(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title II, § 227, as added Pub. L. 102–243, § 3(a),Dec. 20, 1991, 105 Stat. 2395; amended Pub. L. 102–556, title IV, § 402,Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 4194; Pub. L. 103–414, title III, § 303(a)(11), (12),Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4294; Pub. L. 108–187, § 12,Dec. 16, 2003, 117 Stat. 2717; Pub. L. 109–21, §§ 2(a)–(g), 3, July 9, 2005, 119 Stat. 359–362; Pub. L. 111–331, § 2,Dec. 22, 2010, 124 Stat. 3572.)
2010—Subsecs. (e) to (h). Pub. L. 111–331
added subsec. (e) and redesignated former subsecs. (e) to (g) as (f) to (h), respectively.
2005—Subsec. (a)(2) to (4). Pub. L. 109–21
, § 2(b), added par. (2) and redesignated former pars. (2) and (3) as (3) and (4), respectively. Former par. (4) redesignated (5).
Subsec. (a)(5). Pub. L. 109–21
, § 2(b)(1), (g), redesignated par. (4) as (5) and inserted “, in writing or otherwise” before period at end.
Subsec. (b)(1)(C). Pub. L. 109–21
, § 2(a), amended subpar. (C) generally. Prior to amendment, subpar. (C) read as follows: “to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine; or”.
Subsec. (b)(2)(D) to (G). Pub. L. 109–21
, § 2(c)–(f), added subpars. (D) to (G).
Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 109–21
, § 3, added subsec. (g).
2003—Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 108–187
inserted “, or any person outside the United States if the recipient is within the United States” after “United States” in introductory provisions.
1994—Subsec. (b)(2)(C). Pub. L. 103–414
, § 303(a)(11), substituted “paragraph” for “paragraphs”.
Subsec. (e)(2). Pub. L. 103–414
, § 303(a)(12), substituted “national database” for “national datebase” after “such single”.
1992—Subsec. (b)(2)(C). Pub. L. 102–556
added subpar. (C).
Effective Date of 2003 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 108–187
effective Jan. 1, 2004, see section 16 ofPub. L. 108–187
, set out as an Effective Date note under section
, Commerce and Trade.
Effective Date; Deadline for Regulations
Section 3(c) ofPub. L. 102–243
, as amended by Pub. L. 102–556
, title I, § 102,Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 4186
, provided that:
“(1) Regulations.—The Federal Communications Commission shall prescribe regulations to implement the amendments made by this section [enacting this section and amending section
of this title] not later than 9 months after the date of enactment of this Act [Dec. 20, 1991].
“(2) Effective date.—The requirements of section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 [this section] (as added by this section), other than the authority to prescribe regulations, shall take effect one year after the date of enactment of this Act [Dec. 20, 1991].”
Pub. L. 109–21
, § 2(h),July 9, 2005, 119 Stat. 362
, provided that: “Except as provided in section 227(b)(2)(G)(ii) of the Communications Act of 1934 [47
] (as added by subsection (f)), not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act [July 9, 2005], the Federal Communications Commission shall issue regulations to implement the amendments made by this section.”
Congressional Statement of Findings
Section 2 ofPub. L. 102–243
provided that: “The Congress finds that:
“(1) The use of the telephone to market goods and services to the home and other businesses is now pervasive due to the increased use of cost-effective telemarketing techniques.
“(2) Over 30,000 businesses actively telemarket goods and services to business and residential customers.
“(3) More than 300,000 solicitors call more than 18,000,000 Americans every day.
“(4) Total United States sales generated through telemarketing amounted to $435,000,000,000 in 1990, a more than four-fold increase since 1984.
“(5) Unrestricted telemarketing, however, can be an intrusive invasion of privacy and, when an emergency or medical assistance telephone line is seized, a risk to public safety.
“(6) Many consumers are outraged over the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance calls to their homes from telemarketers.
“(7) Over half the States now have statutes restricting various uses of the telephone for marketing, but telemarketers can evade their prohibitions through interstate operations; therefore, Federal law is needed to control residential telemarketing practices.
“(8) The Constitution does not prohibit restrictions on commercial telemarketing solicitations.
“(9) Individuals’ privacy rights, public safety interests, and commercial freedoms of speech and trade must be balanced in a way that protects the privacy of individuals and permits legitimate telemarketing practices.
“(10) Evidence compiled by the Congress indicates that residential telephone subscribers consider automated or prerecorded telephone calls, regardless of the content or the initiator of the message, to be a nuisance and an invasion of privacy.
“(11) Technologies that might allow consumers to avoid receiving such calls are not universally available, are costly, are unlikely to be enforced, or place an inordinate burden on the consumer.
“(12) Banning such automated or prerecorded telephone calls to the home, except when the receiving party consents to receiving the call or when such calls are necessary in an emergency situation affecting the health and safety of the consumer, is the only effective means of protecting telephone consumers from this nuisance and privacy invasion.
“(13) While the evidence presented to the Congress indicates that automated or prerecorded calls are a nuisance and an invasion of privacy, regardless of the type of call, the Federal Communications Commission should have the flexibility to design different rules for those types of automated or prerecorded calls that it finds are not considered a nuisance or invasion of privacy, or for noncommercial calls, consistent with the free speech protections embodied in the First Amendment of the Constitution.
“(14) Businesses also have complained to the Congress and the Federal Communications Commission that automated or prerecorded telephone calls are a nuisance, are an invasion of privacy, and interfere with interstate commerce.
“(15) The Federal Communications Commission should consider adopting reasonable restrictions on automated or prerecorded calls to businesses as well as to the home, consistent with the constitutional protections of free speech.”