ScammerBlaster is a name associated with Thomas Dorsher, ChariTel Inc, OnTel Inc and ScammerBlaster Inc in United States Federal Communications Commission enforcement action concerning robocalls to toll-free numbers.
The name is notable because it presented itself as anti-scam or anti-robocall activity while the FCC found that the related parties were responsible for illegal prerecorded calls to toll-free numbers.
Background
Thomas Dorsher and associated entities were linked by the FCC to robocalling activity involving ChariTel Inc, OnTel Inc and ScammerBlaster Inc. The FCC described the operation as a toll-free traffic pumping scheme.
Traffic pumping involves generating call traffic in order to create revenue from intercarrier compensation or related call-flow arrangements. In this case, the FCC said prerecorded calls were made to toll-free numbers without consent.
FCC Notice of Apparent Liability
In July 2022, the FCC adopted a Notice of Apparent Liability proposing a $116,156,250 forfeiture. The notice concerned alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and FCC rules governing prerecorded voice message calls.
The FCC said the calls were made without prior express consent or an emergency purpose. The notice also described the calls as connected with messages that presented themselves as public service announcements about robocalls.
Forfeiture Order
On 21 September 2023, the FCC adopted a Forfeiture Order. It was released on 22 September 2023.
The order made Thomas Dorsher, ChariTel Inc, OnTel Inc and ScammerBlaster Inc jointly and severally liable for a monetary forfeiture of $116,156,250. The FCC found willful and repeated violations relating to prerecorded voice message calls to toll-free numbers.
Anti-Scam Branding
The case attracted attention because ScammerBlaster's public image suggested opposition to scam robocalls. The FCC's order treated that framing as inconsistent with the robocalling conduct found by the Commission.
The case is therefore often discussed as an example of anti-scam branding being used in a way that did not match lawful anti-fraud practice.
Denial of Service Allegations
The old article and some coverage also described telephone denial of service activity aimed at numbers believed to be connected with scammers or telecom intermediaries.
Such tactics are controversial because they can disrupt innocent parties, interfere with communications infrastructure and create legal exposure. Anti-fraud work does not become lawful simply because the intended target is suspected of wrongdoing.
Significance
The ScammerBlaster case shows the difference between lawful scam reporting and vigilante disruption. Reporting suspicious calls, preserving evidence and working with regulators are different from making unauthorised calls or launching disruption campaigns.
It also shows why anti-scam communities need clear boundaries. Poorly controlled retaliation can damage legitimate anti-fraud work and give regulators a separate enforcement problem.
See Also
References
Discussion log
Use comments for sourcing notes, corrections, and disputed details.
No comments yet.