Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-59
1
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Steve Kramer
)
)
)
)
)
File No.: EB-TCD-24-00036094
NAL/Acct. No.: 202432170005
FRN: 0035440791
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted: May 23, 2024 Released: May 24, 2024
By the Commission: Chairwoman Rosenworcel and Commissioners Starks and Gomez issuing separate
statements.
I. INTRODUCTION
1. We propose a penalty of $6,000,000 against Steve Kramer (Kramer) for perpetrating an
illegal robocall campaign targeting potential New Hampshire voters two days before the state’s 2024
Democratic Presidential Primary Election (Primary Election) in apparent violation of the Truth in Caller
ID Act of 2009, which is codified at section 227(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
(Communications Act), and section 64.1604 of our rules.
1
Kramer’s illegal robocalls carried a deepfake
2
generative artificial intelligence (AI) voice message that imitated U.S. President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.’s
voice and encouraged potential voters not to vote in the upcoming Primary Election (Deepfake Message).
The caller identification (caller ID) information was inaccurate and misleading as the calls transmitted the
telephone number associated with a prominent New Hampshire political operative (NHPO); in reality,
Kramer—without the knowledge or consent of the individual identified in the caller ID—was responsible
for the spoofed robocalls.
2. Following an extensive investigation by the Federal Communications Commission’s
(Commission or FCC) Enforcement Bureau (Bureau), we find that Kramer knowingly caused thousands
of illegal prerecorded voice robocalls to be transmitted using misleading and inaccurate caller ID
information with the intent to defraud and cause harm in apparent violation of the Truth in Caller ID Act
and the Commission’s implementing regulation, for which we propose a forfeiture penalty of $6,000,000.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Legal Framework
3. Congress recognized that consumers have embraced caller ID as a vital part of voice
telephone service, using it to help them decide whether to answer the phone.
3
Caller ID is only valuable,
however, if it is accurate.
4
To protect consumers, Congress passed the Truth in Caller ID Act which
1
47 U.S.C. § 227(e); 47 CFR § 64.1604.
2
“Deepfake” is defined as “an image or recording that has been convincingly altered and manipulated to
misrepresent someone as doing or saying something that was not actually done or said.” Deepfake, Merriam-
Webster (last updated Mar. 21, 2024), https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deepfake
.
3
See 156 Cong. Rec. H2522, H2523 (2010) (remarks of Rep. Stearns) (“Millions of Americans use caller ID to
secure greater privacy for their families.”).
4
156 Cong. Rec. H2522, H2524 (2010) (remarks of Rep. Engel) (“Now, if you see a caller ID and you see it has a
phone number, most people think that it’s ironclad that that’s the actual phone number that’s calling them when in
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-59
2
makes it “unlawful for any person . . . to cause any caller identification service to knowingly transmit
misleading or inaccurate caller identification information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or
wrongfully obtain anything of value”
5
—a practice known as “spoofing.”
6
4. On February 8, 2024, the Commission confirmed that the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act’s restrictions on the making of calls using an “artificial or prerecorded voice” already
encompasses current AI technologies that generate artificial human voices.
7
In doing so, the Commission
observed that uses of voice cloning “can uniquely harm consumers and those whose voice is cloned.
Voice cloning can convince a called party that a trusted person, or someone they care about such as a
family member, wants or needs them to take some action that they would not otherwise take.”
8
While a
Truth in Caller ID violation is not dependent on the content of the call, calls transmitting voice-cloned
messages and inaccurate or misleading caller ID may further demonstrate a caller’s intent to defraud,
cause harm, or wrongfully obtain something of value.
B. Factual Background
5. On January 21, 2024, two days before the New Hampshire Primary Election, thousands
of potential voters received robocalls that included the following prerecorded and artificial voice
Deepfake Message—all but the last sentence of which was spoken in a voice that was artificially created
to sound like President Biden:
9
This coming Tuesday is the New Hampshire Presidential Preference
Primary. Republicans have been trying to push nonpartisan and
Democratic voters to participate in their primary. What a bunch of
malarkey. We know the value of voting Democratic when our votes
count. It’s important that you save your vote for the November election.
We’ll need your help in electing Democrats up and down the ticket.
Voting this Tuesday only enables the Republicans in their quest to elect
truth it’s not.”); 155 Cong. Rec. S170-02, S173 (2009) (remarks of Sen. Nelson) (“Consumers expect caller I.D. to
be accurate because it helps them decide whether to answer a phone call and trust the person on the other end of the
line.”).
5
47 U.S.C. § 227(e)(1).
6
Caller ID Spoofing, Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, https://www.fcc.gov/spoofing (last updated Mar. 7, 2022) (“Caller
ID spoofing is when a caller deliberately falsifies the information transmitted to your caller ID display to disguise
their identity.”).
7
Implications of Artificial Intelligence Technologies on Protecting Consumers from Unwanted Robocalls and
Robotexts, CG Docket No. 23-362, Declaratory Ruling, FCC 24-17, 2024 WL 519167, at *2 (Feb. 8, 2024); see also
47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)-(B).
8
Id., para. 6.
9
Numerous news outlets have concluded that the recorded voice resembled the voice of President Biden. See, e.g.,
Alex Seitz-Wald and Mike Memoli, Fake Joe Biden robocall tells New Hampshire Democrats not to vote Tuesday,
NBC News (Jan. 22, 2024, Updated 11:45 AM EST),
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-e
lection/fake-
joebiden-robocall-tells-new-hampshire-democrats-not-vote-tuesday-rcna134984 (“The call, an apparent imitation or
digital manipulation of the president’s voice . . . .”); Jacob Rosen, Fake Biden robocall encourages voters to skip
New Hampshire Democratic primary, CBS News (Jan. 22, 2024, Updated Jan. 23, 2024 9:17 AM EST),
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fake-bi
den-robocall-new-hampshire-primary/ (“A fake robocall impersonating
President Biden . . . ”); Sasha Pezenik and Brittany Shepherd, Fake Biden robocall urges New Hampshire voters to
skip their primary, ABC News (Jan. 22, 2024, 8:08 PM), https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fake-bide
n-robocallurges-
new-hampshire-voters-skip/story?id=106580926 (“A robocall appearing to impersonate the voice of President Joe
Biden . . . .”); Em Steck and Andrew Kaczynski, Fake Joe Biden robocall urges New Hampshire voters not to vote
in Tuesday’s Democratic primary, CNN (Jan. 22, 2024, Updated 5:44 PM EST),
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/22/politics/fake-j
oe-biden-robocall/index.html (“A robocall that appears to be an AI
voice resembling President Joe Biden . . . .”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-59
3
Donald Trump again. Your vote makes a difference in November, not
this Tuesday. If you would like to be removed from future calls, please
press two now. Call {[ ]} to be removed from future
calls.
10
6. The caller ID information, which matched the number identified in the Deepfake
Message, indicated that the calls came from phone number {[ ]} (Spoofed Number), which
is subscribed to by the spouse of the NHPO, a former New Hampshire Democratic Party chair and
treasurer of a Political Action Committee (PAC) that led an effort to encourage New Hampshire
Democrats to write-in President Biden’s name in the state’s Primary Election.
11
However, neither the
NHPO nor their spouse were in any way involved in making the calls.
12
Indeed, the Deepfake Message
was directly counter to the very purpose of the NHPO’s efforts with regards to the Primary Election: the
NHPO’s PAC encouraged voters to write-in Biden’s name in the Primary Election, whereas the Deepfake
Message encouraged voters to not vote at all.
13
7. The Bureau launched an investigation into the calls in coordination with the New
Hampshire Attorney General, the bipartisan Anti-Robocall Multistate Litigation Task Force (Task
Force),
14
the U.S. Department of Justice, and USTelecom’s Industry Traceback Group (ITG).
15
The
investigation determined that Lingo Telecom, LLC (Lingo) was the originating provider for a number of
10
See Subpoena Response of Steve Kramer (Mar. 20, 2024) (on file in EB-TCD-24-00036094) (Kramer Subpoena
Response) at email from {[ ]} of Voice Broadcasting to Kramer (Jan. 21, 2024 at 2:34 PM) (attaching
Deepfake Message audio file); Subpoena Response of Life Corp. (Feb. 7, 2024) (on file in EB-TCD-24-00036094)
(Life Subpoena Response) at Response to Request for Information (RFI) No. 1 (confirming thousands of calls made
on January 21, 2024 to recipients carrying the Deepfake Message); see also YouMail Threat Actor Profile for YPS-
6194 (Mar. 19, 2024) (on file in EB-TCD-24-00036094). Material set off by double brackets {[ ]} is confidential
and is redacted from the public version of this document.
11
Life Subpoena Response at Response to RFI No. 2 (confirming the Spoofed Number used with the calls); Email
from NHPO to Brendan O’Donnell, Office of the New Hampshire Attorney General (Jan. 22, 2024 at 9:11 AM) (on
file in EB-TCD-24-00036094) (NHPO Complaint) (stating that the Spoofed Number is “my personal cell phone
number,” but that the caller ID “showed my [spouse’s] name” because their name is “the name under which both our
cell phones are billed through US Cellular.”); Lisa Kashinsky & Holly Otterbein, Dems launch pro-Biden super
PAC in New Hampshire, give Dean Phillips the cold shoulder, Politico (Dec. 2, 2023),
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/02/biden-super-pac-new-hampshire-dean-phillips-00129750
(“On Friday,
longtime New Hampshire democratic operative . . . confirmed to Politico that [they are] helping launch a super PAC
[(Granite for America)] to encourage voters to write in Biden in the primary” and the NHPO is the “former chair of
the New Hampshire Democratic Party”).
12
NHPO Complaint (“I have not authorized these calls . . . . [My spouse] has not authorized these calls.”).
13
See Lisa Kashinsky & Holly Otterbein, Dems launch pro-Biden super PAC in New Hampshire, give Dean Phillips
the cold shoulder, Politico (Dec. 2, 2023), https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/02/biden-sup
er-pac-new-
hampshire-dean-phillips-00129750.
14
“The Anti-Robocall Multistate Litigation Task Force is a 51-member collective of state Attorneys General, led by
the Attorneys General of Indiana, North Carolina, and Ohio, which is focused on actively investigating and pursuing
enforcement actions against various entities in the robocall ecosystem that are identified as being responsible for
significant volumes of illegal and fraudulent robocall traffic routed into and across the country.” Letter from Tracy
Nayer, Special Deputy Attorney General, Consumer Protection Division, N.C. Dep’t of Justice, to Talal Khalid,
CEO, Telcast Network LLC, at n.1 (Nov. 3, 2023),
https://ncdoj.gov/wp-cont
ent/uploads/2023/11/State-AG-Task-
Force-NOTICE-Letter-to-TELCAST.pdf.
15
The ITG is the registered industry consortium selected pursuant to the TRACED Act to conduct tracebacks. See
Implementing Section 13(d) of the Pallone-Thune Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act
(TRACED Act), EB Docket No. 20-22, Report and Order, DA 23-719, 2023 WL 5358422, at *1, para. 1 (EB Aug.
18, 2023).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-59
15
cases on the basis that the aggregate forfeiture would serve the dual goals of punishment and deterrence,
and that higher amounts would be unlikely to achieve a more effective result.
116
We believe that rationale
applies to this case as well and thus propose a base forfeiture amount of $1,000 per apparent violation.
2. Kramer’s Intentional, Egregious, and Harmful Actions Warrant a 100% Upward
Adjustment
36. The Commission considers specific upward and downward adjustment criteria which
may increase or decrease the base forfeiture, including—among other criteria—whether the violation was
minor, whether the violation involves egregious misconduct, whether the violation was intentional, and
whether the violation caused substantial harm.
117
Based on the balancing of the criteria that are
applicable here, we find that the circumstances warrant a 100% upward adjustment from the base penalty.
We base this finding on our assessment that Kramer’s apparent violations caused substantial harm, were
intentional, and constituted egregious misconduct.
37. Substantial Harm. Kramer’s apparently illegal robocalls—nearly 10,000 of them—
caused harm in multiple ways to multiple people. The Deepfake Message aimed to deceive potential
voters about who was calling them and convince them to not exercise their right to vote.
118
The calls
further risked degrading the general public’s faith in elections. Kramer’s actions also harmed the NHPO,
who received a slew of calls to their personal cell phone from individuals seeking to be removed from
future calls.
119
This factor weighs in favor of an upward adjustment.
38. Intentional Misconduct. Kramer does not deny that he designed and executed this
scheme with purpose.
120
He wrote the script used to create the Deepfake Message.
121
He carefully
selected the Spoofed Number knowing it was associated with the NHPO.
122
He provided detailed
instructions to Voice Broadcasting to launch the campaign,
123
which as he explained in his own words, “I
don’t do anything by accident.”
124
This factor weighs in favor of an upward adjustment.
39. Egregious Misconduct. Kramer sent thousands of potential voters a prerecorded AI-
generated voice message that imitated the voice of the president of the United States.
125
The message he
scripted told people not to vote in the New Hampshire primary.
126
And he did so under the cover of the
phone number of an unknowing and unconsenting local political leader.
127
Further, he acted without
116
See e.g., John C. Spiller; Jakob A. Mears; Rising Eagle Capital Group LLC; JSquared Telecom LLC; Only Web
Leads LLC; Rising Phoenix Group; Rising Phoenix Holdings; RPG Leads; and Rising Eagle Capital Group –
Cayman, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 35 FCC Rcd 5948, 5963, para. 38 (2020).
117
See 47 CFR § 1.80(b)(11) tbl. 3; see also The Comm’n’s Forfeiture Policy Statement & Amend. of Section 1.80 of
the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, CI Docket No. 95-6, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087,
17100-01, para. 27 (1997).
118
See supra paras. 5, 24.
119
See supra para. 12.
120
See supra para. 16.
121
See supra para. 9.
122
See supra para. 10.
123
See supra para. 11.
124
See Kramer Interview, supra note 24, at 1:54:53; see also id. at 2:17:37 (Kramer: “I believe in my actions and I
did them deliberately.”).
125
See supra para. 5.
126
Id.
127
See supra paras. 10, 11-12.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-59
5
Kramer claims he wrote the script himself, and specifically incorporated the word “malarkey,” which—
according to Kramer—is President Biden’s “signature catchphrase” and “gets people’s attention.”
26
Individual-1 then used software available through a website operated by Eleven Labs Inc. (Eleven Labs)
to create the Deepfake Message in accordance with the script Kramer provided;
27
later that same day,
Individual-1 emailed two variations of the Deepfake Message to Kramer.
28
Also on January 20, Kramer’s
father paid Individual-1 $150 for the Deepfake Message on Kramer’s behalf.
29
President Biden was
neither involved in creating the Deepfake Message, nor did he authorize the Deepfake Message.
30
10. Kramer needed a caller ID number to pair with the Deepfake Message. He ultimately
selected a number associated with the NHPO, which was a carefully calculated decision.
31
Kramer knew
he wanted a New Hampshire area code because as he later explained, if you are a resident of New
Hampshire “when you see someone from New Hampshire calling you, you’re more likely to pick up.”
32
He also specifically wanted to use the telephone number of someone associated with the President Biden
26
Kramer Interview at 48:17 (Interviewer: “The statement that you used for the robocalls here in New Hampshire
two days before the primary – who created that statement?” Kramer: “I did it.”); id. at 49:24 (Kramer: “The Biden
voice using ‘malarkey’ as his signature catchphrase gets people’s attention.”); see also Ben Guarino, Joe Biden loves
the word ‘malarkey.’ But nobody knows where it came from, The Washington Post (July 28, 2016),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-m
ix/wp/2016/07/28/joe-biden-loves-the-word-malarkey-but-
nobody-knows-where-it-came-from/.
27
Vijay Balasubramaniyan, Pindrop Reveals TTS Engine Behind Biden AI Robocall, Pindrop,
https://www.pindrop.com/blog/pindrop-reveals-tts-engine-behind-biden-ai-robocall (
last visited Mar. 22, 2024)
(concluding that Eleven Labs Inc.’s text-to-speech engine generated the Deepfake Message); Alex Seitz-Wald, A
New Orleans magician says a Democratic operative paid him to make the fake Biden robocall, NBC News (Feb. 23,
2024),
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-e
lection/biden-robocall-new-hampshire-strategist-rcna139760
(“Eleven Labs [used] . . . to create the Biden robocall.”).
28
Kramer Subpoena Response, supra note 10, at email from [Individual-1] to Kramer (Jan. 20, 2024 at 10:13 AM)
(attaching two variations of the Deepfake Message); Kramer Interview at 1:04:02 (Kramer: “This kid [Individual-1]
seemed like he knew what he was doing and he could do it fast. And he did. And I would say that after I shot him
the original script, he sent me one copy, and then maybe another copy a few minutes later, that he had worked on as
far as the Biden voice.”).
29
Subpoena Response of Individual-1 (Mar. 20, 2024) (on file in EB-TCD-24-00036094) (Individual-1 Subpoena
Response) at Screenshot_20240222_143959 Venmo (showing two payments from Kramer’s father totaling
$150.00); Kramer Interview at 58:11 (Kramer: “[Individual-1 is] a street magician. So when I paid him $150 in
order to be able to create this call, I wanted to pay him a fair amount, what I thought would be a fair amount.”); id. at
18:07 (“Some of my canvassers don’t have bank accounts, so [Kramer’s father is] the one that keeps track of the
Venmos we send out, or CashApp, or different other entities.”).
30
Kramer Interview, supra note 24, at 1:07:57 (“The artificial intelligence script that I put in there for that call never
went through the president.”); Watch: White House holds briefing amid reports of AI-generated robocalls
impersonating Biden in New Hampshire, PBS News Hour (Jan. 22, 2024, Updated 3:51 PM EST),
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-l
ive-white-house-holds-daily-briefing-as-biden-and-harris-focus-on-
reproductive-rights (“White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre confirmed Monday that the call ‘was indeed
fake and not recorded by the president.’”).
31
See Kramer Interview, supra note 24, at 1:33:29 (Interviewer: “And did I hear you correctly – you provided
Voice Broadcasting with the opt-out phone number that belonged to the former New Hampshire DNC Chairman?”
Kramer: “Correct. That was a deliberate move by me[.]”).
32
Id. at 1:52:13 (Kramer: “I wanted to use someone in-state, in New Hampshire, because when you see someone
from New Hampshire calling you, you’re more likely to pick up, which was my intent.”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-59
6
write-in campaign.
33
Kramer reviewed records pertaining to the NHPO’s super PAC available on the
Federal Election Commission website, and found the NHPO’s name and number.
34
11. Meanwhile, on Friday, January 19, 2024, Kramer solicited Voice Broadcasting to procure
“a Sunday night robo[call], probably 25k [calls] range.”
35
On Saturday, January 20, Kramer emailed
Voice Broadcasting a list of names and numbers for the “robo-call tomorrow,”
36
which Kramer later
explained was a list of potential New Hampshire voters likely to vote for a Democrat in the Primary
Election.
37
Kramer’s instructions to Voice Broadcasting were specific: “Call[s] should go out at 6:15pm
EST Sunday. Run to answer machines and live pickup . . . . we should be able to finish by 8:45pm.”
38
About a half-hour later, Kramer sent another email to Voice Broadcasting with the Deepfake Message
“for Sunday night.”
39
On Sunday, January 21, Kramer instructed Voice Broadcasting to “use [the
Spoofed Number] as the caller ID number” for the calls.
40
With Kramer’s permission, Voice
Broadcasting added a sentence to the end of the Deepfake Message that instructed potential voters to “call
[the Spoofed Number] to be removed from future calls.”
41
By 7:12 p.m. on the night of Sunday, January
21, Voice Broadcasting—“using Life’s services and equipment”—had initiated 9,581 calls carrying the
Deepfake Message to potential New Hampshire voters using the Spoofed Number as the caller ID
number.
42
12. On Sunday, January 21, 2024, at about 6:17 p.m., the NHPO received a call from a man
who had just received a “political call” from what appeared to be the NHPO’s phone number.
43
The
NHPO explained to the caller that they had not called him and the NHPO “shrugged it off.”
44
By
approximately 8:00 p.m., while out to dinner, the NHPO received ten more calls from unfamiliar
numbers.
45
The NHPO returned one of the calls and reached a woman who explained she received a call
33
Id. at 1:52:33 (Interviewer: “How did you decide to use [NHPO’s] number out of all of the 603 New Hampshire
numbers?” Kramer: “Well, like I discussed before, I looked up on the FEC filings for that particular write-in
campaign. [They were] listed as treasurer.”); id. at 31:43 (Interviewer: “Kramer, you keep referring to the former
chair. What’s the former chair’s name?” Kramer: “Good question. I can’t remember. [They are] well-publicized
in the news, I really don’t know [their] name. [They were] running the Biden write-in campaign.”); id. at 1:54:52
(Kramer: “I don’t do anything by accident, at least I try not to. So again, the person [NHPO] was chosen because of
[their] contacts within the media, certainly in New Hampshire and probably in other places as well[.]”).
34
Id. at 32:35 (Interviewer: “How did you get [NHPO’s] phone number?” Kramer: “I looked on the FEC filing for
that committee and [they] came up as the treasurer.”); id. at 1:52:37 (Kramer: “I looked up on the FEC filings for
that particular write-in campaign. [They were] listed as treasurer.”).
35
Life Subpoena Response, supra note 10, at LIFE-03-0008.
36
Id. at LIFE-03-0022 (attaching a file titled “New Hampshire DEM FEB 2020 Presidential voters”).
37
Kramer Interview, supra note 24, at 26:30 (Kramer: “I sent [the call] out to 5,000 people who were registered
Democrats who had voted before, so more likely Democrats to vote.”).
38
Life Subpoena Response, supra note 10, at LIFE-03-0022.
39
Id. at LIFE-03-0023.
40
Id. at LIFE-03-0024.
41
See id. at Response to RFI No. 1.
42
Id. at Response to RFI Nos. 1-2 (confirming that Voice Broadcasting “initiated 9,581 calls on January 21, 2024,
using Life’s services and equipment with [the Spoofed Number] as the caller identification number”); id. at LIFE-
03-0013 (showing last call placed at 7:12 p.m.).
43
NHPO Complaint, supra note 11.
44
Id.
45
Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-59
8
Lingo without liability under the Communications Act or the FCC’s rules.
56
On the same day, both the
New Hampshire State Attorney General’s Office and the Task Force demanded that Life cease and desist
from, respectively, violating New Hampshire election law and transmitting suspected illegal robocall
traffic.
57
16. On February 23, 2024, Individual-1 publicly disclosed creating the Deepfake Message at
Kramer’s request, and that Kramer had asked Individual-1 to delete their email communications reflecting
Kramer’s involvement.
58
Three days later, Kramer publicly accepted responsibility for the calls.
59
He
later stated, “I believe in my actions and I did them deliberately,” and that he had no intention of
“apologiz[ing] to the people who feel disenfranchised or in some way that democracy has been
disrupted.”
60
Kramer claimed the calls were not made on behalf of any other person or entity.
61
III. DISCUSSION
17. Kramer’s activities apparently violated the Truth in Caller ID Act, which makes it
unlawful to “cause any caller identification service to knowingly transmit misleading or inaccurate caller
identification information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of
value.”
62
The Commission’s implementing regulation at section 64.1604 of its rules states that this
prohibition applies to a person or entity who knowingly causes, “directly, or indirectly,” “any caller
56
Robocall Enforcement Notice to All U.S.-Based Voice Service Providers, Public Notice, DA 24-102, 2024 WL
488244 (Feb. 6, 2024), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-24-102A1.pdf.
57
Press Release, N.H. Dep’t of Justice, Voter Suppression AI Robocall Investigation Update (Feb. 6, 2024),
https://www.doj.nh.gov/news/2024/20240206-voter-robocall-update.html (
NH Investigation Update) (“Today, the
Election Law Unit is issuing a cease-and-desist order to Life Corporation[.]”); Letter from Tracy Nayer, Special
Deputy Attorney General, Consumer Prot. Div., N.C. Dep’t of Justice, to Walter Monk, Founding Owner Life
Corporation, et al., (Feb. 6, 2024),
https://ncdoj.gov/wp-co
ntent/uploads/2024/02/State-AG-Task-Force-NOTICE-
Letter-to-LIFE-CORP-Feb.-2024-1.pdf.
58
Alex Seitz-Wald, A New Orleans magician says a Democratic operative paid him to make the fake Biden
robocall, NBC News (Feb. 23, 2024), https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-e
lection/biden-robocall-new-
hampshire-strategist-rcna139760.
59
See id. (“Steve Kramer initially did not respond to multiple requests for comment.”); Marcia Kramer, Steve
Kramer explains why he used AI to impersonate President Biden in New Hampshire, CBS News (Feb. 26, 2024),
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/steve-k
ramer-explains-why-he-used-ai-to-impersonate-president-biden-in-
new-hampshire/ (“A political consultant who represents several New York politicians admits he’s the man behind
the fake robocall telling President Joe Biden's supporters not to vote in New Hampshire.”).
60
Kramer Interview, supra note 24, at 2:17:37 (Kramer: “I believe in my actions and I did them deliberately. And I
don’t care about what other people think.”); id. at 1:11:25 (Kramer: “And I’m not going to apologize to the people
who might have gotten that call, I think that sometimes that’s the way it is.”); Morano Podcast, supra note 21, at
19:34 (Kramer: “The people who feel disenfranchised, or in some way that democracy has been disrupted, if I
didn’t do this, this regulations, these regulations would have never changed. And in the same way someone who can
get through airport security and then is actually working for a security agency in order to be able to show the
flaws.”).
61
Kramer Interview, supra note 24, at 1:59:22 (Interviewer: “So, to close the loop on this, it was your idea to use
this number, and you didn’t communicate with anyone else about this part of the strategy behind the calls?” Kramer:
“Correct.”); Morano Podcast, supra note 21, at 25:10 (Kramer: “Dean Phillips’ campaign had no idea I was doing
this. I had a different contract with them to get them on the ballot in New York and in Pennsylvania and we did
both. They had no knowledge.”); id. at 25:22 (Kramer: “The company that I used in order to be able to send out
these calls . . . . [t]hey had no knowledge of it.”); id. at 25:33 (Kramer: “The person who created [the recording],
[Individual-1], had no knowledge of how I was going to use it.”).
62
47 U.S.C. § 227(e)(1).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-59
9
identification service to transmit or display misleading or inaccurate caller identification information”
with the intent specified in the statute.
63
18. As discussed in more detail below, Kramer apparently knowingly used misleading or
inaccurate caller ID information with the intent to defraud and cause harm:
Knowingly: Kramer very specifically selected the Spoofed Number for the calls, with full
knowledge it was associated with the NHPO.
64
Kramer then explicitly directed Voice
Broadcasting to place 9,581 calls using the Spoofed Number as the caller ID.
65
Misleading or Inaccurate: As a result of Kramer’s actions, the caller ID transmitted with the
calls was both inaccurate and misleading because the number was associated with the NHPO and
their spouse, neither of whom were the actual source of the calls.
66
Intent to Defraud: Kramer intended to fraudulently deprive voters of their right to cast a ballot in
the New Hampshire Primary Election by making false representations of material facts, including
by conveying misleading voter eligibility information, using an imitation of President Biden’s
voice to deliver that information, and indicating that the call was associated with a local political
leader.
Intent to Cause Harm: Kramer intended to cause harm to potential voters and the election
process by fueling a false narrative giving potential voters fake information in order to convince
them to forgo their right to vote in an election. He also intended to cause harm to the NHPO by
subjecting them to a stream of pointless callbacks from confused call recipients.
19. As discussed in more detail below, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of $6,000,000.
We calculate the proposed forfeiture by assessing a base forfeiture of $1,000 per each apparently unlawful
call. We then apply an upward adjustment of 100% to the proposed amount to reflect the egregiousness,
nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations for which Kramer is apparently culpable. As
we have in other mass-spoofing cases, we analyze and verify a portion of the apparently unlawfully
spoofed calls and apply the proposed forfeiture amount to those verified calls. In this case, the Bureau
verified a subset of 3,000 apparently unlawful spoofed calls.
A. Kramer Knowingly Caused the Transmission of Inaccurate and Misleading Caller ID
Information
20. Kramer knowingly caused the calls at issue by directing—in detail—Voice Broadcasting
to transmit spoofed calls.
67
Kramer provided Voice Broadcasting with the date and time to make the
calls, the list of voters to call, the recording of the message to be played, and the spoofed caller ID
number to transmit with the calls.
68
Kramer instructed Voice Broadcasting to play the recording when
63
47 CFR § 64.1604(a).
64
See supra para. 10.
65
See supra para. 11.
66
See supra paras. 10, 11.
67
See generally Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 et al., CG
Docket No. 02-278, WC Docket No. 07-135, Declaratory Ruling and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 7962, 790, para. 30 (2015)
(stating that the Commission looks at “the totality of the facts and circumstances” to determine who is responsible
for making a call for purposes of the TCPA and that a person can be liable for making a call even if he doesn’t
physically place the call, if he is “so involved in placing the as to be deemed to have initiated it” and further noting
that one of the factors that can be considered is “the extent to which a person willfully enables fraudulent spoofing
of telephone numbers”).
68
See supra para. 11.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-59
10
either a person answered the call or when the person’s voicemail was activated.
69
Ultimately, Voice
Broadcasting transmitted 9,581 calls through Life pursuant to Kramer’s instructions.
70
21. The caller ID number Kramer instructed Voice Broadcasting to use was both inaccurate
and misleading, which Kramer not only knew, but planned for and intended. The caller ID information
was inaccurate because it did not reflect a number associated with the party causing the calls, i.e., Kramer,
but instead was the NHPO’s cell phone number.
71
The caller ID information was also misleading because
it reflected a New Hampshire area code.
72
Indeed, Kramer specifically wanted a New Hampshire number
because “when you see someone from New Hampshire calling you, you’re more likely to pick up, which
was my intent.”
73
Kramer further misled call recipients by using the telephone number associated with a
prominent member of the New Hampshire Democratic Party who was not connected to the calls.
74
He
selected a number associated with the NHPO because of their connection to the campaign to write-in
President Biden’s name in the Primary Election.
75
All of these carefully calculated decisions demonstrate
Kramer knowingly caused the calls to be made with inaccurate and misleading caller ID information.
B. Kramer Intended to Defraud and Cause Harm
22. Under the Truth in Caller ID Act, “intent” encompasses a broad scope of objectives,
namely, an intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain something of value.
76
Here, the evidence
reflects that Kramer acted with intent to defraud and cause harm.
1. Kramer Intended to Defraud Potential Voters
23. The elements of common law fraud are: (1) a false representation; (2) in reference to a
material fact; (3) made with knowledge of its falsity; (4) with the intent to deceive; and (5) an action that
is taken in reliance upon the representation.
77
The fifth element—an action taken in reliance upon the
representation—is not necessary to establish an intent to defraud voters under the Truth in Caller ID
69
Id.
70
Id.
71
See supra para. 10.
72
Kramer Interview, supra note 24, at 1:52:16.
73
Id. at 1:52:16.
74
NHPO Complaint, supra note 11 (“I have nothing to do with the calls purporting to be from President Biden. I
have not authorized these calls.”).
75
See supra para. 10.
76
47 U.S.C. § 227(e)(1).
77
See Pence v. United States, 316 U.S. 332, 338 (1942); Hercules & Co. v. Shama Rest. Corp., 613 A.2d 916, 923
(D.C. 1992); see also Marini v. Adamo, 995 F. Supp. 2d 155, 199-200 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (citing Chanavil v. Gulatti,
169 F.3d 168, 171 (2d Cir. 1999)); M & D Cycles, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 208 F. Supp. 2d 115, 120 (D.N.H.
2002) (“To establish fraud, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant intentionally made a representation with
knowledge of its falsity or with conscious indifference to its truth with the intention to cause another to rely on it. . .
. In addition, the plaintiff must prove that he justifiably relied on the misrepresentation, to his detriment.”), aff’d, 70
F. App’x 592 (1st Cir. 2003).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-59
11
Act.
78
A violation of the Truth in Caller ID Act based on an intent to defraud requires only a showing of
the first four elements to establish the necessary intent, not a successful result.
79
24. False Representations of Material Facts. Kramer’s calls conveyed several false
representations of material facts. First, the Deepfake Message falsely conveyed the fact that President
Biden recorded the message, which he did not; the voice was an AI-generated recording mimicking the
president’s voice.
80
A message seemingly appearing to come from the president of the United States is
likely to carry great weight.
81
Second, the Deepfake Message falsely conveyed that a voter could not vote
in the Primary Election and the November presidential election: “We know the value of voting
Democratic when our votes count. It’s important that you save your vote for the November election.”
82
A misrepresentation that deceptively tells a potential voter that the president of the United States is telling
them to refrain from voting in an election in order to “save” their vote for a later election is a false
representation of material facts, and here poses potentially “devastating effects on the democratic election
process.”
83
Third, the calls transmitted the Spoofed Number as the caller ID and the Deepfake Message
further instructed listeners that they could call the Spoofed Number to be removed from future calls,
which of course was not the case.
84
Use of a New Hampshire area code and number associated with a
prominent New Hampshire Democrat added significant legitimacy to the false Deepfake Message.
85
Failure to provide an accurate name and number of the caller prevented call recipients from opting out of
receiving future calls and removed an important privacy protection, and thus this omission is material.
86
25. Knowledge of Falsity. Kramer was well aware that each of these misrepresentations was
false because he himself carefully designed each one in order to create a specific outcome—deterring
potential voters from voting. He knew the message was not created by President Biden; he instructed
Individual-1 to create an AI-generated deepfake message in accordance with a script he wrote himself.
87
He knew that voters need not refrain from voting in the New Hampshire Primary Election in order to
“save” their vote for November; Kramer is a long-time political consultant well-versed in basic voting
78
See Sumco Panama SA, Sumco Panama USA, Virtual Telecom Kft, Virtual Telecom Inc., Davis Telecom Inc.,
Geist Telecom LLC, Fugle Telecom LLC, Tech Direct LLC, Mobi Telecom LLC, And Posting Express Inc.,
Forfeiture Order, FCC 23-64, 2023 WL 5013646, at *3, para. 11 (Aug. 3, 2023) (“While reliance on the
misrepresentation is required under common law, only a showing of intent to defraud rather than actual reliance and
harm is required under the Truth in Caller ID Act.”) (quotations omitted); John C. Spiller; Jakob A. Mears; Rising
Eagle Capital Group LLC; JSquared Telecom LLC; Only Web Leads LLC; Rising Phoenix Group; Rising Phoenix
Holdings; RPG Leads; and Rising Eagle Capital Group - Cayman, Forfeiture Order, 36 FCC Rcd 6225, 6235, para.
20 (2021) (Rising Eagle Forfeiture Order) (same).
79
See Rising Eagle Forfeiture Order, 36 FCC Rcd at 6235, para. 20.
80
See supra paras. 5, 9.
81
Kramer Interview, supra note 24, at 26:30 (Kramer: “I sent [the call] out to 5,000 people who were registered
Democrats who had voted before, so more likely Democrats to vote.”).
82
See supra para. 5.
83
See NH Investigation Update, supra note 57; McCutcheon v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 572 U.S. 185, 191 (2014)
(“There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders.”);
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964) (“The right to vote freely for the candidate of one’s choice is of the
essence of a democratic society[.]”).
84
See supra paras. 5, 11.
85
See supra paras. 5, 11.
86
See 47 CFR § 64.1200(b)(1)-(3) (requiring artificial or prerecorded voice messages state the identity of the caller,
telephone number of the caller, and when left on answering machines to include “a toll free number that enables the
called person to call back at a later time”).
87
See supra para. 9.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-59
12
principles.
88
Lastly, he knew that calling the Spoofed Number would not remove voters from the calling
list; the NHPO was not associated with the robocalling campaign in any way and thus had no ability to
remove voters from Kramer’s list.
89
26. Intent to Deceive. Kramer made all of these misrepresentations with the intent to deceive
voters. He wanted voters to believe that they were hearing from President Biden, as evidenced by his (a)
instructions to Individual-1 to use AI to make the message sound like President Biden and (b)
incorporation of Biden’s catchphrase term, “malarkey,” into the script.
90
Kramer wanted voters to believe
that voting in the Primary Election meant they could not vote in November, as evidenced by the language
of the script instructing voters to “save” their vote.
91
That Kramer wanted voters to believe the calls came
from someone with a New Hampshire area code and specifically from the NHPO, a prominent figure in
the super PAC that was leading President Biden’s write-in campaign in New Hampshire—instead of
himself—is evidenced by his use of a number associated with the NHPO, and by his inclusion of that
number in the Deepfake Message itself as the number to call to be removed from future calls.
92
Kramer
admitted his belief was that voters felt “duped” by his efforts.
93
2. Kramer Intended to Cause Harm to Potential Voters by Depriving Them of
Their Vote in the Primary Election and the NHPO by Subjecting Them to a
Stream of Unsettling and Unwarranted Callbacks
27. Kramer intended to harm potential voters by giving them false information in order to
convince them to forgo their right to vote in an election.
94
Kramer himself acknowledged—without
regret—that people may have felt “disenfranchised” or that “democracy has been disrupted” as a result of
his calls.
95
Kramer’s calls not only harmed potential voters but also interfered with the Primary Election
and potentially could have interfered with the November 2024 General Election. Interfering with an
election undermines public trust in the electoral process that is the foundation of our democracy.
96
28. Kramer also intended to harm the NHPO by using the Spoofed Number as the caller ID
for the calls and explicitly instructing recipients to call the Spoofed Number to avoid future calls.
97
We
88
See supra para. 8.
89
See supra para. 10.
90
See supra para. 9.
91
See supra para. 5.
92
See supra paras. 5, 10-11.
93
Marissa Tansino, Man says he was behind AI robocalls impersonating Joe Biden before New Hampshire Primary,
WMUR-9 Manchester (Feb. 28, 2024),
https://www.wmur.com/article/joe-biden-ai-robocall-new-hampshire-steve-
kramer/60005189 (Kramer: “Now there’s real impact and it’s going to keep happening, so that we have real
regulations that protect those same people who thought they were duped[.]”).
94
See supra para. 24.
95
Morano Podcast, supra note 21, at 19:34 (Kramer: “The people who feel disenfranchised or in some way that
democracy has been disrupted, if I didn’t do this, this regulations, these regulations would have never changed. And
in the same way someone who can get through airport security and then is actually working for a security agency in
order to be able to show the flaws? You know this in a similar way, not exactly the same but in a similar way allows
an innocuous happening to be seen by everybody. You know Thomas Jefferson used to say, you do a thing act as
the whole world is watching. And they were. And everyone was watching on that Monday and Tuesday of the
primary.”); see also Kramer Interview, supra note 24, at 2:17:37 (Kramer: “I believe in my actions and I did them
deliberately.”).
96
See NH Investigation Update, supra note 57 (quoting New Hampshire Attorney General Formella: “Ensuring
public confidence in the electoral process is vital. AI-generated recordings used to deceive voters have the potential
to have devastating effects on the democratic election process.”).
97
See supra paras. 5, 10.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-59
13
have long recognized that receiving unsolicited “call backs” as a result of having one’s number spoofed is
a “harm” under the Truth in Caller ID Act.
98
The NHPO received a stream of such calls as a result of
Kramer using the Spoofed Number.
99
Indeed, Kramer admits he specifically anticipated that potential
voters would futilely attempt to return calls to the NHPO,
100
subjecting the NHPO to annoyance and
intruding on their privacy.
3. Kramer Used Generative AI Technology and Spoofing to Perpetrate
Election Interference
29. Kramer’s actions convey his intent to utilize dishonest and deceptive tactics to disrupt the
New Hampshire Primary Election. He wanted to send a message to voters telling them not to vote.
Kramer no doubt understood that any phone message using his own number and his own voice would be
a pointless exercise. But he knew that a lot of people—potentially thousands in New Hampshire—would
care what the president of the United States has to say; and he knew New Hampshire Primary Election
voters would pay attention to a phone call from the NHPO, who was a well-known figure.
101
He also
knew that he did not want to get caught for any of the deceptions he sought to undertake.
30. Generative AI technology and spoofing made it possible for Kramer to achieve these
harmful objectives. He engaged the help of an acquaintance—Individual-1—who he knew to be familiar
with AI technology.
102
Kramer gave Individual-1 specific instructions on cloning President Biden’s
voice, including instructing Individual-1 to use the word “malarkey” in the script Kramer drafted, which
he knew to be the president’s preferred nomenclature.
103
31. Not surprisingly, Kramer likely realized that faking the president’s voice but using his
own phone number to send the message to voters would not achieve the disruptive effects in the election
that he intended. So in addition to misleading potential voters about the message, he also chose to
mislead them about who was calling them, using a number associated with the NHPO.
104
The use of AI
technology can be beneficial. However, the manner in which Kramer used it was detrimental to the free
exercise of the right to vote in a democracy. The use of spoofing technology can be detrimental as
well.
105
The combination of these technologies in a single scheme to interfere with an election can be
potent. In addition to interfering with the freedom to vote, Kramer caused havoc for the NHPO, whose
private number was made known to thousands of call recipients. The NHPO was implicated in egregious
misconduct in which they had absolutely no involvement.
106
The NHPO was subjected to phone calls
throughout the evening of January 21, while the NHPO was at dinner with their spouse, with comments
98
See Adrian Abramovich, Marketing Strategy Leaders, Inc., and Marketing Leaders, Inc., Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, 32 FCC Rcd 5418, 5424, para. 18 (“‘Neighbor spoofing’ also harms the true subscriber of
the spoofed number when affected consumers redial the spoofed number.”).
99
See supra para. 12.
100
See Kramer Interview, supra note 24 at 1:57:15 (Kramer: “Usually [the number] is generic in nature, and if we
do the campaign number, I ask them to put a line that isn’t going to get tied up, because you are going to get a
response. Every time you put out an automated call, everybody likes automated calls. So sometimes they like to
complain.”); id. at 28:03 (Kramer: “I put that number because I knew [NHPO] would blow it up.”).
101
See id. at 1:16:55 (Kramer explaining use of an AI-generated voice of a known politician causes a “tremendous
jump” in poll responsiveness).
102
See supra para. 9.
103
See id.
104
See supra para. 10.
105
See supra para. 4.
106
See supra para. 10.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-59
14
and questions concerning a matter the NHPO knew nothing about.
107
Kramer sought to disrupt the New
Hampshire Primary Election and knowingly violated the NHPO’s privacy.
C. Proposed Forfeiture
32. The Commission proposes a $6,000,000 forfeiture against Kramer. The base forfeiture
appropriate for the apparent Truth in Caller ID Act violations here is $1,000 per call, which we increase
by 100% in light of the circumstances present, and multiply by a verified subset of calls to yield a total
forfeiture of $6,000,000.
33. The Commission may “proceed expeditiously . . . and, where appropriate, assess a
forfeiture penalty against, any person or entity engaged in prohibited caller ID spoofing without first
issuing a citation.”
108
The Commission’s rules authorize a forfeiture of up to $14,067 for each spoofing
violation.
109
Unlike forfeitures assessed under section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act, “the
Truth in Caller ID Act does not require ‘willful’ or ‘repeated’ violations to justify imposition of a
penalty”
110
—though the apparent violations at issue here would easily meet that standard. Thus, the
Commission is not required to demonstrate the “conscious and deliberate commission or omission of such
act” or that such act happened more than once or for more than one day to propose a forfeiture for
apparently unlawful spoofing.
111
34. In exercising its forfeiture authority, the Commission considers the “nature,
circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.”
112
The Commission may adjust a base forfeiture upward or downward based on various criteria.
113
Among
other criteria, the Commission may apply an upward adjustment for violations that are intentional, involve
egregious misconduct, or cause substantial harm.
114
1. We Propose a Base Forfeiture of $1,000 Per Apparently Unlawful Spoofed Robocall
35. The Commission has utilized a base forfeiture of $1,000 per unlawful spoofed robocall in
past mass-spoofing enforcement actions.
115
The Commission has applied the $1,000 amount in prior
107
Supra para 12.
108
Rules and Regulations Implementing the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, WC Docket No. 11-39, Report and
Order, 26 FCC Rcd 9114, 9132, para. 47 (2011) (Truth in Caller ID Order); see also 47 U.S.C. § 227(e)(5)(A)(ii)
(“Paragraph (5) of section 503(b) of this title shall not apply in the case of a violation of this subsection.”). The
Truth in Caller ID Act requires that the Commission provide the notice required under section 503(b)(3) (notice and
an opportunity for a hearing before the Commission or an administrative law judge) or section 503(b)(4) of the
Communications Act (Notice of Apparent Liability) before assessing a forfeiture for unlawful spoofing. 47 U.S.C. §
227(e)(5)(A)(iii). This Notice of Apparent Liability provides the required notice under section 503(b)(4) of the
Communications Act.
109
47 CFR § 1.80(b)(4); see Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission’s Rules, Adjustment of Civil Monetary
Penalties to Reflect Inflation, Order, DA-22-1356, 2022 WL 18023008 (EB Dec. 23, 2023); see also Annual
Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties to Reflect Inflation, 89 Fed. Reg. 2148 (Jan. 12, 2024) (setting January 15,
2024 as the effective date for the increases).
110
Truth in Caller ID Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 9133, para. 48; see also 47 CFR § 1.80(a)(4).
111
47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1)-(2) (defining “willful” and “repeated”).
112
Id. § 503(b)(2)(E); see also 47 CFR § 1.80(b)(11).
113
See 47 CFR § 1.80(b)(11) tbl. 3.
114
See id.
115
See e.g., Scott Rhodes a.k.a. Scott David Rhodes, Scott D. Rhodes, Scott Platek, Scott P. Platek, Forfeiture Order,
36 FCC Rcd 705, 728, para. 54 (2021) (Rhodes Forfeiture Order); Rising Eagle Forfeiture Order, 36 FCC Rcd at
62576-57, para. 59 (same).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-59
15
cases on the basis that the aggregate forfeiture would serve the dual goals of punishment and deterrence,
and that higher amounts would be unlikely to achieve a more effective result.
116
We believe that rationale
applies to this case as well and thus propose a base forfeiture amount of $1,000 per apparent violation.
2. Kramer’s Intentional, Egregious, and Harmful Actions Warrant a 100% Upward
Adjustment
36. The Commission considers specific upward and downward adjustment criteria which
may increase or decrease the base forfeiture, including—among other criteria—whether the violation was
minor, whether the violation involves egregious misconduct, whether the violation was intentional, and
whether the violation caused substantial harm.
117
Based on the balancing of the criteria that are
applicable here, we find that the circumstances warrant a 100% upward adjustment from the base penalty.
We base this finding on our assessment that Kramer’s apparent violations caused substantial harm, were
intentional, and constituted egregious misconduct.
37. Substantial Harm. Kramer’s apparently illegal robocalls—nearly 10,000 of them—
caused harm in multiple ways to multiple people. The Deepfake Message aimed to deceive potential
voters about who was calling them and convince them to not exercise their right to vote.
118
The calls
further risked degrading the general public’s faith in elections. Kramer’s actions also harmed the NHPO,
who received a slew of calls to their personal cell phone from individuals seeking to be removed from
future calls.
119
This factor weighs in favor of an upward adjustment.
38. Intentional Misconduct. Kramer does not deny that he designed and executed this
scheme with purpose.
120
He wrote the script used to create the Deepfake Message.
121
He carefully
selected the Spoofed Number knowing it was associated with the NHPO.
122
He provided detailed
instructions to Voice Broadcasting to launch the campaign,
123
which as he explained in his own words, “I
don’t do anything by accident.”
124
This factor weighs in favor of an upward adjustment.
39. Egregious Misconduct. Kramer sent thousands of potential voters a prerecorded AI-
generated voice message that imitated the voice of the president of the United States.
125
The message he
scripted told people not to vote in the New Hampshire primary.
126
And he did so under the cover of the
phone number of an unknowing and unconsenting local political leader.
127
Further, he acted without
116
See e.g., John C. Spiller; Jakob A. Mears; Rising Eagle Capital Group LLC; JSquared Telecom LLC; Only Web
Leads LLC; Rising Phoenix Group; Rising Phoenix Holdings; RPG Leads; and Rising Eagle Capital Group –
Cayman, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 35 FCC Rcd 5948, 5963, para. 38 (2020).
117
See 47 CFR § 1.80(b)(11) tbl. 3; see also The Comm’n’s Forfeiture Policy Statement & Amend. of Section 1.80 of
the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, CI Docket No. 95-6, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087,
17100-01, para. 27 (1997).
118
See supra paras. 5, 24.
119
See supra para. 12.
120
See supra para. 16.
121
See supra para. 9.
122
See supra para. 10.
123
See supra para. 11.
124
See Kramer Interview, supra note 24, at 1:54:53; see also id. at 2:17:37 (Kramer: “I believe in my actions and I
did them deliberately.”).
125
See supra para. 5.
126
Id.
127
See supra paras. 10, 11-12.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-59
16
remorse, publicly claiming that his actions were justified to pursue his own agenda.
128
The egregiousness
of this conduct—interfering with an election—undermines public trust in the electoral process. This
factor weighs in favor of an upward adjustment.
40. Justice. Lastly, in assessing a forfeiture, the Commission may consider “such other
matters as justice may require.”
129
Kramer’s misuse of AI technology to disseminate false information
through an illegal robocall campaign warrants an increased penalty as a matter of justice. Kramer
misused AI technology to clone the voice of the president to deceive voters and interfere with an election.
This conduct erodes the public’s trust in our communication networks and democracy itself, and warrants
a substantial penalty.
3. We Apply the Adjusted Base Forfeiture Amount to a Subset of Apparently Unlawful
Spoofed Calls
41. Lastly, as has been the case in prior spoofing enforcement actions,
130
we apply the base
forfeiture to a subset of calls which the Commission verified to be apparently unlawful. The reasons for
doing so, rather than proposing a forfeiture based on the total number of apparently spoofed calls, are
pragmatic. First, in some cases, depending on the specific spoofing scheme, it can be time-consuming to
analyze every apparently spoofed call. Second, in large spoofing schemes, we find that applying a base
forfeiture amount (with any applicable upward or downward adjustment) to a subset of verified calls
results in a proposed forfeiture that achieves the dual goals of penalizing wrongful conduct and
preventing it from recurring. Each case is unique, and we must use our discretion in proposing an
appropriate penalty to meet the specific circumstances.
42. The Bureau reviewed a sample of 3,000 of the 9,581 robocalls for violations of the Truth
in Caller ID Act.
131
The Bureau verified that the Spoofed Number was used for each of the 3,000 calls.
132
43. In sum, we increase the base forfeiture of $1,000 by 100% to yield a $2,000 per-call
adjusted base penalty. We multiply that by the subset of 3,000 verified calls to yield a total proposed
forfeiture of $6,000,000.
IV. CONCLUSION
44. Kramer is responsible for knowingly causing thousands of calls that used misleading and
inaccurate caller ID information with the intent to defraud and cause harm in apparent violation of section
227(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 64.1604 of the Commission’s rules.
As such, Kramer is apparently liable for a forfeiture of $6,000,000.
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
45. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications
Act, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b), and section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR § 1.80,
133
Steve Kramer is
hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of six
128
See supra para. 16.
129
47 USC § 503(b)(2)(E); see also 47 CFR § 1.80(b)(11).
130
See e.g., Rhodes Forfeiture Order, 36 FCC Rcd at 728, para. 54 (multiplying the base forfeiture amount by the
number of verified spoofed calls to reach a total proposed base forfeiture); Rising Eagle Forfeiture Order, 36 FCC
Rcd at 6256-57, para. 59 (same).
131
See Verified Call Detail Records (on file in EB-TCD-24-00036094); Decl. of B. Labbor, FCC Enforcement
Bureau (May 1, 2024) (on file in EB-TCD-24-00036094) (Labbor Decl.) (explaining how the calls were verified).
132
Labbor Decl.
133
47 CFR § 1.80.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-59
17
million dollars ($6,000,00) for violations of section 227(e) of the Communications Act
134
and section
64.1604
135
of the Commission’s rules.
46. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission’s
rules,
136
47 CFR § 1.80, within thirty (30) calendar days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, Steve Kramer SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or
SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture consistent
with paragraph 49 below.
47. Steve Kramer shall send electronic notification of payment to Lisa Ford, Enforcement
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, at [email protected] o
n the date said payment is made.
Payment of the forfeiture must be made by credit using CORES at
https://apps.fcc.gov/cores/userLogin.do, ACH (Automated Clearing House) debit from a bank account, or
by wire transfer from a bank account. The Commission no longer accepts Civil Penalty payments by
check or money order. Below are instructions that payors should follow based on the form of payment
selected:
• P
ayment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004, receiving bank
TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001. In the OBI field, enter the FRN(s) captioned
above and the letters “FORF”. In addition, a completed Form 159
137
or printed CORES form
138
must be faxed to the Federal Communications Commission at 202-418-2843 or e-mailed to
n the same business day the wire transfer is initiated. Failure to
provide all required information in Form 159 or CORES may result in payment not being
recognized as having been received. When completing FCC Form 159 or CORES, enter the
Account Number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID), enter the letters “FORF” in block
number 24A (payment type code), and enter in block number 11 the FRN(s) captioned above
(Payor FRN)
139
For additional detail and wire transfer instructions, go to
https://www.fcc.gov/licensing-databases/fees/wire- transfer.
• Payment by credit card must be made by using CORES at
https://apps.fcc.gov/cores/userLogin.do. T
o pay by credit card, log-in using the FCC Username
associated to the FRN captioned above. If payment must be split across FRNs, complete this
process for each FRN. Next, select “Manage Existing FRNs | FRN Financial | Bills & Fees” from
the CORES Menu, then select FRN Financial and the view/make payments option next to the
FRN. Select the “Open Bills” tab and find the bill number associated with the NAL Acct. No.
The bill number is the NAL Acct. No. with the first two digits excluded (e.g., NAL 1912345678
would be associated with FCC Bill Number 12345678). After selecting the bill for payment,
choose the “Pay by Credit Card” option. Please note that there is a $24,999.99 limit on credit
card transactions.
• P
ayment by ACH must be made by using CORES at https://apps.fcc.gov/cores/userLogin.do. To
pay by ACH, log in using the FCC Username associated to the FRN captioned above. If payment
134
47 U.S.C. § 227(e).
135
47 CFR § 64.1604.
136
Id. § 1.80.
137
FCC Form 159 is accessible at https://www.fcc.gov/licensing-databases/fees/fcc-remittance-advice-form-159.
138
Information completed using the Commission’s Registration System (CORES) does not require the submission
of an FCC Form 159. CORES is accessible at https://apps.fcc.gov/cores/userLogin.do.
139
For questions regarding payment procedures, please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by phone
at 1-877-480-3201 (option #6).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-59
18
must be split across FRNs, complete this process for each FRN. Next, select “Manage Existing
FRNs | FRN Financial | Bills & Fees” on the CORES Menu, then select FRN Financial and the
view/make payments option next to the FRN. Select the “Open Bills” tab and find the bill number
associated with the NAL Acct. No. The bill number is the NAL Acct. No. with the first two
digits excluded (e.g., NAL 1912345678 would be associated with FCC Bill Number 12345678).
Finally, choose the “Pay from Bank Account” option. Please contact the appropriate financial
institution to confirm the correct Routing Number and the correct account number from which
payment will be made and verify with that financial institution that the designated account has
authorization to accept ACH transactions.
48. Any request for making full payment over time under an installment plan should be sent
to: Chief Financial Officer—Financial Operations, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street,
NE, Washington, D.C. 20554.
140
Questions regarding payment procedures should be directed to the
Financial Operations Group Help Desk by phone, 1-877-480-3201, or by e-mail,
ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.
49. The written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture, if any,
must include a detailed factual statement supported by appropriate documentation and affidavits pursuant
to sections 1.16 and 1.80(g)(3) of the Commission’s rules.
141
The written statement must be mailed to the
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20554,
ATTN: Enforcement Bureau – Telecommunications Consumers Division, and must include the
NAL/Account Number referenced in the caption. The statement must also be e-mailed to Raul Rojo at
raul.rojo@fcc.gov.
50. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response to a
claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits the following documentation: (1) federal tax returns
for the past three years; (2) financial statements for the past three years prepared according to generally
accepted accounting practices; or (3) some other reliable and objective documentation that accurately
reflects the petitioner’s current financial status.
142
Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify
the basis for the claim by reference to the financial documentation. Inability to pay, however, is only one
of several factors that the Commission will consider in determining the appropriate forfeiture, and we
retain the discretion to decline reducing or canceling the forfeiture if other prongs of 47 U.S.C. §
503(b)(2)(E) support that result.
143
140
See 47 CFR § 1.1914.
141
Id. §§ 1.16, 1.80(g)(3).
142
47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).
143
See, e.g., Ocean Adrian Hinson, Surry County, North Carolina, Forfeiture Order, 34 FCC Rcd 7619, 7621, para.
9 & n.21 (2019); Vearl Pennington and Michael Williamson, Forfeiture Order, 34 FCC Rcd 770, paras. 18-21
(2019); Fabrice Polynice, Harold Sido and Veronise Sido, North Miami, Florida, Forfeiture Order, 33 FCC Rcd
6852, 6860-62, paras. 21-25 (2018); Best Insurance Contracts, Inc., and Philip Roesel, dba Wilmington Insurance
Quotes, Forfeiture Order, 33 FCC Rcd 9204, 9218-19, para. 44-45 (2018); Purple Communications, Inc., Forfeiture
Order, 30 FCC Rcd 14892, 14903-04, paras. 32-33 (2015); TV Max, Inc., et al., Forfeiture Order, 29 FCC Rcd 8648,
8661, para. 25 (2014).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-59
19
51. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture and a copy of the Verified Call Detail Records shall be sent by first class mail and certified
mail, return receipt requested, to Steve Kramer at {[ ]}.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-59
20
STATEMENT OF
CHAIRWOMAN JESSICA ROSENWORCEL
Re: In the Matter of Steve Kramer, File No.: EB-TCD-24-00036094, Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture (May 23, 2024)
Last year in Nigeria, a clip manipulated with Artificial Intelligence spread far and wide. It
showed a presidential candidate scheming to rig ballots. In Slovakia, people across the country heard a
manipulated audio clip of an opposition candidate supporting both election fraud and an effort to raise the
price of beer.
But there is no need to travel to far-off lands to see how AI can sow confusion. Because this year
in the United States a fraudulent campaign targeted voters in New Hampshire. It used AI-generated voice
cloning to mimic an unauthorized message from President Biden, two days before the primary election in
the state. This is unnerving. Because when a caller sounds like a politician you know, a celebrity you
like, or a family member who is familiar, any one of us could be tricked into believing something that is
not true with calls using AI technology. It is exactly how the bad actors behind these junk calls with
manipulated voices want you react.
So when we saw this happen here, on our shores, we acted fast. The Federal Communications
Commission issued a Declaratory Ruling that made clear that “artificial or prerecorded voice” robocalls
using AI voice cloning technology violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. We partnered in this
effort with State Attorneys General, including the New Hampshire Attorney General, who is one of 49
State Attorneys General who have signed on to a Memorandum of Understanding to work with this
agency on junk robocalls. This ruling matters. Because it gives our state colleagues the right to go after
bad actors behind these calls and seek damages under the law. Then we worked with carriers to trace
those responsible for this calling campaign. When we found the carrier behind it, we immediately sent a
cease and desist letter and notified all other carriers to go ahead and stop carrying this traffic.
Today, we tie up our investigation into these New Hampshire calls with two separate actions.
First, we hold Steve Kramer responsible for the scam calls he set up to defraud voters using call
spoofing technology that violates the Truth in Caller ID Act. This fine is $6,000,000.
Second, we hold Lingo Telecom, the carrier that put these scam calls on the line, responsible for
failing to follow our call authentication policies. This fine is $2,000,000.
But this is only a start. Because we know AI technologies that make it cheap and easy to flood
our networks with fake stuff are being used in so many ways here and abroad. It is especially chilling to
see them used in elections. That is why yesterday I shared with my colleagues a proposal to require
election advertisements in the United States to simply disclose if they use AI technology. I think as these
tools become more accessible, every one of us has a right to know.
Back to the enforcement actions before us. They are the result of fast work and valuable
partnerships. A special thank you goes to New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella and his staff
for assistance with this investigation.
I also want to thank the agency staff for their work, including Loyaan Egal, Jermaine Haynes,
Peter Hyun, Balki Labbor, Ryan McDonald, Rakesh Patel, Raul Rojo, Daniel Stepanicich, Kristi
Thompson, and Jane van Benten from the Enforcement Bureau; Erik Beith, Elizabeth Drogula, Jonathan
Lechter, and Zachary Ross from the Wireline Competition Bureau; Jerusha Burnett and Kristi Thornton
from the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau; Richard Mallen, Erika Olsen, Joel Rabinowitz,
and Derek Yeo from the Office of General Counsel; and Ed Cureg and Kenneth Lynch from the Office of
Economics and Analytics
Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-59
21
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER GEOFFREY STARKS
Re: In the Matter of Steve Kramer, File No. EB-TCD-24-00036094, Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture (May 23, 2024)
This January, two days before the New Hampshire primary election, Steve Kramer orchestrated
an illegal robocall campaign. He targeted thousands of voters. And his message was among the most
anti-democratic things a person can push in our society: don’t vote. But who would listen Steve Kramer?
So he used the voice of the President of the United States, deployed from the phone number of a New
Hampshire political operative. All it took was the help of an acquaintance, publicly available software
technology, and $150. With that, Kramer generated a deepfake recording of the President telling eligible
voters to stay at home on election day.
But that wasn’t enough to get this dangerous message to thousands of people. For years, we have
been building safeguards into our telephone networks, to block illegal calls before they reach your phone.
But Lingo Telecom, LLC, the company that originated many of the calls at issue, did not follow those
legally-required safeguards. It passed on Kramer’s call, associated with spoofed caller ID information,
with the highest level of attestation available under STIR/SHAKEN – an “A-level” attestation. It verified
a relationship between the spoofed number and the party that transmitted the calls to Lingo that did not
exist, and that it should have known did not exist. That smoothed the way for those calls to make their
way to thousands of voters across the state.
Today’s Notices of Apparent Liability detail each of these steps – and I emphasize them – to
show that it is the combination of these events that can have the most devastating effects. Had Kramer
not been able to duplicate President Biden’s voice so easily, this may have had less impact.
1
Voice
cloning is a significant threat to the trust and integrity of our phone systems. This is why, days after
Kramer’s actions, the FCC swiftly (and unanimously, I might add) issued a declaratory ruling making
clear that calls using voice cloning technologies fall under the requirements – and penalties – of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
2
And had Lingo not rubber stamped so many of these calls, it could
have limited the consequences of Kramer’s scheme. This is why the FCC requires all voice service
providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN, and to use know-your-customer protocols to verify that the party
transmitting the call has the authority to use the caller ID they designate.
And this is why, today, we use the authority granted to us by Congress in the Truth in Caller ID
Act and the TRACED Act to propose forfeitures against both sides of this equation.
I want to thank the staff of the Enforcement Bureau for their prompt and dedicated investigation
into this critical case. As always with robocall cases, the collaboration of our state, federal, and industry
partners was key. The Bureau conducted this investigation in coordination with the New Hampshire
Attorney General’s Office, the bipartisan Anti-Robocall Multistate Litigation Task Force, the Department
of Justice, and the Industry Traceback Group. I extend my thanks to each of those bodies. And finally, I
want to recognize the Chairwoman for her leadership and efforts in building these collaborative
relationships, which have proven critical to our enforcement of the law and our protection of American
consumers and voters.
1
That is not to say it would have no impact; we have previously seen illegal robocalls used for voter suppression.
See John M. Burkman, Jacob Alexander Wohl, J.M. Burman & Associates, Forfeiture Order, 38 FCC Rcd 5529
(2023) (FCC’s assessment of $5,134,000 forfeiture order against perpetrators of 2020 robocall voter suppression
scheme for violations of the TCPA).
2
Implications of Artificial Intelligence Technologies on Protecting Consumers from Unwanted Robocalls and
Robotexts, CG Docket No. 23-362, Declaratory Ruling, FCC 24-17 (2024).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-59
22
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER ANNA M. GOMEZ
Re: In the Matter of Steve Kramer, File No.: EB-TCD-24-00036094, Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture (May 23, 2024)
Today, the Commission adopted a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture to address an action
that harmed consumers.
We find that Mr. Steve Kramer apparently acted with the intent to defraud New Hampshire voters
by misleading them about their voting rights. Kramer sent thousands of spoofed robocalls containing a
message, created with Artificial Intelligence (AI), imitating President Biden’s voice and instructing
listeners to refrain from voting in the New Hampshire primary election.
This is significant. The apparent actions of Kramer not only harmed New Hampshire voters, but
compromised trust in democracy itself.
In February of this year, we adopted a Declaratory Ruling confirming that the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act’s prohibition on using “artificial or prerecorded voice” to make robocalls
includes AI technologies that generate human voices.
The action at issue today exemplifies AI technology being harnessed for harm. The
consequences for consumers and the threat to our democratic processes warrant a strong response. That is
why this proposed penalty is so important, as the Commission must do what is within our power to deter
scams manipulating AI to prey on consumers and to threaten our democratic processes.
Thank you for the Enforcement Bureau and all staff at the FCC that contributed to this proposed
enforcement action.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-59
23
DECLARACIÓN DE LA COMISIONADA
ANNA M. GOMEZ
Re: In the Matter of Steve Kramer, File No.: EB-TCD-24-00036094, Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture (May 23, 2024)
La Comisión propone hoy confiscaciones por actividades que perjudican a los consumidores.
Hemos detectado que el señor Steve Kramer actuó aparentemente con la intención de defraudar
a los electores de New Hampshire, engañándolos en relación con su derecho a voto. Kramer transmitió
miles de llamadas automáticas usando una voz idéntica a la del Presidente Biden, generada con
inteligencia artificial, instruyendo a los electores para que no acudieran a votar en las elecciones
primarias.
También hallamos que Lingo Telecom, mediante su aparentemente laxa aplicación de los
requisitos de protección al consumidor establecidos por la FCC, permitió que se llevara a cabo la
maniobra, aparentemente fraudulenta, del señor Kramer.
Todo esto es relevante. Las aparentes acciones de Kramer no sólo perjudican a los electores de
New Hampshire, sino que también afectan la confianza en la democracia. Las aparentes acciones de
Lingo no lograron identificar adecuadamente las llamadas automáticas falsificadas.
En febrero de este año, adoptamos una resolución declaratoria confirmando que la prohibición
de utilizar “voz artificial o pregrabada” para realizar llamadas automáticas también incluye a tecnologías
de inteligencia artificial que imitan voces humanas. Las actividades en cuestión hoy ejemplifican el uso
de la tecnología de inteligencia artificial para causar daño. Las consecuencias para los consumidores, y la
amenaza que estas actividades representan para nuestros procesos democráticos, justifican una respuesta
contundente.
Por eso las sanciones propuestas son tan importantes, ya que la Comisión debe hacer todo lo
que esté a su alcance para desalentar a los estafadores que manipulan la inteligencia artificial con el
propósito de aprovecharse de los consumidores, amenazando nuestros procesos democráticos.
Agradecemos a la oficina de aplicación de normas (Enforcement Bureau) y a todo el personal
de la FCC que ha contribuido en la elaboración de esta propuesta de aplicación de normas.
