Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
This bill authorizes the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to commence, supervise, and litigate civil actions to recover unpaid forfeiture penalties for violations of section 227 (restrictions on telephone equipment) if the Attorney General does not begin such an action within 120 days. It permits the FCC to prosecute for recovery of such forfeiture penalties under the same 120-day backstop, directs the FCC to prioritize enforcement of unpaid penalties exceeding $25,000,000, and expands FCC rulemaking authority under section 227(b)(2) to adopt measures “as necessary in the judgment of the Commission to protect subscribers from unwanted calls.”
Progressives emphasize consumer protection and enforcement gap closure
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill provides focused statutory amendments that clearly expand the FCC's enforcement authority over forfeiture penalties tied to section 227 and modestly broadens the Commission's rulemaking standard for protecting subscribers from unwanted calls.
This bill authorizes the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to commence, supervise, and litigate civil actions to recover unpaid forfeiture penalties for violations of section 227 (restrictions on telephone equipment) if the Attorney General does not begin such an action within 120 days.
It permits the FCC to prosecute for recovery of such forfeiture penalties under the same 120-day backstop, directs the FCC to prioritize enforcement of unpaid penalties exceeding $25,000,000, and expands FCC rulemaking authority under section 227(b)(2) to adopt measures “as necessary in the judgment of the Commission to protect subscribers from unwanted calls.”
Content is a narrow administrative fix with bipartisan potential, but DOJ/industry objections and questions about expanding agency litigation authority create meaningful hurdles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill provides focused statutory amendments that clearly expand the FCC's enforcement authority over forfeiture penalties tied to section 227 and modestly broadens the Commission's rulemaking standard for protecting subscribers from unwanted calls. The legislative edits are specific in mechanism and location within existing law but leave funding, coordination, and oversight details under-specified.
Progressives emphasize consumer protection and enforcement gap closure
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize consumer protection and enforcement gap closure
Likely broadly supportive because the bill strengthens consumer protections against unwanted and automated calls and closes enforcement gaps when the Department of Justice does not act.
Supporters will view it as increasing accountability for large telemarketing and robocall violators and giving the FCC clearer authority to craft protective rules.
Cautious support is likely: the bill addresses a commonly recognized problem (robocalls) and fills an enforcement gap, but it raises questions about duplication, resource needs, and legal boundaries between agencies.
Centrists will want safeguards for oversight, clear resourcing, and coordination with the DOJ.
Likely skeptical or opposed because the bill expands administrative authority and allows an executive agency to litigate and craft broad rules without DOJ primacy.
While the goal of reducing robocalls is agreeable, critics will view this as federal overreach, regulatory uncertainty, and potential burdens on businesses.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is a narrow administrative fix with bipartisan potential, but DOJ/industry objections and questions about expanding agency litigation authority create meaningful hurdles.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize consumer protection and enforcement gap closure
Content is a narrow administrative fix with bipartisan potential, but DOJ/industry objections and questions about expanding agency litigati…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill provides focused statutory amendments that clearly expand the FCC's enforcement authority over forfeiture penalties tied to section 227 and modestly broadens the Comm…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.