THE CONSEQUENCES OF SPOOFING: Ninth Circuit Upholds Nearly $10M FCC Forfeiture For Spoofed Robocalls Under TICIDA

Hi TCPAWorld!

The Ninth Circuit just delivered a massive, nearly $10 million reminder that spoofing caller IDs to hide behind a robocall campaign will cost you dearly. In United States v. Rhodes, 2026 WL 1662067 (9th Cir. June 9, 2026), the appellate court affirmed a $9,918,000 forfeiture order issued by the FCC under the Truth in Caller ID Act (TICIDA).

The allegations are that Scott Rhodes used a dialing service to blast out thousands of robocalls using spoofed, misleading caller-ID information.

Rhodes attempted to argue that he didn’t personally place the calls. The Ninth Circuit rejected the argument. The Court explained that the TICIDA liability explicitly extends to anyone who “causes” misleading caller-ID info to be transmitted. Because the record showed the campaigns originated through accounts, infrastructure, and online platforms associated with Rhodes, he was entirely on the hook regardless of who pushed the buttons.

Rhodes also attempted to make a First Amendment argument, claiming TICIDA is unconstitutional and attempting to cloak his spoofed calls as protected political speech or anonymous advocacy. The Court disagreed, pointing out that TICIDA regulates deceptive telecommunications practices, not viewpoints. Callers are free to engage in political speech, but they cannot deliberately spoof caller ID with the intent to harm, defraud, or deceive.

When it came to the nearly $10 million price tag, Rhodes argued the penalty violated the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. The math, however, was heavily in the government’s favor. Congress authorized TICIDA penalties of up to $10,000 per violation. The FCC penalized Rhodes just at around $2,000 per unlawful call across 4,959 violations. Based on the scale and intentional concealment of the campaign, the court ruled the fine was not grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense.

Rhodes also attempted to argue that the government improperly transformed standard TCPA violations into TICIDA liability. The court swiftly rejected this as well, noting the undisputed evidence proved independent TICIDA violations completely separate from the TCPA.

So here’s a good reminder that the FCC has the power and uses the power to enforce massive penalties for caller ID spoofing, and the Ninth Circuit has certainly backed that up here.