EB is responsible for enforcing TCPA’s provisions and the commission’s  rules and orders. FCC Has Recorded a Growing Number of Junk Fax Complaints, but Has Taken Limited Enforcement Action to Date

In 2000, FCC recorded about 2,200 junk fax complaints; in 2005, that  number had grown to more than 46,000. Despite this growth in junk fax  complaints, the numbers of investigations and enforcement actions have  generally remained the same. As  table 1 indicates, FCC issued 261 citations covering 1,456 junk fax  complaints from 2000 through 2005. EB officials cited competing demands,  personnel reductions, and the increasing skill of violators in concealing  their identity as reasons for the limited number of citations issued. For various reasons, five of the six  forfeitures will never be collected. Focus on Customer Service and Documentation Is Time-consuming, and Data Entry Errors May Occur

CGB has emphasized customer service by establishing multiple methods  for consumers to report junk fax complaints to FCC, providing multiple  sources of information about junk fax issues, and sending a letter in  response to the majority of the junk fax complaints. Without analysis, FCC cannot explore the need for, or implement, changes  to its rules, procedures, or consumer guidance that might help deter junk  fax violations or give consumers a better understanding of the junk fax  rules. FCC also has not established  what it needs to do to be able to completely and accurately report the  number of complaints it has received in carrying out its junk fax  responsibilities as required under the 2005 Act. Because FCC’s junk fax  enforcement efforts have data management issues, lack data analysis, and  lack performance goals and measures, it is not possible to determine  whether any additional enforcement measures would better protect  consumers and businesses from receiving junk faxes. The latter actions are filed by the  Department of Justice (DOJ) on behalf of FTC. The law prohibits  deceptive subject lines and requires that the e-mail give recipients an opt- out method. As explained in the letter  of this report, without FCC establishing performance goals and measures  and analyzing complaint and enforcement data, it is not possible to explore  the effectiveness of current enforcement measures. Scope and Methodology

The Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 required GAO to report to Congress  on FCC’s enforcement of the junk fax laws. (2) What are the strengths and weaknesses of FCC’s junk fax  procedures? Additionally, we reviewed FCC’s guidance to  complainants for submitting junk fax complaints as well as FCC’s  procedures for receiving and documenting these complaints. To determine the strengths and weaknesses of FCC’s junk fax procedures,  we analyzed these procedures, including those used to determine which  junk fax complaints would be considered for further investigatory and  enforcement actions.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 prohibited invasive telemarketing practices, including the faxing of unsolicited advertisements, known as "junk faxes," to individual consumers and businesses. Junk faxes create costs for consumers (paper and toner) and disrupt their fax operations. The Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 clarified an established business relationship exemption, specified opt-out procedures for consumers, and requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)--the federal agency responsible for junk fax enforcement0--to report annually to Congress on junk fax complaints and enforcement. The law also required GAO to report to Congress on FCC's enforcement of the junk fax laws. This report addresses (1) FCC's junk fax procedures and outcomes, (2) the strengths and weaknesses of FCC's procedures, and (3) FCC's junk fax management challenges.

What GAO Found

FCC has procedures for receiving and acknowledging the rapidly increasing number of junk fax complaints, but the numbers of investigations and enforcement actions have generally remained the same. In 2000, FCC recorded about 2,200 junk fax complaints; in 2005, it recorded over 46,000. Using its procedures to review the complaints, FCC's Enforcement Bureau (EB) issued 261 citations (i.e., warnings) from 2000 through 2005. EB has ordered six companies to pay forfeitures for continuing to violate the junk fax rules after receiving a citation. The six forfeitures totaled over $6.9 million, none of which has been collected by the Department of Justice for various reasons. EB officials cited competing demands, resource constraints, and the rising sophistication of junk faxers in hiding their identities as hindrances to enforcement. An emphasis on customer service, an effort to document consumers' complaints, and an attempt to target enforcement resources efficiently are the strengths of FCC's procedures; however, inefficient data management, resulting in time-consuming manual data entry, data errors, and--most important--the exclusion of the majority of complaints from decisions about investigations and enforcement, are weaknesses. FCC's guidance to consumers does not provide them with all of the information they need to support FCC's enforcement efforts. FCC faces management challenges in carrying out its junk fax responsibilities. The commission has no clearly articulated long-term or annual goals for junk fax monitoring and enforcement, and it is not analyzing the junk fax data. Without analysis, FCC cannot explore the need for, or implement, changes to its rules, procedures, or consumer guidance that might help deter junk fax violations or give consumers a better understanding of the junk fax rules. Most important, without performance goals and measures and without analysis of complaint and enforcement data, it is not possible to explore the effectiveness of current enforcement measures.