A Note to the Industry

We want to start by apologizing for the noise. We know your inbox is already full, and the last thing you need is a back-and-forth between compliance providers. That was never our intention.

We reached out because we identified real, specific deficiencies in FCC filings — deficiencies that have led to over 1,000 carriers being removed from the Robocall Mitigation Database. Our goal was to help. We are sorry that it has created frustration, and we understand if you are tired of hearing about it.

That said, a law firm — The CommLaw Group — recently mass-emailed the entire RMD list warning carriers not to respond to compliance outreach like ours. Their claims are factually wrong, self-serving, and — if followed — could leave your company exposed to FCC enforcement. That demands a response.

They Embraced AI on May 13. They Attacked It on May 20.

On May 13, The CommLaw Group announced they were integrating artificial intelligence into their legal practice to “accelerate research, organize facts, identify patterns, and summarize complex materials.” They launched an AI practice group and pledged technology-driven efficiency.

Seven days later, they warned carriers to distrust anyone using “automated or semi-automated” tools to review public FCC filings. Apparently when a law firm uses AI to bill you more efficiently, that is progress. When it makes compliance services affordable enough that you do not need a law firm, that is a threat to public safety.

They Did Exactly What They Accuse Us Of

Stop and consider what The CommLaw Group actually did: they scraped the same public FCC Robocall Mitigation Database, pulled the same contact email addresses, and mass-emailed the entire list — to warn you about companies that mass-email the RMD list.

Their article accuses compliance firms of using “penalties to manufacture urgency.” Their own email warns of “severe enforcement consequences” and filings that could “become an admission that increases exposure.” That is fear-mongering — the exact thing they claim to be protecting you from. The only difference is that our emails identify specific, fixable problems in your filing. Theirs just tell you to be afraid and call a lawyer.

If Their Clients’ Filings Were in Order, Our Emails Would Be Irrelevant

No carrier with a complete, current RMD filing would feel urgency from our outreach. You would check your status, confirm everything is in compliance, and move on. The fact that this article was mass-emailed to the entire RMD list — not just their own clients — tells you what you need to know.

If you are paying a telecom law firm to handle your regulatory compliance, you should ask them one question: why did a compliance startup find problems in your filing before your own lawyers did?

Instead of writing blog posts attacking the people who found the problems, maybe go fix the problems. Your clients are paying you to keep them compliant — not to write press releases about why compliance does not matter.

“Don’t Fix Your Filing” Is Dangerous Advice

Their article claims that correcting an RMD filing could “become an admission that increases exposure.” The FCC requires carriers to keep filings current and accurate. A carrier that knows its filing is deficient and deliberately leaves it uncorrected — on anyone’s advice — faces far greater risk than one that promptly updates it.

The FCC does not punish carriers for improving their filings. It punishes carriers for false information and for failing to implement the programs they describe. Over 1,000 carriers have already been removed from the database for deficient filings. Leaving a known problem in place does not protect you — it protects the law firm’s ability to charge you emergency rates when the FCC finally comes knocking.

Every Filing We Prepare Requires Client Approval

Their article warns against filing “lengthy KYC procedures” a carrier has not actually implemented. We agree — which is exactly why every filing we prepare goes through a mandatory client review. You review the filing. You confirm it reflects your actual operations. You sign a declaration under penalty of perjury. We do not submit anything without your explicit authorization.

Public Data Is Public

The FCC Robocall Mitigation Database is public by design. The FCC built it so that carriers, the industry, and the public can verify compliance. That is its stated purpose. If a law firm considers it a “red flag” that someone actually read a public regulatory database, the concern is not about your safety. It is about the fact that we did their job for them — faster, and for a fraction of the price.

Our Process: Transparent, Auditable, Client-Controlled

The CommLaw Group implies we file documents recklessly. Here is our actual process:

Every step is auditable. Every filing is client-approved. Every document is in your portal. Nothing is filed without your explicit written authorization and perjury declaration. This is not a black box — it is a documented, repeatable process with more safeguards than most law firms offer.

Our Technology Outperforms the Average Attorney — on Their Own Exams

The CommLaw Group implies automated compliance review is unreliable. The benchmarks say otherwise. Our analysis is powered by Anthropic’s Claude Opus — the same AI that elite law firms use through Harvey AI (Allen & Overy, Ashurst, O’Melveny).

For context: MIT researchers found that GPT-4’s widely-hyped bar exam performance was actually the 48th percentile among first-time test takers on essays (Live Science). Claude Opus scores in the 90th+ percentile on the same class of questions. In one benchmark, it produced over 120 inline citations, each tied to specific source passages. This is not a chatbot guessing — it reads regulatory filings with a thoroughness no human reviewer can match at scale.

The world’s most prestigious law firms already trust this technology for contract analysis, motion drafting, and due diligence. The suggestion that it cannot be trusted to review a two-page FCC filing is not a serious argument. It is a billing strategy.

A Note on Professional Responsibility

Under ABA Model Rule 7.1, a lawyer shall not make false or misleading communications about legal services, and any comparison with competing services must be “factually substantiated.” The CommLaw Group’s article claims that correcting an RMD filing could “become an admission that increases exposure” — without citing a single case, enforcement action, or FCC proceeding where a corrected filing created liability for a carrier.

Under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), commercial disparagement — publishing false or misleading statements about a competitor’s services that cause economic harm — is actionable with damages up to three times actual losses. Under state law, tortious interference with prospective business relations applies when a party intentionally disrupts another company’s customer relationships through wrongful means.

Virginia’s Rules of Professional Conduct — which govern The CommLaw Group as a McLean, Virginia firm — mirror these standards. Rule 8.4(c) prohibits conduct involving “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”

We would prefer to compete on the merits. If that is not possible, we are prepared to protect our business through every available legal channel.

Check your own compliance status — FREE

No purchase required. No obligation. No billable hours. Just the facts.

Run a FREE Compliance Check

You can work with us, with a law firm, or with any qualified professional. What you should not do is leave a known-deficient filing in place because someone told you that fixing it is more dangerous than ignoring it.

We are here to help the industry — not to create noise. If you have any questions or want to discuss your specific compliance situation, we are always available.

Performance West Inc.
info@performancewest.net · 1-888-411-0383

Read the full response: performancewest.net/blog/response-to-commlaw-group