WARNING: Do Not Let Automated FCC “Deficiency” Solicitations Create New Compliance Risk

The CommLaw Group, PLLC is warning voice service providers, intermediate providers, gateway providers, VoIP providers, and other communications companies to exercise caution when responding to automated or semi-automated solicitations claiming to identify deficiencies in FCC compliance filings.

A recent solicitation circulating to companies listed in the FCC’s Robocall Mitigation Database (“RMD”) appears to be based on a mass-audit script or automated review tool applied to publicly available FCC filings. The solicitation identifies supposed deficiencies in a provider’s RMD filing, cites potentially severe enforcement consequences, and offers to prepare and file corrective documents with the FCC.

Providers should not ignore their FCC compliance obligations. RMD filings matter, and the FCC has made clear that the Database is an important enforcement tool. The FCC’s rules require covered providers to maintain accurate, complete, and current RMD submissions, and to update certain changed information within 10 business days. The FCC also has authority to remove deficient providers from the RMD, which can prevent other providers from accepting their traffic.

But providers should be equally wary of responding reflexively to a solicitation that may be based on an automated or AI-assisted review, may overstate or mischaracterize the actual legal significance of the alleged “deficiencies,” and may encourage corrective filings without the benefit of experienced telecommunications counsel.

The Risk Is Not Just Under-Compliance. It Is Bad “Corrective” Compliance.

The most dangerous compliance mistake is not always doing too little. Sometimes it is doing too much, too quickly, without understanding the legal consequences.

For example, a provider receiving this type of solicitation might agree to have a consulting firm prepare and file an updated Robocall Mitigation Plan containing a lengthy, polished set of Know Your Customer (“KYC”) procedures, customer-vetting steps, traceback processes, contractual controls, traffic-monitoring practices, and internal escalation protocols.

That may sound helpful. But it can create serious risk if the filing does not accurately reflect the company’s real-world operations.

If the company is not actually performing the procedures described in the updated filing, the new filing may become a liability multiplier. In a future FCC inquiry, enforcement investigation, traceback dispute, customer complaint, carrier dispute, or private litigation, the company’s own FCC-filed Robocall Mitigation Plan could be used as evidence that the company represented — under officer certification — that it was performing compliance activities it was not actually performing.

In other words, a filing intended to reduce risk could become an admission that increases exposure.

At that point, the issue is no longer simply whether the company had adequate KYC or robocall mitigation practices. The company may also face questions about inaccurate regulatory certifications, misleading FCC filings, failure to implement stated compliance controls, and, in some circumstances, broader consumer protection or fraud-related theories.

FCC Filings Are Legal Representations, Not Marketing Forms

RMD certifications are not mere administrative paperwork. FCC rules require certifications to be filed in the Commission’s portal and signed by an officer in conformity with 47 C.F.R. § 1.16. The rules also require updates within 10 business days for certain changed information.

That means providers should treat RMD filings as legal representations to a federal agency. They should be accurate, tailored, supportable, and operationally realistic.

A “best practices” template may be useful as a starting point, but it should not be pasted into an FCC filing unless the provider has confirmed that the practices are actually implemented, documented, and sustainable. Overbroad paper compliance can be worse than a narrower, candid, and well-supported filing.

Automated Compliance Tools Can Be Useful — But They Are Not Legal Judgment

Automated tools, database scrapers, and AI-assisted compliance checkers may help flag potential issues. Used properly, they can be helpful triage tools.

But they are not a substitute for legal judgment.

A tool may detect that a filing does not contain certain words or sections. It may not understand the provider’s business model, traffic profile, STIR/SHAKEN implementation status, wholesale relationships, upstream and downstream carrier arrangements, customer base, actual KYC practices, contractual controls, or prior regulatory history.

Nor will an automated tool necessarily distinguish between a truly material compliance gap and a technical or stylistic issue that does not justify a rushed amendment. In some cases, the cure may be worse than the disease.

Beware of Fear-Based Solicitations

Providers should be especially cautious when a solicitation:

• Claims to have “audited” FCC filings at scale;
• Suggests that missing language automatically means non-compliance;
• Uses severe penalties to create urgency without explaining whether those penalties realistically apply;
• Offers rapid “turnaround” filing services without first understanding the company’s operations;
• Encourages the filing of robust policies or procedures without confirming that the company actually follows them;
• Treats FCC compliance as a form-filing exercise rather than a legal and operational risk-management function.

The FCC has, in fact, increased its focus on RMD accuracy, completeness, and currentness. The Commission’s 2026 rules establish base forfeitures for false or inaccurate RMD information and for failure to timely update changed information. The FCC also has recently removed large numbers of providers from the RMD for deficient filings.

That enforcement environment makes careful compliance more important — not less. But it also makes careless amendments more dangerous.

Practical Do’s and Don’ts for Providers

Providers receiving a solicitation like this should consider the following:

• Do verify whether your RMD filing is current, complete, and accurate.
• Do confirm whether your filed Robocall Mitigation Plan reflects your actual practices.
• Do evaluate whether any missing language is truly required for your provider type and operational profile.
• Do involve experienced telecommunications counsel before filing amendments that expand your compliance representations.
• Do preserve copies of any solicitation, audit report, compliance-checker output, and proposed corrective filing.
• Do not assume that an automated “deficiency” finding is legally correct.
• Do not authorize a third party to file revised RMD materials without attorney review.
• Do not add KYC, traceback, monitoring, or enforcement language to your filing unless the company actually follows those procedures.
• Do not certify aspirational policies as if they are current practices.
• Do not confuse “more detailed” with “more compliant.”

The Better Approach: Accurate, Tailored, Defensible Compliance

The right goal is not to have the longest Robocall Mitigation Plan. The goal is to have a filing that is accurate, complete, tailored to the company’s role in the calling ecosystem, aligned with current FCC requirements, and supported by real operational practices.

For some providers, that may mean updating an RMD filing. For others, it may mean improving internal KYC procedures before expanding the language in the filing. In still other cases, it may mean documenting existing practices more carefully, training personnel, revising customer onboarding workflows, or aligning contracts with actual mitigation obligations.

The key point is simple: FCC compliance filings should follow legal and operational analysis. They should not be driven by fear, generic templates, or automated solicitations.

The CommLaw Group Can Help!

The CommLaw Group, PLLC advises communications providers on robocall mitigation, STIR/SHAKEN, RMD filings, KYC practices, traceback response, CPNI, FCC enforcement risk, and related compliance obligations.

Providers that receive automated “deficiency” notices or solicitations should not panic — and should not blindly authorize corrective filings. Instead, they should have the underlying filing reviewed by experienced telecommunications counsel to determine whether an amendment is necessary, what it should say, and whether the company’s actual practices support the representations being made to the FCC.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.