Those annoying robocalls may soon be less frequent, thanks to SB 208, also known as the Consumer Call Protection Act of 2019.

Those annoying robocalls may soon be more identifiable thanks to SB 208, also known as the Consumer Call Protection Act of 2019. Photo by Fezbot2000 on Unsplash.

Did you know that most people receive, on average, roughly 16 robocalls per month? And that according to the Federal Trade Commission, 70 percent of most consumer fraud scams start with these robocalls?

Those annoying robocalls may soon be more identifiable thanks to SB 208, also known as the Consumer Call Protection Act of 2019.

Under the oversight of the California Public Utilities Commission, SB 208 will require telecommunications service providers to implement authenticate calls made using an IPN (internet protocol network). This authentication will be achieved through both Secure Telephony Identity Revisited (STIR) and Secure Handling of Asserted information toKENs (SHAKEN) protocols. 

Essentially, with SB 208, all outbound calls will need to be verified via digital tokens, and if the tokens don’t match, you will be alerted that the call is likely spam. Verizon has already implemented the technology for many clients in California. 

According to Governor Gavin Newsom, the new law will “identify those engaging in deceptive robocalls and protect Californians, especially vulnerable populations, from impostors using telecommunications to defraud consumers.”

The deadline for telecommunications service providers to comply with the new law is on or before January 1, 2021.

READ MORE

Disclaimer

The blog posts and e-newsletters from Lester & Cantrell, LLP are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Please contact our attorneys to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Lester & Cantrell, LLP and the user. Any opinions expressed on our blogs/e-newsletters are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.