Kelley Drye: AGs, AI, and Robocalls | Practical Law

Kelley Drye: AGs, AI, and Robocalls | Practical Law

A bipartisan group of twenty-six attorneys general provided comments in response to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) notice of inquiry which sought comment to better understand the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies on robocalls and robotexts. In their comments, the AGs argue that any type of AI technology that generates a human voice should be considered an ​“artificial voice” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA). Calls using that type of AI technology would therefore be subject to the TCPA's prior express written consent requirements. Moreover, the AGs also stated that the FCC should reject arguments that a business's AI technology is the equivalent of a live agent because the AI technology has been programmed to interact with the consumer given that the FCC has previously rejected soundboards.

Kelley Drye: AGs, AI, and Robocalls

Practical Law Legal Update w-042-1455 (Approx. 2 pages)

Kelley Drye: AGs, AI, and Robocalls

by Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
Published on 29 Jan 2024
A bipartisan group of twenty-six attorneys general provided comments in response to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) notice of inquiry which sought comment to better understand the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies on robocalls and robotexts. In their comments, the AGs argue that any type of AI technology that generates a human voice should be considered an “artificial voice” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA). Calls using that type of AI technology would therefore be subject to the TCPA's prior express written consent requirements. Moreover, the AGs also stated that the FCC should reject arguments that a business's AI technology is the equivalent of a live agent because the AI technology has been programmed to interact with the consumer given that the FCC has previously rejected soundboards.