47 C.F.R. § 64.1604

Prohibition on transmission of inaccurate or misleading caller identification information

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) No person or entity in the United States, nor any person or entity outside the United States if the recipient is within the United States, shall, with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value, knowingly cause, directly, or indirectly, any caller identification service to transmit or display misleading or inaccurate caller identification information in connection with any voice service or text messaging service.

(b)Paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply to:

(1) Lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States; or

(2) Activity engaged in pursuant to a court order that specifically authorizes the use of caller identification manipulation.

(c) A person or entity that blocks or seeks to block a caller identification service from transmitting or displaying that person or entity's own caller identification information pursuant to § 64.1601(b) of this part shall not be liable for violating the prohibition in paragraph (a) of this section. This paragraph (c) does not relieve any person or entity that engages in telemarketing, as defined in § 64.1200(f)(10) of this part, of the obligation to transmit caller identification information under § 64.1601(e).

[76 FR 43205, July 20, 2011, as amended at 84 FR 45678, Aug. 30, 2019]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2003–2024 · leading case: Bell Atl. Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 339 F.3d 294 (5th Cir. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bell Atl. Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 339 F.3d 294 (5th Cir. 2003). “29490, 29491 (June 5, 1995) (codified at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1604 (2002)). 4 .For at least the early portion of the class period, caller ID was advertised primarily as a local service.”

United States v. Rhodes (D. Mont. 2022). · cites it 5× “§ 227 (e)(1) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1604 .” (Doc. 1 at 2.) The United States brought this action, pursuant to 47 U.”

United States v. Abramovich (S.D. Fla. 2024). · cites it 2× “§ 227 (e) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1604 . The Caller ID Act, under §227(e), makes it unlawful “to knowingly transmit misleading or inaccurate caller identification information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value” (known as “spoofing") and §…”

Arizona, State of v. Michael D Lansky LLC (D. Ariz. 2024). “” 47 C.F.R. § 64.1604 (emphases added). See also 4 United States v.”

United States v. Rhodes (D. Mont. 2024). “§ 227(e)(1) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1604 . (Doc. 15 at 8.) Additionally, Rhodes has already filed a Motion to Dismiss, (Doc.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.