1

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005

Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991

) ) ) ) ) )

CG Docket No. 05-338 CG Docket No. 02-278

TCPA Plaintiffs’ Comments on Stericycle Inc.’s Petition Concerning the Commission’s Rule Requiring Opt-Out Notices on Fax Advertisements

Undersigned counsel represent the Plaintiffs in private TCPA actions against

petitioner Stericycle, Inc.1 and 11 other petitioners seeking to retroactively invalidate the

Commission’s regulation requiring opt-out notice on fax advertisements where the sender

claims “prior express invitation or permission.”2 The Consumer and Governmental Affairs

Bureau sought comments on Stericycle’s petition on June 27, 2014.3

Stericycle’s petition is nearly identical to several others. Stericycle itself is notable,

however, because it sent fax advertisements in 2011 and 2012 containing opt-out notices

that at least attempt to comply with the notice requirements, but then stopped doing so after

it apparently purchased a list of fax numbers from a third party, paid to have the list

“scrubbed” to remove Stericycle customers, and sent non-compliant faxes to the remaining

1 See Petition of Stericycle, Inc., for Declaratory Ruling and/or Waiver Regarding 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(4)(iv), CG Docket Nos. 02-278, 05-338 (June 6, 2014). 2 Counsel also represent the plaintiffs against petitioners Staples, Inc./Quill Corp. (petition filed July 19, 2013); Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (July 24, 2013); Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Aug. 9, 2013); Douglas Paul Walburg and Richie Enterprises, LLC (Aug. 19, 2013); Purdue Pharma L.P. (Dec. 12, 2013); Prime Health Services, Inc. (Dec. 17, 2013); TechHealth, Inc. (Jan. 6, 2014, CG Docket No. 02-278); Crown Mtg. Co. (Mar. 11, 2014); Masimo Corp. (Apr. 1, 2014); Best Buy Inc. (Apr. 7, 2014); and American CareSource Holdings, Inc. (June 30, 2014) (comment period not yet established). 3 See Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Seeks Comment on Petition Concerning the Commission’s Rule on Opt-out Notices on Fax Advertisements, CG Docket Nos. 02-278, 05-338 (June 27, 2014).

2

consumers. Like the other petitioners, Stericycle does not attempt to explain its non-

compliance.

Plaintiffs also take this opportunity to present in formal comments several arguments

and authorities they raised in ex parte meetings and letters to the Commission after filing

their opening comments and reply comments February 14, 2014, and February 21, 2014.

These points apply equally to all the petitions, not only Stericycle’s petition, and Plaintiffs

reserve the right to present any such arguments to the full Commission, the D.C. Circuit

Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court.

I. Stericycle’s faxes were not “solicited.”

Like the other petitioners, Stericycle uses the term “solicited” to refer to fax

advertisements where the sender claims to have “prior express invitation or permission.”

(Stericycle Pet. at 1). The TCPA does not use the term “solicited,” and the Commission’s

orders use the statutory language, “prior express invitation or permission,” 47 U.S.C.

§ 227(a)(5), or simply “permission.”4

The term “solicited fax” is designed to mask the Commission’s real statutory

authority for the regulation. The Commission did not regulate “solicited faxes” in its 2006

order.5 It regulated “prior express invitation or permission” by answering questions left open

4 E.g., Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991; Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, CG Docket Nos. 02-278, 05-338, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, FCC 05-206 (rel. December 9, 2005) ¶ 30 (seeking comment on “the phrase ‘prior express invitation or permission’ in the definition” and asking “should the facsimile sender bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that it had the consumer’s prior express invitation or permission?”). 5 See Rules & Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Report and Order and Third Order on Reconsideration, 21 FCC Rcd 3787 ¶¶ 45–48 (rel. Apr. 6, 2006).

3

by that undefined term, including (1) whether a sender may obtain permission orally (yes, but

the sender has the burden of proof), (2) whether permission once given is permanent (no, it

is revocable), and (3) how the consumer may revoke it (only by following the instructions the

sender is required to include on the fax).6 In doing so, the Commission acted squarely within

its authority to “implement” the prohibition on faxes sent without “prior express invitation

or permission” by defining the contours of that term.

The term “solicited” also implies Plaintiffs affirmatively sought out Stericycle’s fax

advertisements. Stericycle provides no evidence for this suggestion, yet it complains in its

petition that, under the regulation, it “cannot defend itself by asserting as an affirmative

defense that recipients consented to receive faxes” and asks the Commission to grant

retroactive relief so it can assert such a defense. (Stericycle Pet. at 11). The implication—

unless Stericycle intends to assert a false defense—is that Stericycle obtained permission

before sending its faxes.

Plaintiffs have evidence Stericycle purchased a list of fax numbers from a third party,

paid the third party to “scrub” the list to remove Stericycle’s customers, and then sent faxes

with non-compliant opt-out notice to those numbers. Coupled with Stericycle’s apparent

intent to assert a permission defense in court, this is precisely the scenario the Commission

was “concerned” about in 2006, where relaxing the rules to allow oral permission results in

senders “erroneously claiming” permission.7 The Commission offset that risk by requiring

senders who make such claims to “include on the advertisements their opt-out notice and

6 Id. 7 Id. ¶ 46.

4

contact information to allow consumers to stop unwanted faxes in the future.”8 The

documents reflecting these facts were redacted and labeled “confidential” pursuant to a

protective order entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of

Illinois and were filed with the Commission in paper form by mail on June 23, 2014.

In addition, Stericycle sent fax advertisements in 2011 and 2012 containing opt-out

notices that at least attempt to comply with the regulation. Those faxes are attached as

Exhibit A. Counsel did not file suit over these faxes. They did, however, file suit over the

faxes in the current suit, which were sent in 2014 and are attached as Exhibit B, because they

contain almost none of the required information, merely providing a fax number.

Stericycle does not explain why it stopped including its prior opt-out notice in its fax

advertisements. (Stericycle Pet. at 1–18). Rather, like every other petitioner, Stericycle asserts

it is entitled to extraordinary retroactive relief without being required to inform the

Commission of the most basic relevant facts, such as (1) how many violations are at issue,

(2) whether the violations were intentional or, if not, what internal compliance failures led to

those violations, or (3) whether Stericycle has taken any steps to prevent such violations in

the future.9

8 Id. ¶ 48. 9 Cf. In re Rath Microtech, 16 FCC Rcd 16710 ¶¶ 7, 10, 13, 14 (Network Servs. Div. 2005) (elevator-telephone manufacturer seeking waiver from Commission enforcement (1) disclosed it sold “10,326 non-compliant telephones,” (2) “promptly” corrected violations, (3) immediately sent equipment for testing and retesting at separate laboratories, (4) completely “redesign[ed] and modif[ied]” the equipment, (5) stated it understood “the importance of complying with FCC rules,” and (6) implemented procedures to ensure future compliance).

5

II. Stericycle’s petition should be denied for the reasons in the Anda Order and the Nack amicus briefs.

Plaintiffs’ opening comments and reply comments detail the background of the opt-

out regulation and argue the petitions should be rejected for the same reasons in the

Bureau’s Anda Order10 and the FCC’s amicus briefs to the Eighth Circuit in Nack v.

Walburg.11 Plaintiffs will not repeat those points here, but Plaintiffs observe that legal

commentators took notice of the regulation immediately after it was promulgated nearly

eight years ago and were not confused about its meaning. See, e.g., FCC Issues Regulations

Implementing Junk Fax Prevention Act, 60 Consumer Fin. L.Q. Rep. 401 (Fall 2006) (“The opt-

out notice must be included in all facsimile advertisements, including those based on an

established business relationship or in response to a recipient’s prior express invitation or

permission.”).

III. Stericycle’s petition should be denied based on the additional arguments and authorities Plaintiffs raised in their ex parte meetings and letters to the Commission.

After the filing of their reply comments on February 21, 2014, Plaintiff submitted the

following additional arguments and authorities, either in ex parte meetings with Commission

staff12 or in letter form.13 They apply to all the petitions, not just Stericycle’s.

10 Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify That 47 U.S.C. § 227(b) Was Not the Statutory Basis for Commission’s Rule Requiring an Opt-Out Notice for Fax Advertisements Sent with Recipient’s Prior Express Consent, Order, CG Docket No. 05-338 (May 2, 2012) ¶¶ 5–7. 11 The Commission’s opening amicus brief is available at 2012 WL 725733 (Feb. 24, 2012). Its supplemental amicus brief is available at 2012 WL 3781344 (Aug. 21, 2012). 12 See Anderson + Wanca Ex Parte Notices, May 5, 2014, and June 23, 2014, CG Docket No. 05-338. 13 See Anderson + Wanca Letters, April 4, 2014, and May 19, 2014, CG Docket No. 05-338.

6

First, on March 24, 2014, the United States Supreme Court denied the petition for

writ of certiorari in Walburg v. Nack, No. 13-486, 2014 WL 1124926 (U.S. Mar. 24, 2014).

Walburg, one of the petitioners here, sought to reverse the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Nack

v. Walburg, 715 F.3d 680, 683 (8th Cit. 2013), which held the “plain language” of the

regulation requires opt-out notice on fax advertisements sent with permission, that the

“rationale for the regulation, as set forth in the 2006 Order and as discussed in the FCC’s

amicus brief, arguably brings the regulation within range of what § 227(b) authorized the

FCC to regulate,” and that the Hobbs Act barred Walburg from challenging its validity in

that court.

Second, following Nack and the stream of petitions that began in July 2013, a body of

federal caselaw has developed enforcing the opt-out-notice requirement, including the

Seventh Circuit in Ira Holtzman, C.P.A. v. Turza, 728 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. Aug. 26, 2013)

(affirming class certification and summary judgment, holding lack of compliant opt-out

notice meant “it does not matter which recipients consented or had an established business

relation with Turza”), and more recently the Sixth Circuit in In re Sandusky Wellness Ctr., LLC,

---Fed. Appx. ---, 2014 WL 2809283, at *1 (6th Cir. June 12, 2014) (vacating order denying

class certification for failure to consider “whether the facsimiles transmitted by the

defendants contained opt-out notices or whether those opt-out notices were adequate”).

Third, scores of comments were filed by consumers in response to the petitions,

urging the Commission to maintain the rule because legally enforceable opt-out notice is

essential to giving consumers the tools they need to stop receiving unwanted faxes. (See, e.g.,

Ex. C (sample of consumer comments supporting opt-out-notice requirement).

7

Fourth, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held in Natural Res. Def. Council v. E.P.A.,

749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 18, 2014), that (1) the EPA lacked authority to create an

affirmative defense to a private right of action created by Congress, (2) the agency’s authority

extended “only to administrative penalties, not to civil penalties imposed by a court,” and

(3) the agency’s role in “private civil suits” was limited to “intervenor” or “amicus curiae.”

Plaintiffs argued the same rationale precludes the Commission from granting the petitioners’

requests that it retroactively create a defense for “substantial compliance” in pending

lawsuits or grant retroactive, judicially binding waivers dictating to the courts that they

cannot enforce the regulation.

Conclusion

The Commission should deny Stericycle’s petition, along with all the other petitions.

Respectfully submitted,

By: s/Brian J. Wanca

Brian J. Wanca Glenn L. Hara Anderson + Wanca 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT C

John Lary, MD - 7521073955.txt

I oppose any weakening of the TCPA. My office receives many unsolicited and unwanted faxes. My cell phone receives many unsolicited and unwanted advertising calls and text messages, all of which are disruptive and potentially dangerous (such as cell calls received while I am performing an intricate medical procedure that requires intense concentration). I receive many unsolicited and unwanted pre-recorded calls to my home phone. I have sued TCPA violators on a number of occasions. The legislative history shows that (at least some of) the TCPA's sponsors incorrectly predicted that TCPA violators would see the error of their ways when brought to court (even small claims court), pay the suing victim, and cease making prohibited calls. My experience has been that TCPA violators will usually hire an attorney, who will then proceed to raise all sorts of frivolous "defenses" to justify their prohibited conduct. You can be sure that any FCC order or rule weakening the TCPA's protections will result in defense attorneys attempting to ?stretch? the FCC's new language in such a way as to permit conduct that the FCC did not intend. It has been my experience that trial judges will often rule against a pro se TCPA plaintiff based on defense attorney's faulty (and usually frivolous) arguments. That has happened to me many times. I have appealed a number of these erroneous trial court TCPA judgments, and in no case has the appellate court sustained the trial judge. This has resulted in favorable Alabama case law rejecting each of the erroneous TCPA ?defenses,? but the appeals process has to be repeated in each of the other 49 states before gaining universal acceptance throughout the nation. Please do not adopt new rules that will make it more difficult for telephone consumers to attempt to enforce their right to be free of intrusive advertisers. Steven T. Kirsch - 7521073346.txt I, Steve Kirsch, protest this change. Richard Perlin - 7521073312.txt As a small business person, I fully support the FCC regulations governing fax opt out. Unwanted faxes are disruptive, cost money to the business, and interfere with the transmission and receipt of essential business communications. A business may grant permission to receive certain limited information by fax. This should not be able to start a chain of unstoppable communications. The clear purpose of the opt out is to allow a business to stop these communications when they become an intrusion and interfere with business operations. The assertion that the "the recipients knew how to contact Tech Health and could have easily requested..." is ludicrous. There must be specific procedures and controls in place. Otherwise the use of fax transmissions as a whole could become useless. Businesses could be inundated with effectively unsolicited and costly transmissions. I make no distinction between a fax which is unsolicited and one where the sender had previous permission which had been revoked (or the recipient seeks to revoke). Many other industries have to abide by strict controls on communications. This is true for

phone communications and email. The securities industry has demonstrated that such a structure works and more than adequately balances the interests of the business and the customer. Without strict controls in place, some businesses will continue to test the limits of the rules or ignore them entirely. I applaud and support the FCC for its rule making efforts in this area. Eduard Shlahtichman - 7521073244.txt Its not fair that big companies who broke the junk faxing laws should get a chance to get away with it. These people need to be stopped. Shane Sperling - 7521073218.txt I am sick and tired of receiving junk faxes and these companies should have to follow the law and use the proper opt out information! Sandra Guerrero - 7521073063.txt I thought that the FCC had rules for a reason but, despite these rules I continue to receive faxes I do NOT want! it is very frustrating and it bothers me to stop what I am doing and get unwanted faxes. The "opt-out" is necessary! Nick Zepeda - 7521073064.txt I run a business from home and I also have P.T.S.D, when my fax machine goes off and I am trying to sleep I get so irritated I have tried to "opt-out" and it usually lead nowhere now you want to give these people a break! NO! "opt-outs" should always be available and should most definitely work when someone goes to "opt-out"! Michael Meister - 7521073209.txt I can't stand receiving junk faxes. It is unfair to exempt these businesses from having to abide by the law. These business should be required to use the proper opt out information. Melissa Garcia - 7521073065.txt I get junk faxes all the time, even in the middle of the night. I tried to tell these people to stop bothering me but the faxes keep coming. I don't care what big business wants. Make them obey the law! Luis Guerrero - 7521073080.txt I run and H-VAC company and I get service calls also faxes from people I deal with, sometimes they even let me know of upcoming jobs through my fax. Hence these are important for my business. So, when I get a fax in the middle of the night that is not a service call I am very angry, upset and I can't even get the faxes to stop because the "opt-outs" I have found constantly fail! If I say STOP then people should have to STOP bothering me! Lauren Serrano - 7521073090.txt There has to be a way to tell a business you don't want their junk advertising. Period. Nobody should be forced to accept faxes from a company because they claim its their legal right to harass you. There are lots of companies out there who obey the law. Make everybody follow the same rules.

Laura Estrada - 7521073067.txt I personally am sick of receiving faxes I do not request, nor do I need! What gets to me the most is that I have tried repeatedly to get them to stop "opt-out" but it fails then some of the faxes come with no number, website or anything to "opt-out" the most annoying thing is that all this takes away from what I am actually trying to accomplish and get done because I have to stop and read this unwanted fax to try and find a number to "opt-out" and again my cycle begins with no success! "opt-outs" Mandatory! they need to be working and Mandatory! Jordan Fishkin - 7521073219.txt I hate getting junk faxes. Proper opt out info is needed to stop these companies from continually sending unwanted faxes. Everyone should have to follow the law. Jill Koch - 7521073128.txt Junk faxes waste my time and cost me ink and paper. And there's no way to unsubscribe. Please make true opt-out a requirement. Thank you. Jessica Ramirez-Pagan - 7521073087.txt I get so many faxes with no way to call them to make them stop and it is real irritating. If opt outs get removed you are taking away a law that is supposed to protect the public. Junk faxes waste so much paper and ink. Jeff Arnold - 7521073124.txt As a small business owner, I cannot tell you how annoying it is to get junk-mail faxes. Not only do they take up time on my printer/fax machine, they also waste my time and supplies. There must be a way for us to opt out of receiving these bothersome faxes. Thank you Jaqueline Friare - 7521073086.txt I'm sick and tired of getting junk faxes. Its frustrating because we call them to be taken off their lists and they still keep faxing us. Don't let them get rid of opt outs just because they think they should be able to make up their own rules. Small business owners have rights too. Jaqueline Diaz - 7521073088.txt I am tired of being bothered with unwanted faxes that I can not stop and do not want and do not need! I want an 'Opt-out" that works and it should be on every fax any company sends out! these companies waste my paper and my toner but, mostly my time! I want an "opt-out" that is right on the first page of these faxes and right where it can be seen so I am not wasting more time reading tiny print that fails! Howard I Benesch, Ph. D. - 7521073103.txt I continually receive junk faxes from various businesses which I find extremely irritating and a waste of my time since I have to make several phone calls to finally get my number deleted. These junk faxes also waste paper and ink. As such, I am strongly opposed to granting any exemptions to any business, especially large ones, from currentl laws. If anything, these laws should be made more stringent with substantial fines imposed on those who ignore first requests to delete fax

numbers from their database. Gloria Rodriguez - 7521073092.txt I am very disappointed in the way these people advertise if I say STOP then I feel hmmm... I should be listened to If they want to send me so many faxes a day that I have to waste my time getting up and going to the fax machine which is upstairs just to receive a fax I did not request or go back upstairs and refill the paper tray because you guessed it more unwanted faxes came through! now that wasted my paper , my toner and my time. I have tired to "opt-out" nothing happens except that my paper , time and toner still get wasted! I thought this was illegal! keep "opt-outs" that work!!!!!!!!!!! Dolores Gavia - 7521073091.txt The faxes I receive are a real pain for me they use all my resources and waste my time I have to waste my time reading them looking for "opt-out" numbers or websites to remove me but, half of them come with no number or website and the ones that do fail! It doesn't end and I am sick of it also this is illegal but, yet I get bothered so I need a working "opt-out" I do not want these unwanted faxes and I want "opt-out" options that work! David Geiger - 7521073171.txt I get unwanted faxes daily sometimes two to three a day. Asking to borrow money, take a trip, selling insurance and many others. This is very frustrating in that it ties up my printer, they will transmit late at night or early morning disturbing sleep conferences, concentration not counting the use of paper equipment ink and other things. I have tried to opt-out but that only seems to increase the frequency of the faxes. I have never contacted these companies, I do not have a company that can borrow 50000. much less anything else. I do not give permission to any of these people to contact me and never will. I would like these to stop and be eliminated. This is as bad as telemarketers contact you at the wrong time. There is no ability to put my fax number on a no call list. Please do not allow unwanted faxes Thomas M Wilson – (no document number) I amopposed to allowing companiesto cancel opt out notices-even on permission based faxes. I am also opposed to allowing waiversfor companiesthat have violated the FCC rulesrequiring opt out notices on all advertising faxes. If the 1991 TCPA is going to remain, then it needs remain in its present form and not watered down. It is irritating to receive unsolicited faxes. They continue to happen despite the FCC rules. Consumers and Businesses must have recourse against the annoying practice of unsolicited faxes. Garfield - 7521073149.txt the removal of opt-outs is a really BAD idea - we are a business and should have a voice whether we want to waste our ink and paper on junk mail faxeed to us -lisa esposito /Garfield David Lindsay - 7521073145.txt I believe that the "opt out number" posted at the bottom of some, but not all faxes I receive leads to more faxes from other sources. I have studied this myself and

when I call that number I notice an uptick in unsolicited faxes in the following months. If I do not call that number I do not notice this increase. I believe when I call to opt out my number is being logged and then sold to other advertising companies so they can send me faxes I do not want. I am sick and tired of receiving unsolicited faxes, consuming my resources and time not to mention wearing out the expensive fax machine that I purchased for MY convenience. Simon Garcia - 7521073006.txt I am so sick of getting bothered with faxes that even when I opt-out, or try to they do not STOP! now you want to give people a break on this it is hard enough to get the faxes to stop when there is an "opt-out" I am sick of getting my toner and paper wasted! Do NOT let these people get away with this hold them accountable. Packer - 7521072761.txt Please stop all spam faxes. Do not exempt big business. Larry Yale - 7521072804.txt I can't stand receiving junk Faxes! Please do what ever you have to do to stop this from happening!!! Thanks, Larry Yale Jonas Gavelis - 7521073007.txt All companies should follow the law pertaining to the prohibition of sending unauthorized and unsolicited faxes. Unsolicited faxes place a financial burden on a small company such as my dental practice. The cost is the time my staff has to deal with the faxes as well as the cost of paper, ink, and the wear and tear on the fax machines. Ultimately these additional costs get passed on to the consumer/patient. Sandy Moriarty - 7521072578.txt Despite the FCC rules, my business, Moriarty Reporting & Video, LLC continues to receive unwanted faxes. We are very frustrated by these faxes which interrupt our business and use up our supplies and our time without permission. I have tried opting out in the past but to no avail. The faxes lacked an opt-out notice. On some days, we receive numerous faxes from the same company. It is rare that we give any company advertising their wares permission to fax us as a condition of business. I have tried to stop fax ads as a result of an opt-out notice and most of these e-mail addresses or telephone numbers listed to opt out are false in nature. Something needs to be done about this. These people do not take this seriously even though it is illegal to send these faxes. The Attorney General's office had a form that I used to send back to the people who faxed me unwanted ads. This informed them that what they were doing was illegal. It didn't matter. They continued to send them and currently send them on a daily basis. This is very frustrating and a waste of my time, my paper, my toner, and all resources which are used to create these unwanted and illegal faxes. Richard Gans - 7521072544.txt

I am opposed to changes in the opt-out rules for sending faxes, whether they be solicited or unsolicited. My business receives thousands of faxes per year from companies with whom we have no business relationship AND from those with whom we have a relationship, but do not grant permission to send us faxes. These thousands of faxes use our fax supplies and tie up our business fax lines with unwanted faxes. We have been prevented from receiving urgent business faxes due to this unwanted use of our fax lines. The opt-out rules that exist should remain intact in order to discourage businesses from sending unwanted faxes to home and businesses. Ben Hertz - 7521072577.txt No business should be exempt from solicitation laws. Big Businesses should follow the law just as every other business should. DO NOT GRANT THEM A FAX SOLICITATION EXEMPTION PLEASE! THEY DO NOT NEED THEIR OWN SET OF RULES TO ABIDE BY! McHenry & Grahn Plumbing - 7521072456.txt I am tired of receiving faxes from advertisers. I am using all my ink and paper on unwanted faxes. I want all of my fax numbers removed from these calling list. I have tried to remove them and most cont. to send them. Cherish - 7521072496.txt These regulations were passed in 2006 concerning the opt out and I have seen many faxes that have a proper opt out notice. If companies did not comply with the opt out notice they should not be able to get a waiver or any type of excemption. They could have checked the regulations just like the other businesses did. William Schneider - 7521071988.txt big businesses should be required to follow the laws, just like everyone else. Their request for an exemption should not be granted. Ronald Steinberg - 7521071907.txt Don't you dare allow companies to send junk faxes without indicating their correct phone numbers and fax numbers. Their "freedom of speech" does not entitle them to use my paper, fax toner, and to tie up my machine. I have the freedom to pick and choose who has access to me, and junk faxes or other unsolicited garbage does NOT trump my right to privacy. Only an arrogant government bureau and its arrogant employees would even consider something like that. If you believe that our country is for sale to the highest bidder, that is not applicable to the citizenry, especially to me. If you dare to solicit my further comments, you may email me at the above address, or if you really have nerve, you may call me at my office- 248-932-3230 Ext. 298. Ronald A. Steinberg BA MA JD W8ORW Attorney at Law Gary Stevenson - 7521071899.txt I'm sick and tired of Corporations whining about their First Amendment rights to harass and piss people off in the name of making a profit. These idiots break the

law hourly by carpet-bombing the country's fax machines with their unwanted advertising feces, and now they want the FCC to bless this by eliminating the opt-out feature? If I tell them to leave me alone I expect to have MY rights observed by being left alone. Don't let them get away with this. Dr. Richard Glass - 7521071910.txt No one should be exempt from laws that are designed to protect the consumer or small business person. Please continue to enforce the law as was its intent. Thank you, Dr. Richard Glass Bob Kupfer - 7521071898.txt I do not want the FCC to change the law regarding junk faxes. They are a huge waste of my time and my staffs. As with junk calls and robo calls coming to businesses there should be an opt out like we have at home. The junk faxes are a waste of both time and materials in a small business. Do not change the law Wayne Harmon - 7521071678.txt big business should be required by law to follow the opt out notice. We receive many faxes during the night, disrupting sleep, life and our business Shawn - 7521071741.txt Why make it easier for businesses to harass people who do not solicit their advertising? Businesses who harass individuals with unsolicited advertisements should be held liable for wasting peoples time and money. This is a really shame, because if opt out language is not mandatory the harassment has only just begun...Some special interest group must have really worked congress to get this done. Katie Casey - 7521071852.txt We do not like to receive them because they are a waste of our toner which in turn leads to the company wasting money. I think they should be punished for wasting business's time and money. Erica Dawes - 7521071851.txt I do not appreciate receiving faxes that are "junk". This uses expensive toner, pricey paper, and precious time. This also stalls or prevents actual business faxes. It is my opinion that the sender of these solicitations be subject to fines for sending these out. There is not even an option to decline getting these faxes in the future. Perhaps that can be something that the sender is mandatory to offer when sending these. Landon Yalw - 7521071656.txt I am sick and tired of receiving these illegal fax advertisements. These faxes are costing me my money by wasting my ink, paper and toner. Just because these big

companies have money does not mean that they are allowed to buy their freedom to send junk faxes.