For years, consumer advocacy groups have pressured lawmakers and regulators to tighten the reins on telemarketing abuses, celebrating each incremental victory in the fight against incessant spam calls and unscrupulous sales pitches.
However, Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson’s dissent against further enhancing the Telemarketing Sales Rule reads like a betrayal of these hard-fought efforts.
Instead of fortifying consumer protections at a time when phone scams are on the rise, he calls for a standstill, placing partisan dedication to President Trump’s vision above the urgent needs of the public.
The result is a surge of frustration among those (like me, naively) who expect the FTC to champion the little guy rather than appease corporate or political interests.
Overview of the Dissenting Statement
In his statement, Commissioner Ferguson makes it clear he does not oppose the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) on its merits. Instead, he opposes it because he believes the Biden-Harris administration’s time is effectively over, and that the country has supposedly delivered a “resounding victory” for Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election.
He contends the only function of a “lame-duck Commission” is to hold down the fort, conduct “routine law enforcement,” and facilitate a smooth transition to the new Trump Administration—without creating or enforcing rules that allegedly go beyond “routine.”
This position raises immediate red flags.
Rather than engaging with the substance of the TSR—which aims to curb harmful robocalls, fraudulent telemarketing, and other nuisances—Ferguson dismisses the need for any further regulatory action. His statement can be boiled down to an ideological declaration: the incoming administration’s approach, shaped by President Trump’s views, inherently makes protective regulatory action unnecessary or undesirable.
The Harm of Robocalls and Telemarketing Scams
- Exploitation of Vulnerable Communities
- Elderly and Low-Income Populations: Robocalls and telemarketing scams often target seniors and lower-income individuals who may be more susceptible to believing time-limited or high-pressure offers. Once tricked, they can be scammed out of life savings, magnifying wealth disparity and pushing them into economic despair.
- Emotional Distress: Even those who avoid scams endure a barrage of incessant calls, creating anxiety, stress, and disruption of daily life. The intrusion can be relentless, turning what should be a simple act—answering the phone—into a stressful experience.
- Corporate Greed and Unethical Practices
- These telemarketing outfits are often driven by corporate greed, where their profit incentive overrides respect for consumer privacy or welfare. Companies (or loosely regulated operators) exploit loopholes to bombard consumers with calls, ignoring corporate social responsibility norms.
- Consumer Advocacy suffers in an environment where regulatory enforcement is stifled. By refusing to strengthen or implement rules, government bodies effectively shield unscrupulous telemarketers who thrive under lax oversight.
- Dangers to Public Health and Wellbeing
- While robocalls themselves may not directly cause physical harm, the stress, harassment, and financial strain from scams affect people’s mental health, especially when repeated calls come during mealtimes, late nights, or during personal emergencies.
- The resources and time wasted dealing with these calls can be substantial. People sometimes miss legitimate calls or hesitate to answer calls from unknown numbers, harming vital communication channels in an increasingly phone-reliant society.
Ferguson’s Blind Loyalty to Trump
Commissioner Ferguson’s dissent, according to the text, hinges less on protecting the public and more on signaling allegiance to the incoming president. The overarching impression is that he is prioritizing political loyalty over consumer protection. Here’s why that is problematic:
- Erosion of Consumer Protection
- By dismissing new rulemaking, Ferguson implicitly allows the continuation of fraudulent robocalls and telemarketing scams. His stance could encourage telemarketers to ramp up their efforts, knowing the FTC might hold back on enforcement actions deemed “unprecedented” or “burdensome” to big business.
- In an era of corporate accountability challenges, taking a hands-off approach can be interpreted as the Commission abdicating its duty to protect consumers, effectively sidelining the wellbeing of consumers and social justice concerns.
- Partisan Obstruction
- Ferguson’s language—speaking of a “decisive mandate” for President Trump’s vision—may reflect a neoliberal capitalism approach that champions deregulation at nearly any cost. This can result in limited checks on corporations, facilitating corporate corruption and perpetuating wealth disparity.
- By labeling the Biden-Harris FTC’s efforts as an “assault on American business,” he frames consumer protection measures as anti-business. In reality, effective regulation can promote fair competition, as well as preserve market integrity and public trust.
- Undermining Faith in the FTC
- The Federal Trade Commission’s core mission includes safeguarding the public from deceptive or unfair business practices, including telemarketing scams. Public trust in the FTC relies on the Commission’s impartial enforcement of rules, irrespective of political transitions.
- Ferguson’s statement signals to the public and businesses alike that political allegiances trump consumer welfare. This could erode confidence in the institution, making it appear more of a political tool than an agency dedicated to consumer protection and corporate ethics.

Implications for Local Communities and Workers
- Economic Fallout
- Robocalls and telemarketing scams drain resources from local economies. Consumers lose funds to scams, undermining local spending and overall economic stability.
- Meanwhile, legitimate local businesses can be tarnished by association if phone marketing becomes synonymous with fraud and annoyance. Customers become more hesitant to pick up any phone calls, reducing success rates even for honest marketers.
- Social and Health Consequences
- As noted, anxiety and frustration rise with the onslaught of spam calls, straining mental health for individuals. This stress can spill over into workplaces, harming productivity and morale.
- Social justice concerns arise because the worst impacts often fall on those with limited means of recourse, such as seniors who lack the tech-savviness to deploy call-blocking apps, or who may be more trusting and less financially secure.
- Worker Wellbeing
- In an economy that fosters telemarketing as a business model—especially one prone to minimal oversight—workers themselves might be pressured into ethically dubious roles. High turnover, stressful conditions, and questionable scripts can erode the dignity and psychological wellbeing of employees tasked with cold-calling unwitting individuals.
Corporate Accountability vs. Deregulation
A Clash of Ideals
- Pro-Consumer Regulation: Advocates argue that firm, clear regulations—like updated telemarketing rules—prevent scams, protect vulnerable populations, and ensure a level playing field for legitimate businesses.
- Pro-Business Deregulation: Commissioner Ferguson’s dissent suggests that the new Trump Administration approach will favor “pro-innovation” and “pro-competition” stances, which often translates into deregulation. While deregulation can spur some forms of innovation, it also opens the door wider for bad actors to exploit the lack of oversight.
Skepticism of Corporate Self-Policing
Given the history of corporate greed driving companies to cut corners or exploit consumers—especially in industries where swift profits are possible without robust checks—it’s realistic to question whether a lenient stance will prompt better behavior. Historically, large corporations typically strive to increase shareholder returns, sometimes ignoring negative externalities or the harm inflicted on consumers.
By halting or opposing new rulemaking, Commissioner Ferguson’s approach could enable the kind of corporate corruption and under-regulated telemarketing that has, time and again, proven harmful. When rulemaking is shelved, the public is at greater risk of harassment and scams, while unscrupulous players remain empowered.
Why Ferguson’s Dissent Is So Harmful
Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson’s decision to dissent from the Telemarketing Sales Rule on largely political grounds may be deemed “obscene” because it places partisan loyalty above consumer protection. His words suggest a willful disregard for those who suffer from incessant robocalls, lose money to scammers, and endure the economic fallout that occurs when consumer advocacy efforts are undermined.
This type of blind loyalty to an autocrat or any political figure erodes faith in institutions such as the FTC, which is intended to function independently to guard the public interest. It amplifies wealth disparity by leaving vulnerable people even more susceptible to scam artists, while presumably championing corporate interests that can exploit regulatory rollbacks. In short, it carries real consequences for local communities, the most at-risk populations, and workers alike—financially, socially, and in terms of emotional wellbeing.
At the end of the day, an FTC commissioner’s duty is to uphold the law and protect consumers—not to play politics or curry favor with any administration, Democrat or Republican. When officials shirk these responsibilities, we see rising exploitation of everyday citizens, heightened public distrust, and a stark demonstration of corporate greed winning out over corporate social responsibility. It is exactly this concern that makes Commissioner Ferguson’s dissent so troubling: it reveals a willingness to sacrifice the best interests of the people in the name of political allegiance.
Ensuring robust telemarketing regulations is not simply an inconvenience for businesses; it’s a moral and ethical imperative that respects consumer privacy, autonomy, and financial security. If the FTC fails in this duty, millions of Americans—particularly those with fewer resources—will continue to face bombardment by telemarketing scams, further dividing our society and straining the most vulnerable among us.
In an era where we must remain vigilant about the effects of corporate corruption and policies that heighten wealth disparity, Ferguson’s stance underscores the importance of maintaining strong consumer protections. Blind partisan politics that ignore public welfare risk further entrenching a system driven by neoliberal capitalism—where the endless pursuit of profit can overshadow ethical considerations.
Andrew-N-Ferguson-dissent-robocalls