Those of you who watched our INCREDIBLE webinar yesterday breaking down the FCC’s new proposed NPRM know that HUGE potential changes involving foreign calls may be on the way.
There are several developments in the space but the biggest is the potential new requirement for carriers to identify calls originating in foreign call centers on consumer handsets with a symbol of some kind.
In the new world where consumers are advised a call is originating in Pakistan they probably won’t be picking it up.
But in today’s world, calls are often indistinguishable to a consumer and lead generators and affiliate marketers will often work with foreign call centers to sell goods to American consumers.
And they’ll often do so even without permission of the American brands they sell for.
Take the case of Johnson v. Charter, 5:20-cv-02056-LCB (N.D. Al. Sept. 26, 2025, Doc. 197).
Eagle eyed TCPAWorld followers will remember this case as the one Jake Ginsburg discussed on Deserve to Win (Ep. 36.) It was an individual suit– not a class action– yet he has been stuck litigating the suit for over 5 years now!
Episode 36 of Deserve to Win was a ton of fun!
As I discussed on the podcast, Charter was taking a big gamble by pushing the case to MSJ– but it was a gamble that paid off last month when the court granted summary judgment in favor of Charter.
The facts of the case are fascinating and show just how dicey it can be working with an offshore call center.
The plaintiff alleged she received a bunch of inbound marketing calls she did not want. Charter, however, obtained a call recording-presumably from Tranche-showing the original call was an inbound call from Plaintiff to Tranche inquiring about Charter’s services.
Since the case was a DNC case this appeared to be a smoking gun defense.
But there was a problem.
A subpoena to Plaintiff’s cell phone provider confirmed the calls were actually received by her phone not made from her phone.
So what’s going on?
Well Tranche came forward and admitted its pals in pakistan ALTERED THE TAPE to make it look like an inbound call.
As the order explains:
Tranche also admitted that its employees altered the recording of the December 26, 2019 call to make it appear as though Johnson initiated the call. (Doc. 123 at 8 and 12). Tranche further explained in its answer that “[s]ubordinates in Pakistan working for Tranche altered the beginning of the audio recording to make it appear as though the call was initiated by the Plaintiff. This was done by the subordinates because they were concerned about losing their jobs as a result of making outbound sales calls (prohibited by the Charter Communications Reseller Agreement).” Id. at 16.
My goodness.
What a bunch of boneheads.
But in a weird way this worked out great for Charter. The Pakistani bandage job on their booboo made it clear to all that Charter had not permitted the outbound calls at issue and this reality loomed large over Plaintiff’s effort to hold Charter responsible for the calls.
In the end since Charter had powerfully contracted for Tranche to not do the very thing that got it into trouble–i.e. make outbound calls– the case was thrown out.
While this is a great win for Charter certainly, it is worth noting the Baroness obtained a similar win at the pleadings stage for a warranty company that similarly barred marketers from making outbound calls. See here.
That’s the same win Charter just obtained, but in five months instead of five years. 🙂
If you want great wins like this–not a guarantee but a potential– be sure to retain Troutman Amin, LLP before our rates increase in January, 2026!
THE FIRST $6K AN HOUR ATTORNEY?: Troutman Amin, LLP Rates Set to Rise January 1, 2026– Get In Now!
Chat soon.
Discover more from TCPAWorld
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So is this identify foreign calls rule similar to the rule it is required that the DNC list is checked BEFORE the call is made, similar to the one about pre recorded calls are not allowed, where the phone carrier who has a cease and desist letter from the FTC for pre recorded spoofed debt relief calls is still allowing those same calls through? If so, what is the penalty for violating these rules and what are the odds the FTP will not enforce the fine imposed because of financial hardship?
Just checking.
I reviewed data recently in a matter where the number that was displayed in the caller ID (e.g. the fromANI ) displayed the “called party” (e.g. the individuals who had been called, not the ones who were making the call) – making it appear as if the called party had initiated the call. It appeared as if the called-party had actually made the call to the defendant.
How could this be?
Simple. The outbound call had originally been made to telephone numbers from a call center. Upon having been answered by a live party, those live-answers werewere transferred TO the defendant’s customer service.
By re-originating the call as part of the transfer, the call center used the called-to number in the fromANI (calling party) field, and then placed the “called number” as the defendants’ customer service line.
It then appeared that calls were coming *from* those numbers rather than having been transferred to those numbers. Simply, they were just outbound connected calls that had been transferred back. Placing the outbound call with the inbound call, and then adjusting for UTC, aligned the calls topically to one another, and it was pretty easy to identify those inbound-appearing outbound-calls.