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 · Jun 7, 2016
Repeated Objectionable Bothering of Consumers on Phones Act or the ROBOCOP Act
This bill amends the Communications Act of 1934 to expand the prohibition against knowingly transmitting inaccurate caller identification information to apply to: (1) persons outside the United States if the recipient is within the United States, or (2) text messages.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) must prescribe regulations that require providers of telecommunications services or IP-enabled voice services, for no additional charge, to enable technology for: (1) subscribers originating a telephone call to verify the accuracy of their caller identification information; and (2) subscribers receiving a call to use, with the option to disable, technology to determine whether an incoming call is verified as providing caller identification information that accurately identifies the person originating the call and to prevent the subscriber from receiving a call that is not verified. Service providers must also offer a free option for subscribers receiving a call to: (1) identify a call as originating from an automatic telephone dialing system or as using an artificial or prerecorded voice, and (2) prevent themselves from receiving such a call unless it is made by a public safety entity or the subscriber provides prior consent to receive the call.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The FCC must provide an exemption process for subscribers originating a call to demonstrate: (1) their legitimate need to provide misleading or inaccurate information (such as a call to conduct an activity of a domestic violence shelter or medical practice), or (2) that the FCC has exempted a call for law enforcement purposes or because of a court order.
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 also subjects to civil forfeiture penalties, criminal fines, or state actions persons who intentionally cause call-blocking technology to: (1) incorrectly identify calls as originating from an automatic dialing system or using an artificial or prerecorded voice, or (2) prevent the called party from receiving a call made by a public safety entity or a call to which it has provided its prior consent.
People & committees
Sen. Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY] · D–NY
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.3026 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.3026 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.3026 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.3026 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.