DO NOT Call Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 4, 2025
Bottom line
The 'DO NOT Call Act' introduces criminal charges and higher civil fines to crack down on illegal robocalls and caller ID spoofing.
What it actually does
This bill significantly increases penalties for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1993. It establishes new criminal penalties for knowingly and willfully violating the TCPA, including aggravated offenses for high-volume calls, calls made in furtherance of a felony, or calls causing significant financial loss. Additionally, it doubles the maximum civil penalties for providing inaccurate caller identification information with malicious intent.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that existing civil penalties under the TCPA are insufficient to deter sophisticated and often illicit robocall operations, many of which originate overseas. They contend that introducing criminal penalties, especially for repeat offenders or those causing substantial harm, will provide a much-needed stronger deterrent and give law enforcement more effective tools to combat the pervasive problem of unwanted and fraudulent calls.
Opponents contend
Opponents, if any, might express concerns that the broad definitions of 'call' or the thresholds for aggravated offenses could inadvertently impact legitimate businesses that use automated calling systems for customer service, appointment reminders, or other non-marketing purposes, despite the 'willfully and knowingly' standard. They might also question the practical enforceability of criminal penalties against international bad actors.
The bill is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for a reader to understand its core provisions quickly.
Section 2(a)(1), amending 47 U.S.C. 227
New Criminal Penalties for TCPA Violations
This provision adds a new subsection to the Communications Act of 1934, establishing criminal penalties for individuals who knowingly and willfully violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. A basic violation can lead to up to one year in prison or a fine. More severe 'aggravated' offenses, such as initiating millions of calls, having a prior conviction, using calls for felony purposes, or causing over $5,000 in loss, can result in up to three years in prison or a fine.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that criminal penalties are essential to deter the most egregious robocallers and scammers who are not adequately impacted by civil fines. They believe that the threat of jail time will be a more effective deterrent for sophisticated, often international, criminal enterprises.
Critics contend
Some might argue that while the intent is good, enforcing criminal penalties against often anonymous or foreign actors will be challenging and may not significantly reduce the overall volume of illegal calls. Concerns could also be raised about the potential for overreach if definitions are not applied carefully.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the desire for stronger deterrence against illegal robocalls with the practical challenges of enforcing criminal statutes against a global and often elusive network of offenders. It also navigates the line between targeting malicious actors and potentially impacting legitimate automated communications.
Section 2(b), amending 47 U.S.C. 227(e)(5)
Increased Civil Penalties for Caller ID Spoofing
This provision amends the existing law to double the maximum civil penalty for individuals or entities that intentionally provide inaccurate caller identification information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain something of value. The maximum fine per violation increases from $10,000 to $20,000.
Defines 'call' broadly to include messages or communications to any North American Numbering Plan (NANP) number, including emergency numbers, initiated by an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) or artificial/prerecorded voice. It also explicitly includes text messages sent to mobile phones using an ATDS without prior consent or as an emergency message.
Section 2(a)(3), amending 47 U.S.C. 227(k)(3)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define terms specific to a new subsection. However, the breadth of the definition is crucial for understanding the scope of the new criminal penalties.
Case for: Supporters argue that a broad definition of 'call' is necessary to ensure that the new criminal penalties cover all forms of illegal automated communications, including text messages and calls to emergency lines, which are increasingly used by scammers.
Case against: Some might argue that including text messages and a broad interpretation of ATDS could potentially create ambiguity for legitimate businesses that use automated messaging, even with the 'willfully and knowingly' standard, leading to potential over-enforcement.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the types of communications subject to criminal penalties under the TCPA, encompassing modern communication methods beyond traditional voice calls.
This is a technical and conforming amendment that updates a cross-reference in the existing Communications Act. It changes a reference from 'section 501' to 'subsection (k)' (the new criminal penalties section) within the context of enforcement actions related to caller ID information.
Section 2(a)(2), amending 47 U.S.C. 227(e)(5)(B)
Why it matters:This is purely a technical update to ensure consistency in statutory references after the addition of a new subsection. It is standard legislative drafting practice.
Case for: Ensures that all relevant enforcement provisions correctly point to the newly established criminal penalties, maintaining clarity and coherence in the law.
Case against: There is no substantive case against a technical conforming amendment; it is necessary for the bill's proper integration into existing law.
Estimated impact: No direct policy impact, but ensures the legal framework for enforcement is consistent and accurate.