There's a conflict of interest at play. The law as you point out is rarely enforced, so tool providers are willing to look the other way and accrue revenues from the spammers.
What needs to happen is that the liability should be clear and present danger when a reasonable tool provider knows X is a spammer, and they don't investigate (or take action) the cost of maintaining that customer should be many times greater than the revenue from it. This should be particularly true if a spammer is reported by a consumer (Which is a strong signal).
Interesting, I suspect all the mobile providers in the US are sitting on a pretty big pile of evidence from customer reports about which upstream voip providers are willing to host scammers
Comments
There's a conflict of interest at play. The law as you point out is rarely enforced, so tool providers are willing to look the other way and accrue revenues from the spammers.
What needs to happen is that the liability should be clear and present danger when a reasonable tool provider knows X is a spammer, and they don't investigate (or take action) the cost of maintaining that customer should be many times greater than the revenue from it. This should be particularly true if a spammer is reported by a consumer (Which is a strong signal).
Right now, the situation is reversed.
Interesting, I suspect all the mobile providers in the US are sitting on a pretty big pile of evidence from customer reports about which upstream voip providers are willing to host scammers