Reply to post:

"The response is always the same ... sue 'em yourself."

You should, no matter what the FCC (or FTC, or state AG) do.

You have the right to - and the death of 1 million papercuts is a greater threat than anything the FCC or other law enfircement authority can bring to bear. This is why "reputable" outfits stopped that kind of telemarketing when the TCPA was passed 25 years ago.

Remember, the TCPA makes the caller _and_ the outfit hiring them jointly and severally liable and you have the right to file in local small claims even if Joe's widget company is across the country and hired Achmed's telemarketers in Bangalore. The fun part is that once you have the judgement against Joe (even by default) you can apply to get it enforced and this all adds to _his_ fees, not yours. If Joe has any sense he'll disclose who he paid, how much he paid and where he paid it to, so you can go after Achmed's US sockpuppets, else he can face contempt of court action.

Joe's defense of "I got cold called and offered this fantastic marketing service" is _not_ a defence, as there is specific wording preventing ignorance of the marketer's activities being used this way.

Robocalling (with a robot voice) or calling a number on a do-not-call list is an automatic wilful violation (ie. $1500 strike _each_ against Joe and Achmed) - and on top of that many states run their own prosecutions of do-not-call violators. (The FCC charges $11,000 per call when they weigh in, several states go for $50,000per violation(call) and they get aggressively pursued through state AGs and state courts, not as a civil agency seeking a settlement without admission of wrongdoing.)

The single biggest problem with TCPA actions is hostile small claims courts judges refusing the cases or finding for the defendant (usually on the basis that finding for the plaintiff would be "harmful for local business"). In _every single case_ where that got appealed and kicked up the food chain, the judges higher up the chain have ruled that this itself is illegal and had extremely harsh words for the "judges" in question, forcing them to take the case back and deal with it as the law requires.