The Phone Network That Kept Carrying Robocalls After the FTC Warned It to Stop

Voice over Internet Protocol provider XCast Labs, Inc. has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it funneled hundreds of millions of illegal robocalls through its network, even after receiving multiple warnings about the unlawful conduct.DOCUMENTED

The Justice Department litigated the case and filed the proposed order on the FTC's behalf, reflecting the standard practice for cases seeking civil penalties, which the FTC itself cannot pursue directly under current law.DOCUMENTED

Ignoring the warning letters

According to the FTC's complaint, first filed in May 2023, the agency had sent letters to several VoIP providers, including XCast Labs, in early 2020, warning them that assisting and facilitating illegal telemarketing or robocalling is against the law.DOCUMENTED Telemarketers who blast illegal robocalls typically rely on VoIP service providers like XCast Labs to transmit those calls, since VoIP technology allows enormous volumes of calls to be placed over the internet rather than through traditional phone lines.REVIEWED

Despite the 2020 warning, the FTC alleges XCast Labs continued to help other companies contact people on the National Do Not Call Registry and otherwise deceive consumers into making purchases or contributions, continuing to carry the traffic for years afterward.DOCUMENTED

What the settlement requires

"Companies that turn a blind eye to illegal robocalling should expect to hear from the FTC," said Samuel Levine, then-Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, announcing the settlement.DOCUMENTED Under the proposed court order, XCast Labs must implement a screening process for its current and potential clients and end its relationships with firms that are not complying with telemarketing-related laws.DOCUMENTED The order permanently bars XCast Labs from providing services to any company that lacks an automated procedure to block calls to numbers on the Do Not Call Registry.REVIEWED

The settlement also imposes a $10 million civil penalty, though the FTC agreed to suspend that penalty based on the company's demonstrated inability to pay the full amount — with the full sum becoming immediately due if XCast Labs is later found to have misrepresented its financial condition to the agency.DOCUMENTED

The FTC warned VoIP providers in 2020 that facilitating illegal robocalls was against the law. According to the complaint, XCast Labs kept carrying the calls for years afterward.

Why VoIP providers are a distinct enforcement target

The Justice Department's Civil Division, which litigated the case on the FTC's behalf, framed the settlement as part of a broader effort "to protect American consumers from illegal robocalls and to stop telecommunications providers from enabling those calls."DOCUMENTED Pursuing the infrastructure providers that carry robocall traffic, rather than only the telemarketers who originate individual calls, reflects a strategy aimed at closing off the technical pipeline robocallers depend on — a single VoIP provider can carry traffic for dozens of telemarketing operations simultaneously, making it a much higher-leverage enforcement target than any one telemarketer.REVIEWED

A companion action the same day

The XCast Labs settlement was announced alongside a separate FTC action against Response Tree LLC, a California lead generator accused of operating dozens of "consent farm" websites that manufactured false consent for telemarketing calls.REVIEWED Together, the two cases addressed both ends of the robocall pipeline in a single announcement — the fabricated consent that lets telemarketers claim a call was authorized, and the network infrastructure that carries the resulting calls to consumers' phones.REVIEWED

Consumers who continue to receive unwanted robocalls despite being registered on the National Do Not Call Registry can file a complaint with the FTC at ReportFraud.ftc.gov, which the agency uses to identify patterns across telemarketing networks and carriers.REVIEWED

The economics of looking the other way

VoIP providers profit from call volume, which creates a structural tension between screening out illegal robocall traffic and maximizing the number of calls carried across the network — screening requires investment in monitoring systems and can mean turning away paying clients, while carrying the traffic without question generates immediate revenue.REVIEWED The FTC's complaint against XCast Labs alleges the company chose the latter path for years after being put on explicit notice of the legal risk, a pattern the settlement's screening and client-termination requirements are specifically designed to reverse going forward.REVIEWED

The case adds to a growing body of FTC and Justice Department enforcement targeting the infrastructure layer of the robocall ecosystem — providers, carriers, and platforms that make mass illegal calling technically possible — rather than limiting enforcement to the individual telemarketing operations that originate specific calls.REVIEWED That shift reflects a recognition that shutting down one telemarketer does little to reduce the overall volume of illegal robocalls if the underlying carrier infrastructure remains available to the next one.REVIEWED

What the screening requirement actually demands

The order's core operational requirement — screening current and prospective clients and cutting ties with those lacking automated Do Not Call compliance procedures — puts an ongoing compliance burden on XCast Labs rather than a one-time fine and release. That structure means the FTC and Justice Department retain a mechanism to monitor whether the company actually changes its client-vetting practices going forward, rather than relying solely on a monetary penalty to deter future violations.REVIEWED For an infrastructure provider whose business model depends on carrying high call volumes cheaply, implementing genuine screening represents a meaningful operational change, since verifying each client's compliance systems takes time and resources that a purely volume-driven business would otherwise avoid spending.REVIEWED

The Justice Department's involvement in litigating the case, rather than the FTC pursuing it alone, reflects a structural feature of federal consumer-protection enforcement: the FTC generally cannot seek civil penalties directly in federal court on its own authority for many violations, and instead refers matters requiring civil penalties to the Justice Department, which then files and litigates the case on the FTC's behalf. That division of labor was on display throughout the XCast Labs matter, from the original 2023 complaint through the January 2024 settlement announcement.REVIEWED

Have documents relevant to this story? Reach us through our tips channel.