The Federal Communications Commission’s push to bring call center work back to the United States is drawing sharp, and split, reactions from the credit and collection industry and the consumer groups that watch it.
In late March, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would set English proficiency standards for call center agents, cap the share of customer service calls handled offshore, require disclosure of an agent’s location, and give consumers a right to transfer to a U.S.-based representative.
Here is a summary of comments from consumer advocates and from within the credit and collection industry.
ACA International
In a May 20 meeting with Commission staff and advisors to Chairman Carr and Commissioners Gomez and Trusty, ACA International argued the FCC lacks authority to impose the proposed rules on non-communications companies and warned the regulations would likely trigger the major questions doctrine. ACA representatives said offshore call center service quality matches or beats onshore performance on the metrics, and that consumer privacy is equally protected because offshore centers do not store data on offshore servers. They pointed to the FTC Safeguards Rule and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act as existing safeguards, and cautioned that onshoring costs would be passed to consumers and drain resources from clients such as hospitals.
National Creditors Bar Association
The NCBA urged the Commission, before the NPRM even published, not to move forward in its current form. The group said financial services vendors already operate under layered federal and state examinations, audits, monitoring, and training mandates that catch proficiency problems. It also challenged the legal premise, arguing foreign call center employees are not the carriers, VoIP providers, or affiliates the FCC regulates, and that reaching their speech would raise constitutional and extraterritorial concerns.
Contact Center Compliance
The compliance technology firm backed the Commission’s consumer protection goals but rejected the framework. It argued poor service is a domestic problem too, questioned whether a U.S. workforce exists to fill onshored roles given high attrition, and opposed the proposed 30 percent offshore cap as a staffing mandate rather than a consumer protection. CCC said a bond should target bad actors, recommending a floor of at least $1 million scaled to call volume with an exemption for bona fide established providers, and pointed to enhanced STIR/SHAKEN and tax incentives as better tools.
National Consumer Law Center and allied groups
On the other side, NCLC, joined by Public Knowledge, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, EPIC, Consumer Action, the Consumer Federation of America, the National Consumers League, and Consumer Reports, strongly backed requiring
