Powerful Robocall Rules Could Stop Scammers Before They Dial

Attorney General Letitia James and a bipartisan coalition want phone companies to investigate customers before giving them access to America’s calling networks.

New York Attorney General Letitia James is urging the federal government to adopt stronger Know Your Customer rules that could stop illegal robocalls before they reach consumers. James and a bipartisan coalition of 49 other attorneys general say telephone providers should verify who their customers are, understand how they plan to use phone services and closely monitor accounts that create unusually large numbers of calls.

The proposal would place more responsibility on the companies that give callers access to the nation’s telephone system. Instead of relying mainly on consumers to recognize scams after their phones ring, the approach would require providers to identify suspicious customers before millions of calls can be placed.

“Fraudsters are using their access to our country’s phone networks to flood New Yorkers with scam calls at all hours of the day,” James said. “The companies that run our phone networks have a responsibility to stop these illegal robocalls.”

What Are Know Your Customer Rules?

Know Your Customer, commonly called KYC, is a process companies use to verify a customer’s identity, business activities and potential risk before providing services.

The concept is widely associated with banks and financial institutions. In the telephone industry, KYC rules help providers determine who is using their networks and whether that customer appears to be operating a lawful business.

Providers can use that information to:

• Reject customers that cannot prove they are legitimate.
• Investigate unusual calling patterns.
• suspend or terminate accounts connected to unlawful calls.
• Share useful information with regulators and law enforcement.
• Prevent bad actors from quickly returning under a new name.

James and the coalition argue that simply confirming a customer’s name and address is no longer enough. A company may exist on paper while still serving as a front for illegal robocalls.

The FCC opened a proceeding on April 30, 2026, seeking public comment on stronger KYC obligations for voice-service providers. The agency is considering what information providers should collect and whether companies should continue reviewing customers after opening their accounts. No final rule has been adopted. (Federal Communications Commission)

Why Attorneys General Want Stronger Robocall Protections

Scam calls are more than a daily irritation. They are an entry point for identity theft, financial fraud and impersonation schemes.

According to the multistate coalition, Americans received approximately 29.6 billion scam robocalls and text messages in 2025 and lost nearly $2 billion through phone scams. The same national figures were reported by several state attorneys general and the National Association of Attorneys General. (Utah Attorney General)

The broader fraud picture is even more troubling. The Federal Trade Commission reported that consumers lost about $16 billion to all types of fraud in 2025, an increase of roughly 25 percent from 2024. Imposter scams alone produced $3.5 billion in reported losses. (Federal Trade Commission)

These schemes often begin with a familiar claim:

• A bank representative says an account has been compromised.
• A government agent threatens arrest or loss of benefits.
• A utility company demands an immediate payment.
• A delivery service requests a small fee.
• A caller promises debt relief, medical benefits or investment profits.
• A relative supposedly needs emergency money.

Scammers create urgency because panic leaves little time for verification. They may demand gift cards, cryptocurrency, wire transfers or access to a bank account.

The Coalition’s Three Main Requests

James and the other attorneys general are asking the FCC to strengthen protections in three major areas.

Require Providers to Understand Their Customers’ Businesses

Telephone companies would not stop after confirming that a customer or business technically exists. Providers would also review:

• The nature of the customer’s business.
• Its reputation and operating history.
• How it intends to use calling services.
• Whether its proposed call volume makes sense.
• Its record of following state and federal laws.
• Connections to past suspicious or illegal activity.

This deeper review could make it harder for sham companies to open accounts and begin placing millions of calls.

It would also give providers a clearer reason to refuse service when a customer cannot explain its business model or expected call traffic.

Apply KYC Rules to Providers of Every Size

The coalition argues that small telephone providers should not receive broad exemptions.

A size-based exemption could create a weak point in the system. Scammers would have an incentive to move their business to providers facing fewer responsibilities.

The attorneys general say illegal traffic is sometimes facilitated through smaller voice-service companies. They want the same basic customer-verification standards applied throughout the industry, although compliance procedures could still account for a company’s resources and level of risk.

Increase Monitoring of High-Risk Customers

The coalition also supports additional monitoring for customers that subscribe to high-volume calling services or display other warning signs.

A legitimate hospital, school district or emergency notification service may need to place thousands of calls. High volume alone does not prove wrongdoing.

However, providers could examine whether the volume matches the stated purpose of an account. They could also watch for rapid changes in calling behavior, repeated consumer complaints or the constant replacement of telephone numbers.

This risk-based approach would focus attention where abuse is most likely without automatically treating every large caller as a criminal operation.

Scammers Are Changing Their Methods

For years, robocall enforcement focused heavily on caller ID spoofing. Spoofing allows a caller to disguise its identity by making a false or stolen number appear on a consumer’s screen.

Federal regulators and state officials have taken steps to reduce spoofing, including authentication programs designed to help providers verify caller ID information.

Scammers, however, continue to adapt.

Authorities say some operations now obtain legitimate telephone numbers and cycle through them rapidly. A new number may be used only a few times before the scammers abandon it and move to another.

That tactic can make traditional spam filters less effective because the number has not existed long enough to build a record of complaints.

The stronger KYC proposal is meant to address the companies and individuals obtaining those numbers, not merely the numbers that appear on consumers’ screens.

Why Phone Companies Matter

Every illegal robocall must pass through one or more telephone networks. That gives providers a critical position in the fight against fraud.

A provider that conducts meaningful customer reviews may identify a suspicious account before the first call is placed. A provider that ignores obvious warning signs may allow millions of calls to reach consumers.

The coalition’s proposal reflects a simple idea: companies should not profit from customers they have made little effort to understand.

James said telephone companies must help prevent robocallers from abusing their networks.

That expectation does not mean providers can eliminate every scam. Criminal organizations may use false documents, stolen identities or overseas operations. However, stronger reviews could raise the cost of entering the U.S. telephone system and make repeat offenders easier to trace.

Could Stronger Rules Burden Legitimate Companies?

Some providers may argue that broader KYC rules would create new expenses, especially for smaller businesses. Detailed reviews, recordkeeping and customer monitoring require trained employees and technical systems.

That concern deserves serious consideration. Poorly designed rules could slow service for legitimate businesses or impose costs that smaller providers struggle to absorb.

The answer should not be to abandon verification. Instead, the FCC could establish clear standards based on risk.

For example, a local business seeking a small number of telephone lines would not require the same level of review as a newly created company requesting the ability to place millions of calls.

The FCC could also provide:

• Clear definitions of suspicious activity.
• Standard forms and verification procedures.
• Reasonable compliance periods.
• Technical guidance for smaller providers.
• Safe reporting channels for suspected fraud.
• Strong penalties for companies that knowingly ignore illegal traffic.

Uniform federal standards may ultimately help responsible providers by making expectations clearer and preventing careless companies from gaining a competitive advantage.

A Bipartisan Consumer Protection Effort

The request stands out because it brought together officials from across the political spectrum.

The coalition included attorneys general representing Republican-led states, Democratic-led states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. That wide support reflects the fact that robocall fraud does not target people according to political affiliation.

Older adults may face devastating losses, but younger consumers are also targeted through fake job offers, investment pitches, debt-relief programs and text-message schemes.

The FTC reported that consumers lost $470 million in 2024 to scams that began with text messages. That was more than five times the amount reported in 2020. The agency cautioned that reported losses likely represent only part of the actual harm because many fraud cases are never reported. (Federal Trade Commission)

What Consumers Can Do Now

Stronger federal rules could reduce future calls, but consumers still need to protect themselves today.

Take these steps when receiving an unexpected call:

1. Do not trust caller ID alone. A familiar name or local number can be falsified.
2. Do not provide personal information. Never share passwords, verification codes, Social Security numbers or bank details with an unexpected caller.
3. End the call and verify independently. Contact the organization using a number from an official website, account statement or the back of a payment card.
4. Do not make rushed payments. Legitimate agencies do not demand gift cards or cryptocurrency to prevent immediate arrest.
5. Use your carrier’s blocking tools. Many telephone companies offer free or low-cost spam protection.
6. Report suspicious calls. Include the date, time, number shown on caller ID and any callback number provided.

The FTC advises consumers to report unwanted calls through the National Do Not Call system. The FCC also accepts complaints involving unwanted calls, spoofing and other telephone issues. (FCC Complaints)

Stopping the Call Before the Phone Rings

Consumers have spent years being told to block, delete and report scam calls. Those steps remain useful, but they place much of the burden on the people being targeted.

James and the bipartisan coalition are asking the FCC to move more responsibility upstream.

Phone providers control access to the networks scammers need. Strong Know Your Customer rules could require those companies to verify customers, investigate questionable businesses and monitor high-risk accounts before another wave of calls begins.

The FCC must now decide how far the rules should go and how they should apply to providers of different sizes. Regulators should listen carefully to legitimate compliance concerns, but they should not allow narrow exemptions to become safe harbors for fraud.

Consumers can report suspicious calls and encourage federal officials to adopt clear, enforceable standards. The goal is not merely to identify a scam after someone loses money. It is to stop the caller from reaching the victim in the first place.