AUTHORSHIP
3 August 2026
Weak FCC oversight and industry negligence underpin robocall epidemic
The FCC's insufficient anti-robocall measures and deference to carriers' in focus as state AGs call for stronger rulemaking
Attribution: David Hahn' (Unsplash)
I. Introduction
ISSUE AREAS
CONSUMER PROTECTION
Unwanted robocalls are said to be the single leading source of consumer complaints, with some 2.6 million complaints to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in 2025 alone. Despite ostensible safeguards, the preponderance of scam robocalls has only increased over time. Far from a mere annoyance, research suggests that consumers’ fear of scam robocalls has led to many people missing legitimate calls. As a result, many Americans likely miss out on opportunities for social connection, as well as time-sensitive communications concerning the likes of medical appointments, prescription reminders, and emergency alerts. The downstream impact also likely extends to legitimate businesses that utilize phone-based communications, and altogether stands to erode social trust. Scam robocalls have significant material implications, with victims losing an average of around $3,690 in the first half of 2025 per one estimate. This has come at a disproportionate cost to older Americans, who are particularly vulnerable to robocalls and other scams.
The threat posed by robocalls has certainly been compounded by advances in artificial intelligence, both through enabling large-scale call spoofing, and through giving scammers access to convincing voice-cloning technology. However, it is important to understand that the primary culprit behind the robocall crisis is not technological developments, but a lack of strong regulation. Telecom industry lobbying groups have long opposed proposals that would make telecoms liable for robocall traffic, claiming it would unfairly burden providers. In July, a coalition of state attorneys general wrote to the FCC twice to tighten safeguards against robocalls, including through the extension of “Know Your Customer” (KYC) rules. AI audio concerns have also prompted renewed attention to robocall issues in Congress, with a bipartisan bill on the issue being recently featured in a subcommittee hearing. Nevertheless, the FCC under current leadership has yet to demonstrate a willingness to advance rulemaking that prioritizes consumer protection over industry interests.
II. Roots of Robocall Crisis
IMPACT OF INDUSTRY LOBBYING AND WEAK ENFORCEMENT
In 1991, Congress passed the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), delegating enforcement of do-not-call regulations to the FCC. In doing so, Congress affirmed the commission’s role leading federal authority over unwanted calls and harmful telemarketing practices. Since then, lobbyists representing major telecom groups have worked to narrow the scope of the FCC’s anti-robocall measures.
In 2015, the FCC during the Obama administration instituted rulemaking under the TCPA in order to rein in the use of so-called “autodialers” (“automated telephone dialing systems”, or ATDS). Though this measure was applauded by public interest groups as a necessary step towards modernizing TCPA enforcement, it was strongly opposed by industry groups including the Chamber of Commerce. Republican commissioner Ajit Pai, who opposed the measure governing ATDS in 2015, would become chair of the FCC during the first Trump administration. In this role, he celebrated and refused to appeal a judicial order against the rule. Similarly, the FCC under chair Brendan Carr has reversed Biden-era progress requiring “one-to-one” telemarketing consent, a critical measure for reducing spam robocallers.
NEGLIGENCE FROM CARRIERS
Congress attempted to address the robocall crisis through the TRACED Act, a measure passed unanimously in 2019. The legislation was designed to force carriers to implement STIR/SHAKEN caller ID rules, seen as necessary to clamp down on call-spoofing. In the years since, it has become clear that the legislation has failed to achieve its aims. A 2025 estimate suggests that over the approximately 9,200 companies registered under the FCC, less than half have complied.
Consumer advocates have argued that, far from being passive victims of an issue they did not create, telecom providers profit from robocall traffic. A 2022 report by the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) concluded that carriers' financial model creates a perverse incentive to route rather than block malicious traffic: as carriers collect termination fees on all calls traversing their networks, including scam robocalls, they have an incentive to oppose robocall liability rules. The willingness of telecom giants including Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&T to push back on past FCC rulemaking efforts targeting spam robocalls originating abroad reveals the industry's resistance to accountability.
III. Renewed Push for Policy Change
INPUT FROM STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL
The FCC under the Trump administration has, like other agencies, broadly receded from consumer protection efforts in deference to industry interests. State attorneys general have collaborated on measures to rein in illegal robocalls as part of an Anti-Robocall Multistate Litigation Task Force in lieu of sufficient federal protections. In a July 8 letter, a coalition of 49 state and territory AGs wrote to the FCC urging stronger rules to prevent scammers from buying and accessing legitimate phone numbers to use for robocall schemes. The letter notes that scammers have increasingly pivoted to this tactic amid measures that have made it more difficult to “spoof” fake phone numbers.
Later in July, a 50-member strong coalition wrote to the FCC urging the commission to extend Know Your Customer (KYC) rules, a move that followed the commencement of rulemaking in April. In an accompanying press release, the coalition notes that despite ostensible rules that providers know who their customers are, scam statistics demonstrate that "the current requirements aren't strong enough." In response, the AGs have urged the commission to extend the requirements to cover all originating service providers, including smaller voice providers routinely exploited by bad actors. Additionally, the AGs advocated for requiring providers to examine the business practices of their customers and monitor high-risk accounts to hold malicious actors accountable.
RECENT CONGRESSIONAL EFFORTS
In recent years, the emergence of AI-generated deepfake audio and its capacity to enable large-scale fraud and manipulation has brought renewed attention to robocall regulation. In Congress, the bill with the most momentum is the bipartisan QUIET Act (Quashing Unwanted and Interruptive Electronic Telecommunications Act), which would impose disclosure requirements and increased penalties for AI-powered robocall fraud. Initially introduced in the 118th Congress, the bill in the current session currently has 27 co-sponsors in the House. The legislation was recently included in a hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.
AI-powered robocalls pose a serious threat to consumers and stand to dramatically expand the scale and sophistication of robocall fraud. But while it dominates the robocall policy conversation, a singular focus on AI risks missing the structural regulatory failures enabling the robocall crisis. The lack of regulations on carriers to take meaningful responsibility for the traffic they route is the central, durable policy failure that enables scam robocalls, an issue that long predates generative AI. In April, a group of Democratic members of Congress re-introduced the Protecting American Consumers from Robocalls Act in both chambers. Though unlikely to pass in a Republican-controlled Congress, it includes substantive structural reforms that address the root causes of the issue. This includes updating the TCPA's “autodialer” definition, allowing small businesses to join the Do Not Call registry, and giving consumers the private right of action if contacted by a telemarketer without consent.
III. Conclusion
With companies resistant to implementing safeguards, corporate negligence stands to make the robocall crisis even worse over time. The inadequacy of current FCC safeguards can be reflected in the case of Avid Telecom, a VoIP provider responsible for transmitting over 24.5 billion scam calls. The company was reportedly responsible for some 7.5 billion calls to numbers added to the Do Not Call Registry, many of which were scam calls concerning matters such as Medicare and Social Security. Despite 329 notifications from the FCC concerning the behavior, the company felt comfortable continuing to engage in evidently unlawful behavior, leading to a still-unresolved lawsuit brought by 49 state AGs.
Though most Americans are likely unaware of the regulatory battle surrounding robocalls, it is clear that most people are both frustrated by robocalls and the seeming lack of urgency on the part of government regulators. Polling by Gallup in 2026 found that 82 percent of adults in the U.S. believe the government is not taking sufficient measures to prevent scams. A survey conducted by the Associated Press found that 52 percent of total respondents received daily correspondence, including robocalls or text, they suspected were scam efforts. The same survey found that this was disproportionate (70 percent) among older Americans, in line with 2025 AARP polling that found wide support for strengthening anti-scam efforts among Americans over 50.
The fact of the matter is that routine robocalls do not have to be a part of daily life; as it stands, research indicates that Americans are disproportionately impacted by scam texts and robocalls compared to individuals in peer countries. Amid concerns over declining social trust and its impact on democracy, combatting the proliferation of scam calls is particularly important. This requires that the leadership of the FCC and other agencies prioritize the interests of consumers over corporations aiming to avoid liability. The recent convergence of bipartisan coalitions of both state AGs and members of Congress, alongside broad public support, shows that the political conditions for meaningful reform are present.
