Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

Code · BILL · 119th Congress · H.R. 6152 (Introduced in House) — To direct the Federal Communications Commission to establish a taskforce on unlawful robocalls, and for other purposes. · Sec. 4

Sec. 4. Robocall Mitigation Database

386 words·~2 min read·/bill/119/hr/6152/ih/section-4

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

In this section: The term Commission means the Federal Communications Commission. The term Robocall Mitigation Database has the meaning given the term in section 64.6300 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation. The term unlawful robocall has the meaning given the term in section 2(a). The Commission shall issue rules to require that, subject to the other provisions of this section, before a provider may file a certification to the Robocall Mitigation Database, the provider shall post a bond in an amount that is not more than $100,000, if the Commission determines that posting such a bond is necessary to preserve the integrity of the Robocall Mitigation Database.
In issuing rules under paragraph (1), the Commission shall establish criteria to exempt a provider from the requirement to post a bond described in that paragraph if that requirement, as applied to the provider, is not necessary to deter unlawful robocall activity. In establishing criteria under subparagraph (A), the Commission shall require consideration of whether a provider— is registered with the Commission under section 64.1195 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation) and makes contributions under section 254(d) of the Communications Act of 1934 ( 47 U.S.C. 254(d) ); holds a certificate of authority, license, or registration with a State public utility commission; is an issuer, the securities of which are listed on a national securities exchange; and otherwise presents indicia of being a bona fide, established communications service provider, such that requiring the provider to post a bond under paragraph
(1)would impose unnecessary burdens without materially improving enforcement of section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 ( 47 U.S.C. 227 ). In implementing this section, the Commission shall— require the posting of a bond under subsection (b)(1) from providers that do not demonstrate— legitimate, ongoing operations; regulatory oversight sufficient to ensure accountability; or the ability to pay fines or forfeitures imposed by the Commission or other governmental enforcement authorities with respect to violations of Federal or State laws or regulations; establish categorical exemptions for identifiable classes of legitimate providers that satisfy the criteria established under subsection (b)(2); and minimize administrative and financial burdens on compliant, established, and regulated providers while ensuring effective enforcement of section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 ( 47 U.S.C. 227 ).
Connectionstraces to 2
Citation graph
cites case law
Sec. 4
Robocall Mitigation Database
Cites 2Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.