Foreign Robocall Elimination Act

Bill Number

H.R. 6152

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Science, Technology, Communications

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-11-19: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Last Updated

2026-06-23T08:05:55Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

The Foreign Robocall Elimination Act (H.R. 6152) aims to reduce unlawful robocalls—automated phone calls that violate federal rules on unsolicited calls—particularly those originating from outside the United States. It seeks to improve coordination among government agencies, private companies, and international partners to trace, block, and prevent these calls, which often involve scams, fraud, or identity theft.

Key Provisions

• Interagency Taskforce on Unlawful Robocalls (Section 2):
• Directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in consultation with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Attorney General, to create a taskforce within 270 days of enactment.
• Membership includes representatives from relevant federal agencies (appointed by the FCC Chairman based on agency head recommendations) and seven private sector experts, such as voice service providers (companies handling phone calls), analytics experts, technologists, marketers, nonprofits, and consumer advocates. Private sector appointments are made jointly by FCC, FTC, and DOJ leaders, with FCC breaking ties if needed via a Commission vote.
• The taskforce must study foreign robocalls, including their volume compared to domestic ones, originating countries, financial and identity theft impacts, adoption of call authentication technologies (like STIR/SHAKEN, which verifies caller identity to prevent spoofing), international collaboration options, incentives for foreign cooperation, resource needs for enforcement, potential for a dedicated DOJ office, increased penalties, and best practices for blocking calls.
• Requires a report with recommendations to federal agencies and Congress within 360 days of the taskforce's establishment; the taskforce dissolves 90 days after submission.
• Allows FCC, FTC, and DOJ to use existing funds for taskforce activities, bypassing some federal travel restrictions.

• FCC Notice Frequency Change (Section 3):
• Amends the 2019 Pallone-Thune TRACED Act (a law targeting robocalls) to require the FCC to issue notices about robocall enforcement every three years instead of annually.

• Robocall Mitigation Database Bond Requirement (Section 4):
• Requires the FCC to create rules mandating that phone service providers post a bond (a financial guarantee, up to $100,000) before certifying their robocall-blocking efforts in the FCC's Robocall Mitigation Database—a public registry ensuring providers follow anti-robocall rules.
• Exempts legitimate providers (e.g., those registered with the FCC, state regulators, or publicly traded) if the bond isn't needed to deter violations; focuses bonds on suspicious providers lacking oversight or financial accountability.
• Aims to maintain database reliability by targeting providers prone to enabling unlawful robocalls.

• Enhancements to Traceback Efforts (Section 5):
• Amends the TRACED Act to grant legal immunity (protection from lawsuits) to the registered consortium—a private industry group that traces robocall origins—for receiving, sharing, or publishing data on suspected illegal calls, including call records, provider details, and caller information.
• Authorizes the FCC or consortium to publish a list of voice service providers that refuse to join traceback efforts or transmit high volumes of unlawful robocalls, enabling FCC enforcement actions like fines.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• Builds on the TRACED Act by shifting FCC notices to every three years (reducing administrative burden) and adding immunity for the consortium's traceback activities, which previously risked lawsuits over data sharing.
• Introduces a new bond requirement for the Robocall Mitigation Database, absent in prior rules, to filter out bad actors.
• Expands the consortium's role by allowing public lists of non-cooperative providers, facilitating targeted enforcement not explicitly permitted before.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: Increases coordination and resource use among FCC, FTC, and DOJ for foreign robocall investigations; may lead to a new DOJ office and higher penalties, boosting enforcement efficiency but requiring budget reallocations.
• On Citizens: Reduces exposure to scam robocalls from abroad, potentially lowering financial losses (e.g., from fraud) and identity theft; promotes technologies like STIR/SHAKEN for better call verification.
• On International Relations: Encourages global adoption of call authentication standards and cooperation with foreign countries on traceback, which could improve diplomatic ties in telecom policy but might strain relations with non-cooperative nations identified as robocall sources.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Government Entities: FCC (leads taskforce and rulemaking), FTC (consults on appointments and enforcement), DOJ (enforcement recommendations, potential new office), and other federal agencies involved in telecom or consumer protection.
• Private Sector: Voice service providers (must post bonds, join traceback, or risk listing/fines), analytics and tech firms (contribute expertise), marketers and nonprofits (represent business interests), and the industry consortium (gains immunity for data sharing).
• Consumers and Advocates: Individuals receiving robocalls (benefit from reduced scams); consumer advocacy groups (taskforce representation to push for protections).
• International Parties: Foreign governments and telecom providers (face incentives or pressure to adopt U.S.-aligned technologies and cooperate on enforcement).

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: Strengthens enforcement under the Communications Act of 1934 (which bans certain unsolicited calls) by enabling data sharing without liability and public shaming of violators; the bond rule could face challenges if seen as overly burdensome, but exemptions mitigate this. No direct impact on free speech, as it targets unlawful commercial/scam calls.
• Constitutional: Aligns with Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce (phone calls cross state lines); immunity provision protects private efforts without raising First Amendment concerns, as it covers factual data on illegal activity.
• Political: Bipartisan sponsorship (introduced by Republicans and a Democrat) signals broad support for consumer protection; focuses on foreign threats, potentially appealing in an election year, but implementation depends on agency rulemaking and could spark debates over international enforcement feasibility or provider compliance costs.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. McDowell, Addison P. [R-NC-6]

Cosponsors (21)

Rep. Morrison, Kelly [D-MN-3], Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17], Rep. Panetta, Jimmy [D-CA-19], Rep. Riley, Josh [D-NY-19], Rep. Bice, Stephanie I. [R-OK-5], Rep. Weber, Randy K. Sr. [R-TX-14], Rep. Cline, Ben [R-VA-6], Rep. Pfluger, August [R-TX-11], Rep. Vindman, Eugene Simon [D-VA-7], Rep. Mannion, John W. [D-NY-22], Rep. Garbarino, Andrew R. [R-NY-2], Rep. Bost, Mike [R-IL-12], Rep. Min, Dave [D-CA-47], Rep. Gillen, Laura [D-NY-4], Rep. Mackenzie, Ryan [R-PA-7], Rep. Moore, Tim [R-NC-14], Rep. Davis, Donald G. [D-NC-1], Rep. Van Drew, Jefferson [R-NJ-2], Rep. Latimer, George [D-NY-16], Rep. Griffith, H. Morgan [R-VA-9], Rep. Harshbarger, Diana [R-TN-1]

Recent Actions

• 2025-11-19: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
• 2025-11-19: Introduced in House
• 2025-11-19: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Foreign Robocall Elimination Act — issued 2025-11-19 — PDF (17 pages)