In the post, Mr. LeBlanc explains that the Enforcement Bureau is required to follow a series of steps when pursuing an enforcement action “in order to protect the integrity of the investigations and ensure fairness to the companies involved.” These steps are as follows:

1. The Enforcement Bureau issues a Notice of Apparent Liability (“NAL”) for an alleged violation of the Communications Act.
2. The company has approximately 30 days to respond to the NAL.
3. The Bureau reviews the responses, conducts additional investigation as needed, and determines whether to proceed with the penalty proposed in the NAL.
4. If the Bureau seeks to enforce the proposed fine, it submits the case to the full Commission for a vote to issue a Forfeiture Order (the Commission can also resolve the investigation by reaching a settlement agreement with the company).
5. A company that receives a Forfeiture Order can challenge the action before the Commission.
6. After all challenges have been exhausted, the fine must be paid. If not, the Commission will refer the matter to the Department of Justice for collection.

Perhaps the most interesting statements in the post pertain to the FCC’s rate of collection of its fines. According to Mr. LeBlanc, in 2011 and 2012, the Commission collected just 54.9% and 39.2% of fines issued in those years, respectively, totaling approximately $38.8 million. By comparison, between 2013 and 2015, “the Commission has collected more than 80 percent of the money owed in imposed fines” and thus far in 2015 has collected nearly $100 million in penalties.

LeBlanc did not release the data that underlies these statistics, so we have been unable to verify the amounts reported. It appears that these figures include amounts collected via consent decrees in addition to those imposed via a forfeiture order. Notable 2015 consent decrees that might account for the nearly $100 million figure include two settlements involving PSMS billing, one CPNI/privacy settlement and four settlements involving 911 outages. These actions alone involve $73 million in civil penalties, not including amounts paid to the states under the PSMS consent decrees. That would suggest, however, that $25 million was collected as a result of forfeiture orders. That number seems high, at least based on a preliminary search of forfeitures issued in 2015.

Finally, Mr. LeBlanc said that the Bureau “will not hesitate” when it comes to “protecting consumer data, stopping Wi-Fi blocking, enforcing robocall rules or preventing cramming and slamming.” In light of the Bureau’s aggressive stance on consumer protection issues, the recent announcement of a Memorandum of Understanding with the Federal Trade Commission, and the addition of privacy expert Jonathan Mayer as the Bureau’s new chief technologist, statements such as these provide valuable insight into the Bureau’s priorities going forward. Companies that may be subject to the Commission’s ever-widening jurisdiction should continue to be vigilant of new and ongoing enforcement actions, particularly in the areas highlighted above.

Smart City is an Internet and telecommunications provider that offers Wi-Fi services to exhibitors and visitors at convention centers and large events. The FCC initiated an investigation in late June 2014 after receiving an informal complaint from a Smart City competitor – a company providing equipment that permits users to establish hotspots as an alternative to venue-based broadband providers. The FCC’s investigation revealed that Smart City automatically sent deauthentication information to prevent Wi-Fi users’ devices seeking to utilize hotspots independent of Smart City’s network, finding this to be a violation of Section 333 of the Communications Act. These blocking actions took place at several venues. Further, the FCC found no evidence that the actions were at all related to network security or other reasonable network management practices, which potentially would have justified them.

This recent action is further proof that Wi-Fi blocking remains an enforcement focus for the FCC. Smart City’s consent decree provisions track closely to those imposed against Marriott late last year: penalty in excess of half-a-million dollars, 3-year compliance plan, admission of liability, and the immediate cessation of all Wi-Fi blocking activities. The FCC used the occasion to remind the public of its January 2015 Enforcement Advisory putting companies on notice that Wi-Fi blocking, like blocking of any authorized wireless communication, is a violation of the Communications Act. In the news release for the Smart City settlement, Enforcement Bureau Chief, Travis LeBlanc, issued a warning to all persons and companies using technologies to block Wi-Fi connections that such actions “are patently unlawful.” It will be interesting to monitor this space to determine whether the Commission has related enforcement actions in the pipeline, given that less than a year has passed since the Marriott consent decree was issued.