Ninth Circuit Upholds $9.9 Million FCC Spoofing Penalty Under Truth in Caller ID Act
Case Snapshot
- Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Case: United States v. Rhodes, No. 24-4277
- Decision Date: June 9, 2026
- Core Issue: FCC enforcement of the Truth in Caller ID Act for alleged caller ID spoofing in robocall campaigns
- Key Allegation: Defendant caused thousands of robocalls to be transmitted using spoofed and misleading caller ID information
- Court Holding: TICIDA constitutionally prohibits deceptive caller ID spoofing and applies to individuals who cause misleading caller ID information to be transmitted
- Outcome: Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and upheld the FCC’s $9,918,000 forfeiture
- Notable Detail: The FCC assessed approximately $2,000 per call across 4,959 violations, well below the statute’s $10,000-per-violation maximum.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed a nearly $10 million FCC forfeiture against Scott Rhodes, reinforcing the agency’s authority to pursue substantial penalties against individuals who use spoofed caller ID information in robocall campaigns. The June 9 decision in United States v. Rhodes upheld a $9,918,000 forfeiture imposed under the Truth in Caller ID Act (TICIDA), rejecting constitutional, procedural, and statutory challenges raised by the defendant.
Ninth Circuit Affirms FCC Enforcement Authority
The case stemmed from allegations that Rhodes used a dialing service to transmit thousands of robocalls displaying spoofed and misleading caller ID information. According to the court, the record showed the campaigns originated through accounts, infrastructure and online platforms associated with Rhodes.
A central issue on appeal was Rhodes’ argument that he did not personally place the calls. The Ninth Circuit rejected that position, emphasizing that TICIDA liability extends to anyone who “causes” misleading caller ID information to be transmitted. The court found sufficient evidence linking the robocall campaigns to Rhodes regardless of who physically initiated the calls.
Court Rejects First Amendment Challenge
Rhodes also challenged TICIDA on First Amendment grounds, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional and that his calls involved protected political speech.
The Ninth Circuit disagreed, finding that TICIDA regulates deceptive telecommunications practices rather than viewpoints or protected expression. The court noted that the statute does not prohibit anonymous political advocacy. Instead, it prohibits knowingly transmitting misleading or inaccurate caller ID information with the intent to defraud, cause harm or wrongfully obtain something of value.
The panel further stated that liability was based on the deceptive use of spoofed caller ID information, not the ideological content of the calls themselves.
TCPA and TICIDA Remain Separate Enforcement Tools
Another argument raised by Rhodes was that regulators improperly transformed alleged Telephone Consumer Protection Act violations into TICIDA violations.
The court rejected that claim, concluding that the evidence independently demonstrated violations of TICIDA separate from any TCPA considerations.
The distinction is noteworthy for compliance professionals because it reinforces that caller ID spoofing can create liability under a separate federal statutory framework, even when robocall activity may also implicate TCPA requirements.
Nearly $10 Million Penalty Survives Eighth Amendment Challenge
The Ninth Circuit also upheld the size of the forfeiture against an Eighth Amendment challenge.
Congress authorized TICIDA penalties of up to $10,000 per violation. The FCC assessed a penalty of approximately $2,000 per unlawful call across 4,959 violations, resulting in a total forfeiture of $9,918,000. The court found the penalty was well below the statutory maximum and was not “grossly disproportionate” given the scale, repeated nature, and intentional concealment of the conduct.
What This Means for Industry Participants
The decision provides another appellate-level endorsement of the FCC’s anti-spoofing enforcement authority and highlights several compliance considerations:
- TICIDA liability extends beyond individuals who physically place calls and can reach those who cause spoofed caller ID information to be transmitted.
- Political or advocacy-related content does not shield callers from liability when deceptive caller ID practices are involved.
- Caller ID spoofing can create independent TICIDA exposure separate from TCPA liability.
- Courts may uphold substantial FCC forfeitures where conduct involves repeated and intentional caller ID deception.
For companies and vendors involved in outbound calling campaigns, the ruling serves as a reminder that caller ID integrity remains a significant enforcement priority and that spoofing-related violations can result in penalties measured in millions of dollars.
