S-151-116
Became Public Law No: 116-105.
Sponsored by John Thune (R-SD)
What it does
The TRACED Act requires the FCC to mandate that phone carriers implement call authentication technology to verify the origin of calls. It establishes rules for blocking unauthenticated calls, creates consumer protections including free opt-out/opt-in call blocking, sets up a traceback consortium to identify the sources of illegal robocalls, and increases financial penalties for robocall violations. It also creates a Hospital Robocall Protection Group and directs the FCC to share evidence of fraudulent robocalls with the Department of Justice.
Who benefits
All U.S. phone subscribers who receive unwanted or fraudulent robocalls — estimated in the billions annually. Hospitals and healthcare facilities, which would receive targeted protections. Consumers targeted by one-ring scams. Law enforcement agencies (DOJ, FCC) that gain stronger enforcement tools and mandatory evidence-sharing. Legitimate businesses whose calls are currently mistaken for robocalls, who gain a formal process to dispute erroneous call blocking.
Who is hurt
Telemarketing companies and call centers that rely on high-volume automated calling, who would face stricter authentication requirements and higher penalties. Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service providers, who may face new recordkeeping and registration mandates. Smaller or budget phone carriers, who may bear significant compliance costs to implement call authentication infrastructure. Political campaigns, charities, and debt collectors — categories often exempted from robocall rules — who could face new opt-in/opt-out requirements.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that illegal robocalls represent one of the most widespread consumer harms in the United States, with Americans receiving tens of billions of unwanted calls each year, many of them fraudulent scams targeting the elderly and vulnerable. They contend that the existing legal framework lacked the technical teeth to stop bad actors, and that mandatory call authentication (STIR/SHAKEN) closes a critical gap by making it possible to verify who is actually placing a call. Supporters also emphasize that the bill is carefully balanced: it protects legitimate callers from erroneous blocking through a free dispute process, and it directs resources specifically to hospitals, which are uniquely harmed when robocalls disrupt critical communications. The increased civil penalties, they argue, create a meaningful deterrent that prior law failed to provide.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill imposes substantial compliance costs on carriers — particularly smaller regional and rural providers — that may lack the technical infrastructure to implement STIR/SHAKEN authentication, potentially disadvantaging them relative to large carriers. They contend that determined bad actors, especially those operating from outside U.S. jurisdiction, will simply route calls through foreign networks to evade authentication requirements, making the law largely ineffective against the most harmful robocallers. Critics also raise concerns that overly broad call-blocking authority could result in legitimate calls — from doctors, schools, or government agencies — being silently blocked with no notice to the recipient, and that the redress process, while free, may be too cumbersome for small businesses and nonprofits to navigate effectively.
Constitutional context
The bill operates primarily under Congress's Commerce Clause authority (Art. I, Sec. 8), which grants broad power to regulate interstate telephone communications. The First Amendment is relevant because automated calling has been recognized as a form of protected speech (see Moody v. NetChoice, 2024, on platform editorial discretion), meaning content-neutral restrictions must be carefully tailored. The Fourth Amendment's digital privacy protections (Carpenter v. United States, 2018; Riley v. California, 2014) are implicated by provisions requiring VoIP providers to retain call records sufficient to trace calls to their source, raising questions about government access to those records. Due Process (5th Amendment) is relevant to the forfeiture penalty structure, particularly for violations without intent.
Checks and balances
The FCC (executive branch agency) gains significant new rulemaking and enforcement authority, including the power to mandate authentication technology, set blocking rules, and refer evidence to the DOJ. Congress retains oversight through required FCC reporting on implementation. The DOJ gains a formal evidence-referral pipeline from the FCC. Post-Loper Bright, courts — not the FCC — would independently interpret the scope of the agency's authority under this statute, reducing deference to FCC rulemaking decisions if challenged.
Historical precedent
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) first restricted automated calls and established the Do Not Call framework. The Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009 prohibited caller ID spoofing with intent to defraud. The TRACED Act builds directly on both statutes by adding authentication mandates and stronger penalties.