and therefore are not subject to the Act’s restrictions on auto-dialed calls.  It further asserts that “[i]f the Commission does not reconsider and change its ruling in this proceeding, tens of millions of Americans will find their cell phones flooded with unwanted robocalls from federal contractors with no means of stopping these calls and no remedies to enforce their requests to stop these calls.”
• On August 1, 2016, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau released two Public Notices (DA 16-878 and DA 16-879) seeking comment on the petition.  Comments on the NCLC’s request for stay of the Broadnet order are due on August 11, 2016, and replies are due on August 16, 2016.  Comments on NCLC’s request for reconsideration of the Broadnet order were due on August 31, 2016 and replies were due on September 15, 2016.

4. Todd C. Bank (filed Mar. 7, 2016)

• The petitioner, an attorney with a home-based business, has asked the Commission to clarify that the rules prohibiting robocalls “apply to calls made to home-business telephone lines that are registered with the telephone-service provider as residential lines.”  He argues that such a clarification would be consistent with the language of the TCPA which states that the robocall provision of the Act applies to “any residential telephone line.”  He further asserts that this interpretation would be consistent with prior statements by the FCC on this issue. 
• Mr. Bank is currently appealing a dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York of his class action lawsuit for TCPA violations.  Following submission of his petition, the FCC filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Mr. Bank’s request to stay the appellate case pending the Commission’s disposition of his FCC petition.
• On March 31, 2016, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau released a Public Notice (DA 16-341) seeking comment on the petition.  Comments were due on May 2, 2016 and replies are due on May 17, 2016.

5. Lifetime Entertainment Services, LLC (filed Dec. 11, 2015)

• Lifetime has asked the Commission to clarify that the TCPA and the Commission’s implementing rules “do not cover calls (including unsolicited, pr~recorded ones) providing information about television programing distributed by cable operators and cable programming networks that are intended to reach the cable operator's subscribers who are already entitled to watch such cable programming without having to pay any additional charges.”  Lifetime asserts that these calls are purely informational and not made for the purpose of advertising or marketing, and therefore not within the scope of the TCPA. 
• On February 5, 2016, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau released a Public Notice (DA 16-128) seeking comment on the petition.  Comments were due on March 7, 2016 and replies were due on March 21, 2016.

6. Anthem, Inc. (filed June 10, 2015)

• Anthem submitted a petition seeking a declaratory ruling and exemption regarding non-telemarketing healthcare calls.  Anthem asks that the FCC make non-telemarketing health care calls and text messages from health plans and providers subject to an “opt out” rather than “opt in” consent regime.  Anthem argues that these calls provide important information regarding the health and wellness of its members and provide an unique level of benefit to the consumer.
• Anthem also asks that new categories of calls be added to the FCC’s existing list of calls already subject to the opt-out regime. Anthem identifies those calls that are (1)  case management calls to engage consumers in the treatment of existing medical conditions (2) preventative medicine calls to arm patients with information necessary to seek preventive care or (3) calls to arm consumers with information about using and maintaining medical benefits.
• On August 31, 2015, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau released a Public Notice (DA 15-979) seeking comment on the petition.  Comments were due on September 30, 2015 and replies were due on October 15, 2015.
• Note:  Although the petition was filed before the FCC’s TCPA Declaratory Ruling and Order (FCC 15-72), the Order did not address Anthem’s request.

7. Vincent Lucas (filed June 18, 2014)

• Vincent Lucas asks for an expedited declaratory ruling holding that a person is vicariously or contributorily liable if that person provides substantial assistance or support to any seller or telemarketer when that person knows or consciously avoids knowing that the seller or telemarketer is engaged in any act or practice that violates 47 U.S.C. § 227(b) or (c).
• The individual who filed this petition is currently involved in a lawsuit in which he alleges that three companies and two individuals “provided substantial assistance to several telemarketers while knowing that those telemarketers were engaged in practices that violate the TCPA.”  In his petition, Mr. Lucas claims that the magistrate judge in the litigation misinterpreted a former FCC ruling on vicarious liability and is planning to dismiss his vicarious and contributory liability claims.  
• On July 9, 2014, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau released a Public Notice (DA 14-976) seeking comment on the petition.  Comments were due on August 8, 2014 and replies were due on August 25, 2014.

8. Acurian, Inc. (filed Feb. 5, 2014)

• Acurian filed a petition seeking clarification that telephone call to a residential telephone line seeking an individual’s participation in a clinical pharmaceutical trial is exempt from the restrictions on prerecorded calls under the TCPA.  Acurian argues in its petition that it does not make calls for a commercial purpose.  Alternatively, the petition asserts that if Acurian’s calls are found to be commercial, that they do not constitute telemarketing or advertising calls. 
• On February 20, 2014, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau released a Public Notice (DA 14-229) seeking comment on the petition.  Comments were due on March 24, 2014 and replies were due on April 8, 2014.

[View source.]