THE REPLY COMMENTS ARE IN AND… R.E.A.C.H. and NCLC siting in a tree…

So that was exhausting.

It was a spring of a month and a half as the Czar and the team worked overtime to help keep the lights on for good actors in the lead generation industry.

It is remarkable to think that thousands of folks out there have no idea how close they are to potentially losing their businesses. And for no reason whatsoever.

In any event, R.E.A.C.H. files its REMARKABLE reply comment on Monday, supporting and individually signed by some of the BEST and most POWERFUL brands in the industry.

As you’d expect the R.E.A.C.H. reply comment took direct and careful aim at the position of the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) and Public Knowledge (PK) respecting their disastrous and EXTREME position that consent can only be provided DIRECTLY from a consumer to a seller of goods or services.

Actually though their position was a bit more nuanced. They argued that in the context of numbers on the national DNC list a consent must be provided DIRECTLY to the seller. In the context of a call to a number not on the DNC list then intermediaries are allowed BUT only one seller can be on a disclosure at a time.


NCLC and PK’s position was based on a misread of the CFR as the R.E.A.C.H. reply comment makes clear. Unfortunately, NCLC and PK were able to point at the recent FTC update to its website to supports its position.

Ugh. Who even runs that website anyway?

Regardless, the NCLC and PK reply comment took careful note of R.E.A.C.H., citing to the R.E.A.C.H. comment repeatedly. Describing the R.E.A.C.H. comment as “helpful”–that’s so sweet guys–NCLC and PK quote at length R.E.A.C.H.’s Comment and align themselves with a number of R.E.A.C.H.’s conclusions.

On the other hand, NCLC and PK suggest–a bit unfairly–that PACE “defend[s]
the sharing of consumer consents with hundreds, and even thousands, of callers.”

Regardless, it looks like NCLC and PK are now friends with R.E.A.C.H., and I guess I appreciate that. But the R.E.A.C.H. reply comment still characterizes the legal positions adopted by NCLC and PK as “extreme,” “poorly reasoned” and “virtually unsupported.”

Plus there’s this line:

The NCLC and PK position demanding consent cannot be transferred to a seller epitomizes the reflexive thoughtlessness of extremism. It guts an industry. Harms consumers. And nets a questionable bounty—how the market will adjust to such an extreme change cannot be predicted. Unintended consequences abound.

So yeah, we’re probably not going to prom this year.

But R.E.A.C.H. actually STRONGLY supported NCLC and PK in on respect–extending DNC protections to text messages. Then again, R.E.A.C.H. also asked the Commission to chastise the nation’s OUT OF CONTROL wireless carriers for their ridiculous SMS blocking CENSORSHIP:

Text messaging is a critical communication tool and is heavily relied upon by American consumers in engaging with the brands they love. As such, unnecessary—and illegal—call blocking by the nation’s wireless carriers represents a drastic and dangerous interference with companies and the consumers they serve. It is for the consumer—and not the carrier—to determine what messages they desire to hear, and which they reject particularly when they have previously provided consent to be contacted in a clear and transparent manner.

Accordingly, R.E.A.C.H. members strongly support expanding DNC protections to text messages to fully empower consumers to stop messages they do not wish to receive. Simultaneously, however, it asks the Commission to remind the nation’s carriers that they are not protected from Communications Act liability when they unilaterally censor lawful and consented commercial speech through haphazard SMS blocking activity.


For those of you want to read the entire comments you can find the R.E.A.C.H. comment here: FCC Reply Comment.06052023  and the NCLC comment here: NCLC and others

Chat soon.


Leave a Reply