PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 18, 2018
Repeated Objectionable Bothering of Consumers on Phones Act or the ROBOCOP Act
This bill directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to: (1) require providers of text messaging or voice services, for no additional charge, to enable technology that verifies the accuracy of caller ID information; (2) require providers to offer subscribers optional free robocall-technology blocking technology; and (3) provide an exemption process for subscribers originating a call if there is a need to provide misleading or inaccurate information (such as a call to conduct an activity of a domestic violence shelter or medical practice).
The bill allows private actions to enjoin or recover damages for violations of the FCC's caller identification technology standards. States may bring civil actions for a pattern or practice of a failure to provide such technology or options.
The bill amends the Communications Act of 1934 to make it unlawful for persons within or outside the United States, with the intent to cause harm, to intentionally interfere with call-blocking technology.
The FCC must report on whether the requirements of this bill have reduced unwanted calls to consumers.
People & committees
Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT] · D–CT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.2705 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.2705 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.2705 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.2705 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.