FCC Plans Robocall Scorecard to Grade Phone Companies

FCC Robocall Scorecard Aims to Grade Phone

Companies on Spam Blocking

The FCC robocall scorecard is coming. It could change how you choose your phone provider, and that's a big deal for anyone tired of spam calls. The Federal Communications Commission announced plans to create a rating system that grades wireless, wireline, and VoIP providers on how effectively they block illegal spam calls, so you'll finally have a clear way to compare them. But the proposed tool would move past simple checklists and toward measurable outcomes. That includes how often legitimate calls get blocked by mistake. That's the real test.

Here is how the system would work. The FCC wants to rate providers on a number scale, with letter grades, or by classifying them as low risk, medium risk, or high risk. The goal is simple: give consumers a clear picture of which companies actually stop robocalls and which ones just file the right paperwork.

The Problem With Current Robocall Enforcement

Phone companies already have to file certifications and offer blocking tools. But the FCC says that's not enough. A provider can check every administrative box while still letting a flood of illegal calls reach your phone,no, scratch that, it can do all that and more, burying consumers under a relentless tide of robocalls that never stops ringing. The new scorecard would measure real results, not just promises. It's a blunt verdict. So don't expect a passing grade from paperwork alone.

"The Scorecard will empower consumers and encourage providers to continue to combat illegal robocalls by providing the public with an assessment of the effectiveness of voice service providers' efforts to protect consumers from illegal robocalls," the FCC Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau said in a public notice.

That language matters. The FCC is explicitly saying it wants to move "beyond a simple administrative checklist (i.e., did the provider file the right paperwork, did they offer the right tools) and toward a composite set of metrics that reflects both operational practices and measurable outcomes, including how often legitimate calls are blocked."

What the Scorecard Would Actually Measure

The FCC proposes using two categories of metrics. Conduct-based metrics look at whether a provider took specific steps or responded to requests related to robocall mitigation. Outcome-based metrics examine whether those efforts actually reduced illegal robocalls reaching consumers.

The second category is where things get interesting. The FCC wants to know if the number, rate, or severity of illegal robocalls is measurably lower because of something the provider did. That is a much higher bar than simply offering a blocking feature.

• Call-blocking statistics from providers
• Customer complaint data from the FCC, FTC, and other government bodies
• Enforcement actions taken against providers
• Filings with the Robocall Mitigation Database, where companies certify their STIR/SHAKEN implementation
• Data from the Industry Traceback Group, which traces illegal robocall sources

The scorecard's reach is clear: it applies to domestic voice service providers with retail customers. But wholesale and intermediate providers don't sell directly to consumers, so they're excluded from the rule entirely. That's the whole distinction.

Accuracy Is the Hard Part

Blocking illegal calls is only half the battle. The FCC also wants to measure how often providers mistakenly block legitimate calls. That is a delicate balance. Block too aggressively and you miss important calls from your doctor or your kid's school. Block too loosely and spam still gets through.

The FCC acknowledged this challenge in its public notice, asking for comment on how to measure blocking accuracy. "Data on provider blocking practices specifically, tracked over time, may also help identify which approaches are most effective at minimizing erroneous blocking of legitimate calls while still stopping illegal robocalls, and could inform best practices across the industry," the FCC said.

There is no perfect answer here. The FCC is essentially asking the industry to figure out the right calibration, which is why it is seeking public comment on data sources and methodology.

Political Support and Skepticism

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr framed the initiative as a continuation of the agency's top consumer protection priority. "Combatting the scourge of illegal robocalls remains the FCC's top consumer protection priority," Carr said in a press release. "As proposed in today's public notice, the FCC aims to develop a scorecard that will give consumers more information about the measures providers are taking to fight illegal robocalls, and it will also incentivize providers to improve their efforts."

FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, the commission's only Democrat, offered conditional support. The scorecard "could increase consumer awareness of how providers fight illegal robocalls" if it includes "the right information," she said. That caveat matters.

Consumer advocates have their own concerns. Teresa Murray, consumer watchdog director for Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), has been tracking this issue closely. She wrote a report in February 2025 grading providers on their blocking efforts, so she knows how hard it is to get useful data.

"Phone customers should absolutely feel empowered to speak with their wallets if they're unhappy with their phone service. But switching cellphone or VoIP providers isn't as easy as choosing to shop at a different grocery store next week, even if someone isn't in a phone contract. Maybe the point of the scorecard would be to shame providers into doing better. And that would be a good thing."

Murray flagged a deeper worry. What if the scorecard's hard to find, or worse, it relies on data that doesn't reflect what consumers actually experience? She wants phone companies to put those scorecards in prominent places, so customers can't miss them, and that means posting them on websites, printing them on billing statements, and weaving them into marketing materials. But that's the real test.

Where the Data Comes From Matters

The FCC is still figuring out which data sources to trust, weighing the reliability of each option against the practical gaps in coverage that might emerge from relying on any single repository of information. Providers themselves are an obvious option, but the FCC asked whether they are the only source in some cases, and that's a fair question given their inherent biases. Third-party call analytics companies might have useful data too. But what about everyone else? The FCC also asked whether other private companies or government entities have relevant information, so they're casting a deliberately wide net, and that makes sense when you can't see the full picture yet. Don't expect a quick answer.

Bias is a real concern. The FCC specifically asked whether data sources "are unbiased, i.e., do not have an interest in skewing results in favor of certain providers." That question acknowledges a basic problem: phone companies have a financial incentive to look good on these scorecards.

Complaint data has its own limitations. The FCC noted that "the mere filing of a complaint does not necessarily indicate a failure to stop an illegal call from reaching a consumer." The agency asked pointedly: "Is a complaint sufficient evidence that a consumer is unhappy with the robocall protection their provider is giving them?"

What Murray Wants to See

Murray has a specific list of data she thinks the scorecard should include. Traceback requests top that list. So do complaints about phone companies that may have violated state or federal laws,wait, no, that's an em-dash; let me rephrase: complaints about phone companies that may have violated state or federal laws also make the cut. She wants those complaints front and center, but that's not all. Warnings issued by the FCC or state attorneys general about patterns of illegal calls? They're part of the picture too, and she can't ignore them. That's the whole list. It's a tight, focused set of metrics.

STIR/SHAKEN deployment details matter too. That technology verifies Caller ID information, and the FCC already requires providers to certify their implementation. Murray wants the public to see how thoroughly each company has embraced it.

Murray raised another angle. It's about services companies legally can offer but don't. The scorecard should reveal whether there are "services the company can legally offer to help customers that the company isn't offering or it's charging for," she said, and that gap could be the real measure of customer value. So the question isn't just what they sell. It's what they withhold.

The Industry Traceback Group Connection

The Industry Traceback Group already traces illegal robocall sources. It's a telecom industry organization. But the FCC wants to use that data in its scorecard. That could give consumers a clearer picture of which providers originate or carry the most illegal traffic, and it's a move that might finally shine a light on the worst offenders while sparing the ones who've cleaned up their act. So don't expect the full picture overnight, though.

But the FCC is not there yet. The public notice seeks comment on all these potential data sources, and the docket is open for submissions. Phone companies that do not want poor ratings will likely push back on methodology. Consumer advocacy groups will argue for stricter measures.

Murray offered a cautious note of optimism. "Perhaps this is just the start of a new conversation about what regulators and lawmakers can do about this horrific problem," she said, noting that scam victims have suffered "devastating losses" while everyone else deals with the "daily annoyances of unwanted robocalls."

The FCC robocall scorecard is still in its early stages. Public comments will shape what data gets used, how providers are graded, and whether consumers can actually find the results. The details could change significantly before anything becomes final.

The FCC’s intent is clear. They’re moving from asking providers to self-report their own efforts, and instead shifting toward independent verification of whether those anti-robocall measures actually deliver results in the real world, which is a far more demanding and consequential test of performance. So consumers could finally get something they’ve never had before. A reliable way to compare how well phone companies shield them from illegal robocalls, assuming that shift is executed correctly and with genuine rigor. But that’s a big if.