News · FCC & rulemaking

FCC Removes Mexico IP Phone From the Robocall Mitigation Database Over Forged Numbering Filing

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) removed Mexico IP Phone LLC from the Robocall Mitigation Database (RMD) on October 16, 2026. The FCC said the company filed a forged Commission document to seek direct access to phone numbers, and that it did not disclose a state attorneys general anti-robocall investigation in its RMD certification. Read the FCC removal order against Mexico IP Phone (DA 26-1116).

By Harrison GevirtzPublished 3 min read
On this page

The bottom line: once a provider is dropped from the RMD, other providers must stop accepting its calls. According to the FCC, all providers on U.S. networks have two days to begin blocking traffic from Mexico IP Phone.

Here is what happened

The FCC's Enforcement Bureau issued the Removal Order (DA 26-1116, EB Docket No. 22-174). It follows a June 11, 2026, Order to Show Cause (DA 26-574) that directed the company to explain why its certification should not be removed for willful violations of the anti-robocall rules.

According to the FCC's news release and the order:

  1. A falsified Public Notice. Mexico IP Phone submitted a falsified Public Notice to the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) while seeking direct access to numbers. A provider must first obtain Commission authorization before it can get numbers directly from the NANPA.
  2. An undisclosed investigation. In August 2025, the Anti-Robocall Multistate Litigation Task Force flagged the company as having "accepted and transmitted high-volume illegal and/or suspicious call traffic" from providers that failed to respond to traceback requests. Even so, according to the FCC, CEO Hemant Kumar Bharti certified that the company had not run afoul of federal regulators.
  3. A link to Walmart impersonation calls. In December 2025, the FCC found the company was "closely affiliated" with SK Teleco "in transmitting Walmart impersonation robocalls."
  4. The response. Bharti's response blamed a freelancer named "Lance Lee" for the false numbering application. The FCC said the company offered no evidence that "Lee" exists, and that Commission and NANPA records show Bharti personally submitted both the deficient RMD certification and the falsified Public Notice.

The law

Under 47 C.F.R. § 64.6305, voice service providers, gateway providers and non-gateway intermediate providers must file an RMD certification. It must describe the provider's robocall mitigation program, commit to responding to traceback requests, and disclose any formal agency or law enforcement action from the prior two years with findings of actual or suspected wrongdoing involving illegal robocalls. An officer must sign it under penalty of perjury.

Removal usually takes three steps. When the violation is willful, the Bureau may use a two-step, expedited process: notice with 10 days to cure, then removal. Under 47 C.F.R. § 64.6305(g), once a certification is removed, intermediate providers and voice service providers must stop accepting calls directly from that provider. Calls to 911 may never be blocked.

The order also notes that the Commission adopted a $10,000 base forfeiture in 2025 for submitting false or inaccurate information to the RMD.

The decision

The Bureau found that the company failed to adequately respond to the Show Cause Order. It removed the certification and barred the company from refiling without the prior approval of the Enforcement Bureau and the Wireline Competition Bureau.

"Numbering resources are a critical front in the fight against illegal robocalls," said Hunter Deeley, Chief of the Enforcement Bureau, in the FCC's news release. "Today's removal effectively cuts off this bad actor from transmitting calls to U.S. consumers."

Why it matters

The FCC says it has removed more than 1,400 companies from the RMD since January 2025. It also continues to tighten its numbering rules, most recently in December 2025, when it extended anti-robocall and other compliance requirements to VoIP providers that already have direct access to numbers.

Two points stand out. First, the FCC treats access to phone numbers as a front line in robocall enforcement. Second, the RMD certification is a sworn statement, not a formality. Here, leaving out a known task force investigation was a basis for removal.

For carriers and platforms, the practical point is simple. If an upstream partner is removed, you must stop taking its traffic directly. That means knowing who your partners are and checking the RMD regularly.

What this means for you

  1. Check upstream and downstream partners against the RMD on a regular schedule.
  2. Answer every disclosure question in your RMD filing completely. If a regulator or task force has flagged you, say so and describe it.
  3. Make sure the officer who signs the certification has verified its contents.
  4. Keep records of who prepares and submits numbering and RMD filings. Blaming an outside contractor will not help without proof.
  5. Build a procedure to cut off a removed provider's traffic quickly. Here, the FCC gave providers two days.

Accurate filings are inexpensive. Removal is not.

The FCC's news release on the Mexico IP Phone removal is also attached: FCC news release on Mexico IP Phone.

Not legal advice. TCPA.com provides general information, not legal advice, and is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. Do not rely on it. Verify any action with your own licensed lawyer before you take it. See our Terms of Use.

Primary sources

  1. FCC Enforcement Bureau, Removal Order, Mexico IP Phone LLC, DA 26-1116, EB Docket No. 22-174 (Oct. 16, 2026).
  2. FCC news release, "FCC Cuts Off Mexico IP Phone for Violating Robocall Rules" (Oct. 16, 2026).
Harrison Gevirtz, Chief Strategy Officer of Ringba, Las Vegas, Nevada

About the Author: Harrison Gevirtz

Harrison Gevirtz serves as the Chief Strategy Officer (CSO) of Ringba, a call tracking and pay per call platform, and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. Harrison Gevirtz is a serial operator in call tracking, call routing and telemarketing operations, and for the past several years he has focused on how federal regulations affect the daily operations of these industries. At TCPA.com, Harrison Gevirtz covers TCPA litigation, Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) enforcement, tech support fraud prosecutions and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rulemaking in a way that's accessible to the non-lawyer executive or compliance manager.

More from Harrison Gevirtz

Topics