FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 21, 2026
Contact:
Corry_Schiermeyer@jec.senate.gov (Chair Schweikert)
minority_jecpress@jec.senate.gov (Ranking Member Hassan)

Joint Economic Committee Leaders Raise Anti-Scam Efforts with Major Telecommunications Companies 

Chairman Schweikert & Ranking Member Hassan’s Requests to AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon Urge Further Action to Protect Consumers

WASHINGTON – U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee Chairman David Schweikert (R-AZ) and Ranking Member Maggie Hassan (D-NH) today urged three major telecommunications companies to strengthen their anti-scams efforts. Chairman Schweikert and Ranking Member Hassan requested detailed information from AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon about their current strategies to identify and curb scams. Their outreach follows testimony from administration officials and key experts at a bipartisan Committee hearing in March that focused on the threats posed by well-resourced, ever-evolving criminal scam operations.

“Consumers need to be able to trust that the calls and texts they receive – from their doctor’s office or their child’s school, for example – are authentic. Scam communications, however, are increasingly difficult to distinguish from legitimate messages, and too much of the burden of detection is falling on customers,” wrote Chairman Schweikert and Ranking Member Hassan in their requests. “Our recent [Joint Economic Committee] hearing also made clear that telecommunications companies need to take further steps to protect customers from scammers even as they serve as key partners on scams prevention for federal officials…Expert witnesses, telecommunications providers, and other frontline industries agree that scams present an urgent and complex challenge that calls for additional action. As leaders of the Joint Economic Committee, we stand ready to work together on solutions to better protect Americans from scams.”

As the Committee leaders’ requests note, recent data found that Americans received nearly 52.5 billion robocalls in 2025, an average of around 4.3 billion robocalls each month, which includes unwanted telemarketing and scam calls. The Federal Trade Commission also identified text messages and phone calls as the first and third most common methods that scammers use to target victims, with recorded median losses of $1,835 for phone call-initiated scams and $1,000 for text-initiated scams per victim in 2025.  

Read the letters to all three telecommunications companies from the Joint Economic Committee leaders here, or the sample letter to AT&T below:

Mr. Stankey:

I write today to request information on AT&T Inc.’s efforts to prevent scammers from misusing its services. In recent years, global organized criminal networks have used a range of technologies to create increasingly convincing scams, which contribute to a booming scam economy that surpasses the global drug trade as an illicit industry. Last year, for example, the FBI recorded over $20 billion in losses to scams and other cyber-enabled crimes. As leaders of the Joint Economic Committee (JEC), we explored this important issue in a recent bipartisan hearing on The Rising Global Scam Economy: Modernizing Federal Approaches to Protect Americans from Foreign Fraudsters, during which expert witnesses – including senior federal law enforcement officials – made clear that telecommunications companies have a front line role to play in this effort. As one of the nation’s largest cellular providers, AT&T has rightfully recognized that scams are a pervasive problem and that customers should have the ability to answer their calls and texts with confidence. I hope that we can work together productively on this important issue.

Spam – a category of unwanted communications from nuisance telemarketers, illegal scammers, and others – can easily be sent to large numbers of people worldwide at little cost. In 2024, wireless providers prevented a record 55 billion spam and scam robotexts from reaching customers, and they also block, label, or identify 45 billion scam calls annually, according to the statement that industry trade group CTIA submitted for our Committee hearing. The number of unwanted messages that continue to reach customers is also staggering. According to YouMail, a robocall blocking company, Americans received nearly 52.5 billion robocalls in 2025 – an average of around 4.3 billion robocalls each month. YouMail has further noted that “[o]ver the past five years, annual robocall volume has consistently remained between approximately 50 billion and 55 billion robocalls.” In 2024, Americans received an average of 19.2 billion spam texts each month – a more than threefold increase over 2020, according to RoboKiller, another spam-blocking company. This high volume of spam traffic continues to contribute to mounting scam losses. Text messages and phone calls are the first and third most common methods that scammers use to initiate contact with victims, according to reports filed with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). These scams are responsible for the highest median losses, with the FTC recording median losses of $1,835 for phone call-initiated scams and $1,000 for text-initiated scams per victim in 2025.

Consumers need to be able to trust that the calls and texts they receive – from their doctor’s office or their child’s school, for example – are authentic. Scam communications, however, are increasingly difficult to distinguish from legitimate messages, and too much of the burden of detection is falling on customers. Both the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and AARP are so concerned about the safety and reliability of phone calls that they advise Americans to never answer calls from unknown numbers. While this guidance may seem extreme, it may not actually go far enough, because the threat of phone scams extends beyond unknown callers. Kathy Stokes, director of the AARP’s Fraud Prevention Programs, noted during the March hearing that it may be risky to answer any phone call, explaining that AARP had debated “whether we should call people picking up the telephone ‘risky behavior.’” In part, this is because “[s]cammers have successfully compromised caller ID,” according to the Washington Post. Using easily acquired spoofing technology, scammers can manipulate caller ID to make it appear as though they are calling from a local number, a real company, or another trusted source. Once on the line, scammers can use AI voice technology to convincingly impersonate a bank employee, government official, or even a victim’s loved one, for example. Criminals will often research their victims ahead of time, which they can do at scale with AI, so that their scams are highly personalized and therefore more believable. 

Importantly, wireless companies have taken steps to protect their customers, but they face significant challenges in defending against well-resourced, ever-evolving criminal scam operations that “continue to find new ways to reach consumers,” according to the statement submitted for the JEC hearing by CTIA. Companies, for example, have implemented branded calling – a paid service in which vetted companies can display their name, logo, and reason for calling on a recipient’s device. CTIA has called this technology “the next generation of call authentication” and claimed it was “already providing real results for millions of consumers.” Even some in other sectors agree that branded caller ID may be a potentially useful tool. In a joint comment submitted to the FCC in January 2026, multiple financial services industry trade associations called branded caller ID “a promising next step in the evolution of call authentication and the fight against illegal robocalls.”

Still, consumer advocates, financial institutions, and other issue experts have called on telecommunications providers to take additional steps to authenticate users on their networks. Hearing witness Reva Price, a Commissioner of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission and an expert on Southeast Asian scam compounds, testified during the JEC hearing that telecommunication carriers, along with social media platforms, should “implement stronger verification and detection measures.” Wireless providers have faced additional questions about the common industry practice of charging individual customers to access the strongest tools to protect against spam. The consumer advocacy organization PIRG, for example, has argued that “[n]o company should charge extra for essential protection services,” adding, “[t]his isn’t a luxury feature; it’s a necessity.”  

Our recent hearing also made clear that telecommunications companies need to take further steps to protect customers from scammers even as they serve as key partners on scams prevention for federal officials. JEC hearing witness Lois Greisman, associate director of the Division of Marketing Practices at the FTC, testified that the FTC works “very closely with the U.S. telecoms industry traceback group to identify phone scams that are coming in from abroad, hitting a gateway provider in the U.S., and to take action, whether through warning letters or law enforcement, to cut that access to the foreign networks.” At the same time, Richard Goldberg, associate counsel in the Fraud Section of the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, testified that telecommunications companies, along with social media and email providers, “need to continue to improve their systems to prevent victims from being reached in the first place.” Karen Seifert, director of the Scam Center Strike Force in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, similarly argued that efforts by carriers to label suspicious phone calls are “a start, but the next step is to not even allow that phone call to come through.”

Expert witnesses, telecommunications providers, and other frontline industries agree that scams present an urgent and complex challenge that calls for additional action. As leaders of the Joint Economic Committee, we stand ready to work together on solutions to better protect Americans from scams. To help the Committee better understand AT&T’s operations and efforts to prevent scams, I seek answers to the questions below.

The following questions pertain to steps AT&T has taken to protect its customers and wireless network in the United States. Unless otherwise specified, the applicable time period is 2021 through 2025, and this request pertains to all AT&T Inc.-branded entities that provide cellular telephone service in the United States. The term “communications” below refers to voice calls, including messages left on voicemail, as well as text messages, but it does not include third-party “over-the-top” messages or other messages that are received through services that AT&T does not provide directly.

1. Please describe AT&T’s overall strategy for identifying and protecting its U.S. customers and network from illegal or unwanted spam and/or scam calls and texts.
   1. Please describe automated efforts and efforts which involve human review to identify illegal or unwanted spam and/or scam calls and texts, the factors AT&T uses for this identification, and the circumstances under which the company deploys these efforts.
   2. Please provide AT&T’s approximate annual payroll costs, including salaries and other direct compensation to employees, consultants, independent contractors, and other workers in the U.S.
      1. What percentage of these costs are intended to protect the safety of AT&T’s U.S. network and customers?
      2. What percentage of these costs are attributable to work specifically to protect against scam communications?
   3. How much has AT&T invested per year in protecting against scam communications?

2. To the extent that AT&T attempts to identify scam attempts through calls and texts on its U.S. network:
   1. How many suspected illegal or unwanted spam and/or scam calls and texts targeting AT&T’s U.S. network and customers has the company identified per year since 2021? For purposes of this question, “[s]pam is an unsolicited message sent to your mobile phone or email, often to promote goods and services, push a political or social agenda or spread a virus,” per AT&T’s website.
      1. What percentage of overall call and text traffic on AT&T’s U.S. network per year has been suspected illegal or unwanted spam and/or scam calls and texts? Of these messages, what percentage were suspected scam activity?
      2. How much revenue has suspected illegal or unwanted spam and/or scam calls and texts on AT&T’s U.S. network generated for the company per year?
      3. What percentage of suspected illegal or unwanted spam and/or scam calls and texts per year has originated from parties outside the U.S.? Please provide a geographic breakdown of this activity for each year if available.
      4. What percentage of suspected illegal or unwanted spam and/or scam calls and texts on AT&T’s U.S. network has AT&T blocked?   

2. Roughly how many illegal or unwanted spam and/or scam calls and texts does AT&T identify via its internal detection tools, how many are reported by customers, and how many are reported to AT&T from other sources?
   1. On average, approximately how many flagged communications from users or other outside sources are reported to AT&T daily?
   2. Please describe the steps that AT&T takes once it receives reports of spam and/or scam messages from users or other outside sources, including but not limited to customers who opt to report spam on their iPhones or Android phones.
   3. Of these flagged communications, how many calls and texts has AT&T identified as being spam and/or scam activity, and how does it make that determination? Please specify if such a determination requires human review.
   4. For each communication reported to AT&T, how long on average does it take AT&T to review and make a determination that these communications are or are not spam and/or scam activity?

3. Under what circumstances does AT&T alert customers that an incoming call or text is likely an illegal or unwanted spam and/or scam communication?

3. What actions does the company take when it identifies a phone number and/or account holder on the AT&T network that is responsible for sending illegal or unwanted spam and/or scam calls and texts?
   1. Does AT&T take steps to trace the caller/sender responsible? If so, does it work with additional parties to do so, such as the Industry Traceback Group and/or law enforcement?
      1. For AT&T customers responsible for such calls or texts, what, if any, know-your-customer information does AT&T collect that aids the company in identifying specific customers misusing its services? 

2. Under what circumstances, and following what level of internal and/or external review, will AT&T suspend the account of a customer the company has determined to be responsible for sending illegal or unwanted spam and/or scam calls and texts? In your answer, please differentiate between customers who use your services for personal, household or family purposes, customers who use your services for business purposes, and reseller or wholesale customers.
   1. How many accounts has AT&T suspended per year for these reasons?
      1. How many accounts were subsequently reinstated? 
      2. For accounts that were suspended and then reinstated, what is the average length of time the account was suspended?
   2. What measures does AT&T undertake to ensure that individuals associated with these accounts and phone numbers do not attempt to create a new AT&T account or otherwise operate on the company’s U.S. network? 
   3. How does AT&T implement phone number blocking? Please describe any do-not-originate and block lists that AT&T uses.

3. What efforts does AT&T undertake, if any, to determine whether accounts associated with illegal or unwanted spam and/or scam calls and texts have connections to a criminal network, a foreign government, sanctioned individuals or groups, or other individuals the U.S. has designated as threats, including Specially Designated Nationals? 
4. Under what circumstances, if any, will AT&T contact law enforcement to report illegal activity on its networks, including evidence of scams?
5. Under what circumstances, if any, will AT&T report spam or illegal activity on its networks to entities that are not law enforcement, such as the FCC and CTIA’s Secure Messaging Initiative?

4. Does AT&T share information with or seek information from other providers in the call path – which may include originating, terminating, gateway, and non-gateway intermediate providers, depending on the call – to help trace, track, and eliminate illegal or unwanted spam and/or scam calls and texts? Relatedly, does AT&T attempt to determine if such call providers have supported such communications, and what actions will AT&T take in response?

5. Does AT&T seek to determine if calls are made using AI-generated voices?
   1. If so, does the company alert customers when they receive a call that uses an AI-generated voice?
   2. If not, why not? 

6. AT&T offers customers spam protection through its ActiveArmor service. The basic version of this service is available to customers for free, but the premium version requires an additional monthly fee. Regarding this service:
   1. Please describe AT&T’s reasoning for charging customers for the premium version of ActiveArmor instead of offering comprehensive protection from illegal or unwanted spam and/or scam calls to all customers by default.
   2. What percentage of AT&T customers with eligible devices use the free version of ActiveArmor, the premium version of ActiveArmor, and no version of ActiveArmor at all?
      1. What spam protections, if any, does AT&T provide for customers who do not use ActiveArmor?

3. Please provide the total annual gross revenue generated by customers paying for the premium ActiveArmor service for each year since it was first introduced.
4. Does ActiveArmor come pre-loaded on eligible devices? If so, please explain. If not, why not?
5. Does AT&T track the number of customers subscribed to the premium version of ActiveArmor who do not use the additional features for which they are charged?
   1. If so, does AT&T alert premium customers when they are not using the additional ActiveArmor features?

6. For customers who use the free version of ActiveArmor, use the premium version of ActiveArmor, and do not use ActiveArmor, respectively, how many illegal or unwanted spam and/or scam texts and calls has AT&T alerted customers to each year since 2021, and how many of these texts and calls has AT&T blocked?
7. How many customer reports of illegal or unwanted spam and/or scam calls and texts has AT&T received through ActiveArmor each year since it launched? How many unique phone numbers have been reported each year?

7. Is AT&T able to track how many illegal or unwanted spam and/or scam calls and texts evaded detection from its spam filters – for instance, as part of an audit of security measures? If not, why not? If so:
   1. For each year since 2021, how many unlabeled, likely illegal or unwanted spam and/or scam calls and texts reached AT&T customers who use the free version of the ActiveArmor app, use the premium version of the ActiveArmor app, and do not use the ActiveArmor app, respectively?

8. Please detail AT&T’s policies and procedures with respect to customers, including businesses and charities, that send a high volume of phone calls and/or text messages. How does AT&T ensure that these customers send bulk communications only to those who have consented to receiving such messages? 

9. Does AT&T limit the number of calls a wireless subscriber line can place in a single day or other interval of time?
   1. Does AT&T monitor the volume of calls placed by a wireless subscriber line as an indicator that the line is being used in a SIM farm?
   2. What actions does AT&T take if it suspects a wireless subscriber line is being used in a SIM farm?

10. Please detail AT&T’s policies and procedures with respect to spoofed calls, in which a caller intentionally falsifies caller ID. Specifically:
    1. What steps does AT&T take to determine that spoofed calls are legitimate (such as a spoofed number from a doctor’s office)? Does AT&T specifically monitor for spoofed calls originating from abroad that present as U.S. phone numbers? If not, why not? If so, what is AT&T’s success rate for identifying such calls, and what action does the company take when it detects these calls?
    2. Does AT&T specifically monitor for spoofed caller IDs that misrepresent callers as an existing entity, such as a bank or federal agency? If not, why not? If so, what action does it take when it detects these calls?

11. In 2025, AT&T ended its email-to-text and text-to-email feature – a service that is often abused by scammers. What factors led AT&T to disable email-to-text and text-to-email capabilities?
    1. Specifically, did AT&T detect spammers and/or scammers misusing email-to-text and text-to-email services on its network? If so, did that contribute to the company’s decision to halt this service? Please explain.

12. In 2024, AT&T announced it was launching Branded Call Display on its network. 
    1. What company/companies does AT&T contract with to deliver branded calls?
    2. How does AT&T, or any company it contracts with to deliver branded calls, vet companies seeking to send branded calls on its network?
    3. If AT&T has reason to believe that a branded call on its network is illegitimate, what steps does it take?
    4. How much does AT&T charge businesses to place branded and un-branded calls, respectively, on AT&T’s network?

Please provide your responses as soon as possible but in no event later than June 11, 2026.

###