The CommLaw Group recently found itself embroiled in an unfortunate public controversy involving statements published and circulated in Prescott-Martini’s weekly Martini Brief . Because the matter touched on CommLaw’s reputation, advisory practices, commitment to responsible innovation, and position on AI-assisted compliance tools, we believe it is important to set the record straight. The controversy arose from commentary concerning The CommLaw Group, Performance West, AI-assisted compliance outreach, and Robocall Mitigation Database compliance practices. That commentary included or relied on allegations that The CommLaw Group had scraped the FCC’s Robocall Mitigation Database, pulled contact email addresses from that database, and mass-emailed the entire RMD list. Those allegations were false. To be clear: The CommLaw Group did not scrape the FCC’s Robocall Mitigation Database. We did not harvest contact information from the RMD. And we did not mass-email the RMD list. The advisory at issue was sent to The CommLaw Group’s own long-standing Client Advisory distribution list — the same audience receiving this message today. After CommLaw objected, Prescott-Martini published a retraction and correction acknowledging that it had not independently verified the disputed allegations and did not possess facts establishing that they were true. Prescott-Martini also withdrew and corrected any contrary statement or implication, as well as any suggestion that CommLaw is a “legacy” or technologically backward law firm opposed to artificial intelligence, automation, analytics, or responsible compliance technology. Prescott-Martini’s retraction and The CommLaw Group’s full response can be reviewed here: Retraction and CommLaw Group Response . We are not issuing this advisory to prolong a dispute. To the contrary, our purpose is to correct the record and draw attention to the broader issue that gave rise to the controversy in the first place: the growing role of AI, automation, and mass outreach in telecom compliance. The CommLaw Group supports responsible AI adoption. We use technology. We believe AI-assisted tools, automation, analytics, and better compliance workflows will play an important role in the future of professional services. Properly used, these tools can help identify issues, organize facts, flag inconsistencies, reduce costs, and make compliance support more accessible. But automation is not a substitute for factual accuracy, operational validation, legal judgment, or professional accountability. That distinction matters. Telecom compliance filings, certifications, Robocall Mitigation Database submissions, mitigation plans, know-your-customer procedures, call-authentication obligations, numbering practices, and related regulatory representations can carry meaningful legal and enforcement consequences. Providers should be cautious when relying on automated outreach, AI-generated recommendations, or compliance tools that may not account for the provider’s actual operations, legal obligations, or risk profile. The right question is not whether AI should be used in compliance. It should. The better question is where AI fits, who reviews the output, what assumptions are being made, and who is accountable when a recommendation affects a company’s legal or regulatory exposure. That is why CommLaw’s position has always been grounded in responsible innovation. We do not believe every compliance task requires a lawyer. We do not believe every project should be handled at traditional law-firm rates. We do believe clients are best served when the right professionals are assigned to the right projects at the right prices. Sometimes, the right professional is a software tool. Sometimes, it is an experienced compliance professional. Sometimes, it is a consultant who understands operational filings and regulatory processes. Sometimes, it is an attorney. Often, it is a coordinated combination of technology, compliance experience, operational review, and legal judgment. As AI-assisted compliance offerings continue to develop, providers should ask practical questions before relying on automated recommendations: Who reviewed the results? What data was used? What assumptions were made? Was the company’s actual operational reality considered? Is the recommendation legal advice, compliance consulting, software output, or something else? Who is accountable if the recommendation is wrong? What risk remains with the provider? Those are not anti-technology questions. They are prudent business questions. The future of telecom compliance will almost certainly include AI, automation, analytics, and more scalable service models. We welcome that future. We are helping build that future. But it must be a future grounded in facts, law, operational reality, transparency, and accountability. That is the record we wanted to set straight. On behalf of The CommLaw Group, PLLC, Jonathan S. Marashlian Managing Partner