TELNYX TELLS FCC TO BACK OFF: New Comment Reminds FCC Nobody Has Determined It Did Anything Wrong Yet– And Its Pretty Spicy

Add a comment

One of my favorite stories of 2025 is the saga of the Telnyx FCC robocall scam.

Although that’s probably a pretty bad name for it because Telnyx claims it had nothing to do with it.

As a reminder, some robocallers apparently got ahold of a list of phone numbers belonging to FCC staffers and telecom lawyers in D.C. and decided to make scam calls to them– I am serious.

Now calling a bunch of sophisticated telecom lawyers and commission staff is probably the LEAST effective way to pull off a scam so it begs the question of what these guys were really up to.

DUMBEST SCHEME EVER?: FCC Proposes $4.5MM Penalty on Carrier Telnyx LLC After Bad Guys Pose as the FCC…

Regardless, what we know happened was the carrier the bad guys used–Telnyx– was targeted for a $4mm penalty under the Commission’s amorphous know-your-customer rules, which have never really been explained.

But the FCC’s “know-it-when-we-see-it-and-we-definitely-see-it-here” approach did considerable damage to Telnyx, who hit back with one of the best responses you’ll ever see to a NAL.

WAS THE FCC HACKED?: Tenlyx Respnse to FCC $4.5M NAL Over Scam Robocalls Hits Home

And that’s where things have sat for the better a year.

But last week Telnyx came roaring back into the fray taking issue with language from the FCC’s recent NPRM suggesting it was a bad actor and pointing at Telnyx as an example of why carriers need to provide certain disclosures to the Commission.

Specifically the FCC stated:

“We have also expanded robocall mitigation requirements for all providers, and taken major enforcement action against bad actors[fn 11]”

[Fn]: Robocall Mitigation Database Filers, EB-TCD-25-00038590, Order, DA-25-737, 2025 WL 2496602 (EB Aug. 25, 2025) (removing an additional 1,203 non-compliant voice service providers from the Robocall Mitigation Database); Telnyx, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability, FCC 25-10, 2025 WL 435678 (2025) (finding insufficient know-your customer practices); Sumco Panama SA et al., File No. EB-TCD-21-00031913, Forfeiture Order, FCC 23-64 (Aug. 3, 2023) (levying an historic fine of almost $300 million against a variety of entities which placed over five billion illegal auto warranty robocalls to consumers between January 2021 and March 2021); One Eye LLC, File No. EB-TCD-20 00031678, Final Determination Order, DA 23-389 (EB May 11, 2023) (prohibiting voice service providers from accepting call traffic from One Eye LLC); Urth Access, LLC, File No. EB-TCD-22-00034232, Order, DA 22-1271 (EB Dec. 8, 2022)[others…]

Telnyx took offense to the suggestion it was a “bad actor” and filed a comment–you can read here https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/120358664186/1– reminding the Commission that a NAL is not a final determination of wrong doing. It “urges” the Commission:

Remove any reference to Telnyx or the Telnyx Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL) in Footnote 11 of the Draft or in any other part of the Draft in a manner that falsely asserts or suggests that there has been a final adjudication concerning Telnyx, including that the Commission made any “finding” against Telnyx or that Telnyx is a “bad actor.”

Yikes.

It also tells the FCC to scrap its contemplated disclosure of any investigations rule and instead require disclosure of only final determinations of wrong doing:

If the Commission insists on considering enforcement history, it should: (1) limit any certification to final Commission or court orders finding willful or repeated violations of robocall/spoofing obligations, which is consistent with Section 504(c); (2) allow providers to explain the age, circumstances, and remediation of those matters; and (3) make explicit that being “subject to an investigation” by itself, will not result in the denial or conditioning of a numbering authorization.

Fascinating stuff.

Telnyx has really risen to be a thorn in the FCC’s side and a very aggressive advocate for the rights of telco providers and callers alike. Very cool to see.

Will keep an eye on all of this.

Also have you noticed robocalls are plummeting? All thanks to the Czar of course.

Robocallers Are Scared

Chat soon.

 

Discover more from TCPAWorld

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Categories:

Published by Eric "Czar" Troutman

The Czar of TCPAWorld Eric Troutman is one of the country’s prominent class action defense lawyers and is nationally recognized in Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) litigation and compliance. He has served as lead defense counsel in more than 70 national TCPA class actions and has litigated nearly a thousand individual TCPA cases in his role as national strategic litigation counsel for major banks and finance companies. He also helps industry participants build TCPA-compliant processes, policies, and systems. Eric has built a national litigation practice based upon deep experience, rigorous analysis and extraordinary responsiveness. Eric and his team feel equally at home litigating multibillion dollar telecommunications class actions in federal court as they do developing and executing national litigation strategies for institutions facing an onslaught of individual TCPA matters. They thrive in each of these roles – delivering consistently excellent results – while never losing sight of the client experience. While many firms now tout TCPA expertise, Eric has been there from the beginning. He built one of the country’s first TCPA-only defense teams and began serving as national TCPA counsel for his clients nearly a decade ago. This perspective allows him to swiftly develop the right litigation strategies for dealing with recurring problems, without wasting time on tactics that are bound to fail. Eric’s rich historical perspective and encyclopedic knowledge of the TCPA landscape also make him an invaluable resource to institutional compliance teams struggling to comply with the shifting regulatory landscape. No task is too small – or too big. Indeed, Eric and his team have helped build TCPA-compliant systems and processes for some of the largest and most complex corporate entities in the country. He commonly works with in-house compliance counsel to build and implement enterprise and business-line specific TCPA solutions, performs TCPA audits and drafts and reviews proposed TCPA policies and procedures. He and his team also have the technical expertise necessary to assist call centers seeking to develop TCPA-resistant call path architecture or to modify existing telephony and software integration to better insulate from potential TCPA exposure. Eric has built a reputation for thought leadership. An avid blogger and speaker, he has been at the forefront of the industry’s effort to push for clarity and a return to sanity for the TCPA for years. He was selected to advocate for the financial services industry on important TCPA issues before the Federal Communications Commission and co-authored the nation’s only comprehensive practice guide on TCPA defense. In his spare time, Eric leads defense teams representing banks and other financial services companies in consumer finance litigation matters. He has experience representing clients in UCC, TILA, RESPA FCRA, CCRA, CLRA, FDCPA, RFDCPA and FCCPA claims, as well as in fraud and bank operations issues.

Leave a Reply