HWG LLP Client Alert (PDF)

By: Jennifer Bagg, Jocelyn Aqua, John Nakahata, and Rakesh Patel, 

On March 5, 2026, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”) circulated a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“draft NPRM”) that would propose significant new restrictions on the use of offshore call centers by entities that fall under the FCC’s jurisdiction, including telecommunications carriers, VoIP providers, cable operators, and satellite broadcasters, and any of those entities affiliated internet access providers. If adopted, these rules would require substantial operational changes to customer service infrastructure, vendor relationships, and data security practices, substantially raising costs.

The draft NPRM would mandate English proficiency standards for call takers, cap the percentage of customer service interactions handled offshore, require disclosure when calls are handled abroad, give consumers the right to transfer to U.S.-based representatives, and restrict offshore handling of sensitive consumer data. In addition to potential operational disruption and cost increases, the draft NPRM could limit the ability effectively to serve non-English speaking people.

The draft NPRM is scheduled for a vote at the FCC’s March 26, 2026 open meeting. Comments would be due 30 days after Federal Register publication; reply comments are due 30 days later.

Background: The draft NPRM asserts it is responding to growing concerns about customer service quality, data security vulnerabilities, and the role of foreign call centers in facilitating illegal robocall schemes. The draft NPRM cites consumer satisfaction surveys showing communications providers consistently rank among the lowest for call center performance, with offshore operations frequently criticized for language barriers, cultural misalignment, and inability to resolve customer issues effectively.

Significantly, the draft emphasizes potential national security and privacy risks associated with offshore call centers. The Commission’s sole reference to national security concerns is an enforcement action against AT&T from over a decade ago in which personnel at foreign call centers, between 2012 and 2014, accessed and misused customer proprietary network information (“CPNI”) or personally identifiable information to unlock stolen devices or facilitate identity theft. The draft NPRM notes that foreign jurisdictions may have weaker data protection frameworks or legal requirements compelling disclosure of consumer data to foreign governments, creating risks beyond what contractual protections can mitigate.

The proposal also connects offshore call centers to illegal robocall operations, citing evidence that personnel trained at legitimate foreign customer service operations have used their knowledge to conduct sophisticated scam campaigns targeting Americans, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in annual consumer losses.

The FCC’s proposal parallels two bipartisan legislative efforts currently pending in Congress. The Keep Call Centers in America Act of 2025 (S. 2495) would require location disclosure and consumer transfer rights for all businesses using offshore call centers, not limited to communications providers, and would create a public list of employers moving significant call center work offshore, with consequences for federal grant and loan eligibility. The Foreign Robocall Elimination Act (H.R. 6152, S. 2666) would require voice service providers handling U.S.-bound international calls to post bonds of up to $100,000 unless they qualify as established, bona fide providers, and would create an interagency robocall enforcement task force.

Proposed Requirements and Comments: The draft NPRM seeks input on the following key areas:

  1. Scope of Services and Channels: The FCC seeks comments on extending the proposed requirements beyond traditional voice calls to other customer service channels, including online chat, text messages, and email communications handled by offshore operations. The Commission also asks whether the rules should apply to providers of “stand-alone” Internet-only services (such as Internet access service and non-interconnected VoIP) and whether location disclosure and transfer rights should extend to all calls covered by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, including telephone solicitations and artificial or prerecorded voice calls.
  2. American Standard English Proficiency and Quality of Service: The draft NPRM proposes that all offshore call center staff would be required to demonstrate proficiency in “American Standard English,” including comprehension of vocabulary, idioms, tone, and cultural expectations typical in U.S. customer service interactions. The FCC seeks comment on appropriate testing mechanisms, citing examples from medical, academic, and business contexts such as the Occupational English Test. The draft NPRM also asks whether Spanish-speaking call centers should be required to be bilingual and asserts that even when call center staff speak with customers in languages other than English, that the staff still should be proficient in English.
  3. Caps on Offshore Call Center Usage: The FCC proposes limiting the percentage of customer service calls that providers may make from or answer at offshore call centers, with the specific threshold left open for comment, although it suggests a potential cap at 30%, excluding any calls otherwise specifically prohibited from handling by offshore call centers. The item seeks input on whether caps should apply separately to inbound versus outbound calls, how to measure compliance, and whether certain call types should be exempt.
  4. Mandatory Location Disclosure: Under the proposal, providers are required to disclose at the beginning of each offshore customer service interaction that the call is being handled outside the United States, potentially including identification of the specific country. The FCC seeks information on disclosure scripts, timing, and whether disclosures should be automated or delivered by the representative.
  5. Consumer Right to Transfer to U.S.-Based Representatives: Upon consumer request at any point during an offshore interaction, the proposal requires providers to transfer the call to a customer service representative located within the United States. The FCC proposes that wait times for such transfers may not exceed wait times for calls initially routed to U.S. representatives, and that providers must implement procedures to prevent dropped calls during transfer. The draft NPRM asks whether any First Amendment issues are raised by mandating specific disclosure text and how to address them.
  6. Handling of Sensitive Data Transactions: The proposal prohibits offshore call centers from handling any consumer transaction involving “sensitive customer information,” defined to include passwords, password reset credentials, multi-factor authentication codes, Social Security numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and similar sensitive data. Beyond caps and rules requiring U.S.-based representatives, the draft NPRM seeks comments on what additional measures should be taken to address privacy and national-security risks associate with foreign call centers.
  7. Tracking and Reporting Obligations: The proposal requires providers to track and report compliance with the proposed new rules to the FCC, including metrics on offshore call volumes, transfer requests and completion rates, wait times, and language proficiency testing results. The draft item seeks information about reporting frequency and format, and whether they should be public, among other things.
  8. Measures to Deter Foreign-Originated Illegal Robocalls: Beyond customer service requirements, the draft NPRM explores financial deterrents for illegal robocalls originating abroad. It seeks comment on requiring bonds or implementing tariff-style duties on “unlawful” calls entering the United States from foreign jurisdictions, building on concepts in the pending Foreign Robocall Elimination Act. The Commission notes that many scam operations use foreign call centers and international gateway providers to evade U.S. law enforcement, and that current traceback and blocking authorities, while effective, may be insufficient without economic disincentives. The draft NPRM suggests possibly requiring a bond to file in the Robocall Mitigation Database, which service providers must do in order to avoid call blocking. This could significantly affect the ability of smaller providers to be able to provide service if they cannot raise the bond amount.

The draft NPRM acknowledges that compliance will impose costs on providers, including expenses related to onshoring operations, implementing transfer and disclosure systems, language proficiency testing, and enhanced data security controls. It seeks data on anticipated costs and benefits, including impacts on small and rural carriers.

The FCC asserts authority under multiple statutory provisions, including Section 201(b) of the Communications Act (prohibiting unjust and unreasonable practices), Section 222 (CPNI protection), Section 251(e) (regulations for local exchange carriers), among others, as the basis for its authority to apply broadly to telecommunications services, CMRS, interconnected VoIP service, cable television service and DBS (direct broadcast satellite), or affiliates of such providers, and Internet access services that each provide, as well as the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for regulating foreign-originating calls and texts. The draft NPRM also highlights national security concerns as an additional basis of authority. The draft seeks information on the scope and limits of its authority, particularly regarding the extent to which it may regulate call center operations of regulated entities, whether it should apply to non-voice communications, and whether its proposed rules should also apply to providers of non-interconnected VoIP and other Internet-only providers.

Implications for Companies Subject to FCC Regulations: The draft NPRM represents a potentially transformative shift in how communications providers subject to the FCC’s authority may deliver customer service.  If adopted in the form proposed, the FCC’s rules would require communications companies to undertake significant operational, technical, and contractual changes.

Providers should assess their current operations against the proposed requirements as the proceedings unfold over the coming months and consider filing comments addressing issues such as realistic implementation timelines, clear definitions of sensitive data and language proficiency standards, safe harbors, and flexibility in measuring offshore percentages.

* * *

HWG LLP’s cross-disciplinary telecommunications practice and privacy practice advises clients on federal and state legislative and regulatory proceedings, company compliance, and related litigation matters. Please contact the authors for more information. This advisory is not intended to convey legal advice. It is circulated publicly as a convenience and does not reflect or create an attorney-client relationship.