Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

FCC Plans to Fine Foreign Manufacturer $34.9M for Jammer Marketing

Download Options

Released: June 19, 2014
image01-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-92

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, DC 20554

In the Matter of

)

)

C.T.S. Technology Co., Limited

)

File No.: EB-SED-12-00005692

CTStechnologys.com

)

Aiswa.com

)

NAL/Acct. No.: 201432100017

Shenzhen C.T.S Import and Export Co., Limited

)

)

FRN: 0023572043

Shenzhen, Guangdong,

)

People’s Republic of China

)

NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER

ILLEGAL MARKETING OF SIGNAL JAMMING DEVICES

Adopted: June 18, 2014

Released: June 19, 2014

By the Commission:

I.

INTRODUCTION

1.

In this landmark enforcement action, we aggressively address the illegal marketing of

GPS, cell, and other signal jamming devices to U.S. consumers over the Internet. Jamming devices pose

tangible threats to the integrity of U.S. communications infrastructure. They can endanger life and

property by preventing individuals from making 9-1-1 or other emergency calls or disrupting the basic

communications essential to aviation and marine safety. We find that C.T.S. Technology Co., Limited

(C.T.S. Technology), a foreign manufacturer, illegally marketed nearly 300 models of signal jamming

devices to consumers in the United States over more than two years. In some cases, the devices sold by

C.T.S. Technology not only jammed the communications signals advertised, but also were potentially

much more harmful, blocking communications far beyond the scope of those listed in their

advertisements and marketing materials. C.T.S. Technology also apparently misled consumers, falsely

claiming on its websites that certain signal jammers were approved by the FCC for consumer use. As

confirmed by proactive market surveillance and an extensive undercover operation conducted by the

FCC’s Enforcement Bureau, these apparent violations are egregious, escalated over more than two years,

and continue as of the date of this action. We therefore propose the maximum penalty permitted by

statute of thirty-four million nine hundred and twelve thousand and five hundred dollars ($34,912,500).

Given the relative ease with which U.S. consumers may purchase illegal jammers over the Internet, we

will aggressively target the retail platforms, like C.T.S. Technology, that are conducting and enabling

illegal activity.

2.

Signal jamming devices (also referred to as signal jammers) operate by transmitting

powerful radio signals that overpower, jam, or interfere with authorized communications. While these

devices have been marketed with increasing frequency over the Internet, they have no lawful consumer

use in the United States.1

Jammers are not only designed to impede authorized communications and

thereby interfere with the rights of legitimate spectrum users and the general public, their operations also

1 We note, however, that there are several narrow exceptions that apply outside the context of U.S. consumer use.

See 47 U.S.C. § 302a(c); 47 C.F.R. § 2.807(b), (d). For example, in very limited circumstances and consistent with

applicable procurement requirements, jamming devices may be marketed to the U.S. federal government for

authorized, official use. See id.

image02-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-92

place the safety of the public at risk. For example, jammers can disrupt critical public safety

communications, placing first responders like law enforcement and fire fighting personnel—as well as the

public they are charged with protecting—at great risk. In order to protect the public and preserve

unfettered access to and use of emergency and other communications services, the Communications Act

of 1934, as amended (Communications Act or Act), generally prohibits the importation, use, marketing,

manufacture, and sale of jammers in the United States.2

3.

In issuing this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (NAL), we are

mindful that jammer retailers and manufacturers—especially some based abroad—aggressively target

U.S. consumers, offering free and expedited shipping deals and discounted prices, as well as incorrectly

claim that jamming devices are legal in the U.S. Indeed, our market surveillance efforts reveal that these

jammer retailers market devices that specifically jam U.S.-only wireless frequencies and misstate the

intensity of the power levels and the frequencies of the signal jammers they offer. We are also aware that

virtually every jammer available in this country originated elsewhere. Foreign entities therefore play a

critical and primary role in facilitating the harms jammers cause domestically. It is thus critical to enforce

our rules against offshore retailers and manufacturers who offer and sell such devices to consumers in the

United States.

4.

In addition to paying or contesting the proposed forfeiture, C.T.S. Technology should

immediately implement any necessary measures to ensure compliance with the Act and the Federal

Communications Commission’s (Commission or FCC) rules (Rules). Without limiting the measures

C.T.S. Technology can take, such compliance measures may include removing jamming devices from

online displays that are accessible to U.S. consumers; expressly excluding consumers in the United States

and its territories as potential customers in any online or print marketing material; implementing technical

limitations that prevent any order processing system from accepting U.S. addresses for shipment;

declining to otherwise complete any sales transaction involving consumers in the United States and its

territories; and removing statements on its websites, directed to U.S. or other consumers, that the signal

jammers it advertises for sale are certified or otherwise approved by the FCC, when, in fact, they are not.3

5.

We also again warn U.S. consumers that importing a cell, GPS, or other signal jamming

device (i.e., purchasing such a device online and having it shipped into the United States via the U.S. mail

or other transport or courier service) is unlawful and may subject them to civil and criminal penalties.4

While the Commission has typically issued a warning to consumers who violate its importation rules, in

the case of signal jammers, the Communications Act permits us to take a more aggressive approach—

imposing monetary penalties in the first instance. We are prepared to do so.

II.

BACKGROUND

6.

C.T.S. Technology is a manufacturer and retailer of wireless communication products,

including signal jamming devices.5

C.T.S. Technology advertises these products on the Internet through

2 See 47 U.S.C. §§ 301, 302a, 333. As noted above, the Communications Act makes an exception from these

prohibitions for devices to be used by the United States Government, and for devices manufactured solely for

export. 47 U.S.C. § 302a(c).

3 We note that the term “consumers,” as used herein, refers to individuals, businesses, organizations, and state and

local governments, among others.

4 See, e.g., Phonejammer.com, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 3827 (Enf. Bur. 2010). See

also 18 U.S.C. § 1362 (prohibits willful or malicious interference to U.S. government communications; subjects the

operator to possible fines, imprisonment, or both); 18 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (prohibits intentional or malicious

interference to satellite communications; subjects the operator to possible fines, imprisonment, or both).

5 See C.T.S. Technology website, available at http://www.CTStechnologys.com (last visited June 18, 2014); Aiswa

website, available at http://www.aiswa.com (last visited June 18, 2014).

2

image03-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-92

websites such as CTStechnologys.com and Aiswa.com, and on various third party platforms.6

As part of

its market surveillance efforts, the Spectrum Enforcement Division (Division) of the Enforcement Bureau

(Bureau) observed numerous cell phone jammers and other signal jamming devices manufactured by

C.T.S. Technology and offered for sale on the Aiswa.com website. C.T.S. Technology has also increased

threefold the number of signal jammers it has advertised for sale to U.S. customers, first marketing 78

signal jammers, then 113 and, in September 2013, increasing to its current total of 285 different models.7

The company has even gone so far as to falsely claim in its marketing materials that certain of its signal

jammers have been approved by the FCC.8

7.

These product offerings include GPS blockers for vehicles, high-tech signal blockers with

remote control capabilities, jammers disguised as cigarette packs, other small, easily concealable cell

phone jammers, as well as high-powered industrial jammers that have the potential to disrupt radio signals

spanning areas larger than ten football fields.9

In its online marketing materials, C.T.S. Technology

emphasizes that its 100 watt GPS jammer is effective up to a distance of 1000 meters, which is more than

one-half mile.10 C.T.S. Technology further claims that the signal jammers it offers target various

frequencies, services, and/or technologies, such as GPS, vehicle tracking systems, satellite radio, Code

Division Multiple Access (CDMA), Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM), Wi-Fi,

Bluetooth, Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS-3G), Long Term Evolution (LTE-4G),

Integrated Digital Enhanced Network (iDEN), the Personal Handy-phone System (PHS), Digital Cellular

Service (DCS), and General Packet Radio Service (GPRS).11

And, it expressly claims specialized

expertise in manufacturing cell phone jammers, touting its success in delivering such devices to

consumers in the United States.12

8.

In addition to aggressively advertising illegal signal jammers to U.S. consumers, C.T.S.

Technology also sold illegal signal jammers to undercover Division personnel. Specifically, in 2012,

6 C.T.S. Technology also operates through the CTStechnologys.com website and markets its products on

YouTube.com and Made-in-China.com.

7 C.T.S. Technology has maintained jammer advertisements targeted at U.S. consumers for more than two years and

has continually increased the number of jammer offerings. A sample of the 285 signal jammers illegally offered for

sale to U.S. consumers by C.T.S. Technology is provided in Appendix A to this NAL. See also Aiswa website,

available at http://www.aiswa.com/category-18-b0-RF+signal+jammers.html (last visited June 18, 2014).

8 C.T.S. Technology lists in its specifications for a number of its signal jammers that they are “Approved: CE/FCC”.

See, e.g., Aiswa website, available at http://www.aiswa.com/goods-4760-High+Power+Cellular+Signal+

Remote+Control+Jammer+.html (last visited June 18, 2014). As detailed infra, the signal jammers offered by

C.T.S. Technology cannot be certified or authorized because their primary purpose is to block or interfere with

authorized radio communications.

9 The signal jammers offered for sale by C.T.S. Technology on the www.Aiswa.com website include models

described as “6 bands 25W waterproof GPS L1 L2 L5 GSM 3G Jammers,” “5 Antenna Cell Phone jammer +

Remote Control (3G, GSM, CDMA, DCS),” “Super GPS Jammers 100W output up to 500-1000M range,” “15-20m

Portable WiFi and 3G Cellphone Signal Jammer,” and “Big power 3G Cell phone jammers with Battery.”

10 See Aiswa website, available at http://www.aiswa.com/goods-1466-Super+GPS+Jammers+100W+

output+up+to+500~1000M+range.html (last visited June 18, 2014) (“[Jams] up to a distance of 500-1000M. It

simply plugs into an ordinary cigarette lighter socket and is active immediately blocking all types of tracking and

navigational devices.”).

11 See Aiswa website, available at http://www.aiswa.com (last visited June 18, 2014).

12 See, e.g., Aiswa website, available at http://www.aiswa.com/article-75-60W+Military+Communications+

Jammers+Backpack+Jammer+CTSVIP6.html (last visited June 18, 2014) (“C.T.S Technology Co., Limited is a

professional Military Jammer manufacturer and exporter in China. We are specializing in Military Jammer, Cell

Phone Jammers and so on. These products are been delivered to Europe, United States, Asia, the Middle East,

Russia, Africa etc. countries.”).

3

image04-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-92

Division personnel—using various aliases and posing as U.S. consumers—ordered a total of 10 high-

powered signal jammers from the Aiswa.com website, providing U.S. billing and delivery addresses.

C.T.S. Technology completed the online transactions, accepted payment, and shipped the signal jammers

to the United States. Upon receipt of the signal jammers, the Commission’s Office of Engineering and

Technology conducted detailed tests of the signal jammers’ capabilities and confirmed that the devices

blocked authorized communications signals. Additional forensic testing conducted by external engineers

also confirmed that the devices blocked authorized communications signals, including some frequencies

beyond the scope of those listed in the advertisements.

III.

APPLICABLE LAW AND VIOLATIONS

9.

Federal law prohibits the advertising, sale, importation, and operation of signal jammers

in the United States.13

Section 333 of the Act states that “[n]o person shall willfully or maliciously

interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by

or under this Act or operated by the United States Government.”14

Section 302(b) of the Act provides that

“[n]o person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment

and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated pursuant to this

section.”15

10.

The applicable implementing regulations regarding the marketing and use of radio

frequency devices, which are set forth in Sections 2.803, 2.805, 2.807, 15.1(c), 15.3(o), and 15.201 of the

Rules, operate together to create a broad and robust framework to prevent the manufacture, importation,

marketing, distribution (by sale or otherwise) and use of RF-generating devices, such as signal jammers,

that can cause harmful interference to radio communications.16

Section 2.803(b)(1) of the Rules provides

in relevant part that:

No person may market a radio frequency device unless . . . [f]or devices subject to authorization

under certification, the device has been authorized in accordance with the rules in subpart J of this

chapter and is properly identified and labeled as required by § 2.925 and other relevant sections in

this chapter.17

11.

Moreover, pursuant to Section 15.201(b) of the Rules, intentional radiators18 like signal

jammers cannot be marketed in the United States or its territories unless they have first been authorized in

accordance with the Commission’s certification procedures.19

Section 2.803(a) of the Rules defines

13 Section 302(a) of the Communications Act authorizes the Commission to “make reasonable regulations governing

the interference potential of devices which in their operation are capable of emitting radio frequency energy by

radiation, conduction, or other means in sufficient degree to cause harmful interference to radio communications.”

47 U.S.C. § 302a(a). Section 302(b) prohibits the advertising, sale, importation, and operation of any

communications device that does not comply with the regulations adopted by the Commission pursuant to Section

302. 47 U.S.C. § 302a(b).

14 47 U.S.C. § 333.

15 Id. § 302a(b).

16 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.803, 2.805, 2.807, 15.1(c), 15.3(o), 15.201.

17 Id. § 2.803(b)(1).

18 An “intentional radiator” is a “device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or

induction.” Id. § 15.3(o).

19 See id. § 15.201(b). Section 15.1(c) of the Rules also states that “the operation or marketing of an intentional . . .

radiator that is not in compliance with the administrative and technical provisions in this part, including prior

Commission authorization or verification, as appropriate, is prohibited under section 302 of the Communications

Act of 1934, as amended, and [the Rules].” Id. § 15.1(c).

4

image05-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-92

“marketing” as the “sale or lease, or offering for sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or

importation, shipment, or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease.”20

12.

Signal jammers, however, cannot be certified or authorized because their primary

purpose is to block or interfere with authorized radio communications. Indeed, Section 333 of the Act

clearly prohibits the use of devices designed and built for such a purpose.21

Thus, signal jammers such as

those offered by C.T.S. Technology cannot comply with the FCC’s technical standards and therefore

cannot be marketed lawfully to consumers in the United States or its territories. We again emphasize that

under Section 302(b) of the Act, radio frequency devices like signal jamming devices are per se illegal

because they are designed to compromise the integrity of the nation’s communications infrastructure.22

As such, signal jammers may only be marketed pursuant to the narrow statutory exceptions in Section

302(c) of the Act.23

Furthermore, as the manufacturer of devices that require Commission authorization,

C.T.S. Technology is obligated under our Rules to ensure that the devices complied with the Rules prior

to marketing the devices to U.S. consumers.24

13.

The evidence gathered by the Bureau in this case demonstrates that C.T.S. Technology

marketed 285 models of signal jamming devices to U.S. consumers via its Aiswa.com website25 over an

extended period of time, utilizing a variety of advertising venues, including its alternate website

CTStechnolgys.com. C.T.S. Technology indicates on the websites that it will ship (and has shipped)

signal jammers to consumers within the United States.26

In fact, the evidence shows that C.T.S.

Technology completed the sale of 10 high-powered signal jamming devices to undercover Division

personnel posing as U.S. consumers, and successfully shipped the devices into the United States.

Extensive testing of these devices confirmed that they were indeed signal jammers that in some instances

disrupted signals even beyond their designated frequency bands. Accordingly, we find that C.T.S.

Technology apparently violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.803 and 15.201(b) of the Rules

by willfully and repeatedly marketing illegal radio frequency devices to consumers in the United States.27

IV.

PROPOSED FORFEITURE

14.

Section 503(b) of the Act provides that any person who willfully28 or repeatedly29 fails to

comply substantially with the terms and conditions of any license, or willfully or repeatedly fails to comply

20 Id. § 2.803(a).

21 See 47 U.S.C. § 333. We note that numerous other countries also restrict civilian use or operation of signal

jammers, including Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland, and Australia.

22 See The Supply Room, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 4981, 4983–84,

para. 7 (2013) (Supply Room NAL); Taylor Oilfield Mfg., Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order,

28 FCC Rcd 4972, 4975, para. 7 (2013) (Taylor Oilfield NAL).

23 See supra note 1.

24 See 47 C.F.R. § 2.803; see also infra note 30.

25

See infra Appendix A (sample of signal jammers marketed); Aiswa website, available at

http://www.aiswa.com/category-18-b0-RF+signal+jammers.html (last visited June 18, 2014). In this regard, we

note that C.T.S. Technology advertises in the English language, quotes prices in U.S. currency, accepts mailing

addresses within the United States for the delivery of purchased goods through selection using a drop down menu

and utilizes U.S. payment and delivery facilities to complete sales to individuals located in the United States. We

also note that C.T.S. Technology consummated the sale of 10 jamming devices to undercover Division personnel

located in the United States.

26 See supra note 12.

27 See 47 U.S.C. § 302a(b); 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.803, 15.201(b).

28 Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines “willful” as “the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of [any]

act, irrespective of any intent to violate” the law. 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). The legislative history of Section 312

(continued…)

5

image06-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-92

with any of the provisions of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission

thereunder, shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty.30 Pursuant to the Commission’s Forfeiture Policy

Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the applicable base forfeiture amount for the marketing of

unauthorized equipment involved in this case is $7,000 per violation.31

15.

The Commission retains the discretion, however, to issue a higher or lower forfeiture

than provided in the Forfeiture Policy Statement or to apply alternative or additional sanctions as

permitted by the statute.32

Pursuant to this statutory and regulatory authority, the Commission has

promulgated (consistent with the requirements of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 199633)

different maximum forfeitures, depending on the type of violator and violations.34

The maximum for

violations of the signal jamming prohibition (including the marketing at issue here) is $16,000 for each

violation.35

As provided in Section 1.80(b)(7) of the Commission’s Rules, in the case of a continuing

(Continued from previous page)

clarifies that this definition of willful applies to Sections 312 and 503 of the Act, H.R. Rep. No. 97-765 (1982)

(Conf. Rep.), and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 503(b) context. See So. Cal. Broad.

Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4387–88, para. 5 (1991) (Southern California), recons.

denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992).

29 Section 312(f)(2) of the Act, which also applies to forfeitures assessed pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,

defines “repeated” as “the commission or omission of [any] act more than once or, if such commission or omission

is continuous, for more than one day.” 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(2); see also Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388,

para. 5.

30 47 U.S.C. § 503(b). The Act provides that parties who engage in activities for which an authorization is required

may be subject to a forfeiture without a prior citation. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(5) (citation not required where “person

involved is engaging in activities for which a license, permit, certificate, or other authorization is required.”); see

also Syntax-Brillian Corp., Forfeiture Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 6323,

6326, para. 8 (2008) (Syntax-Brillian FO) (noting that equipment certification is a “license, permit, certificate, or

other authorization” for purposes of the exception to the citation requirement in Section 503(b)(5) of the

Communications Act).

31 The Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the

Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997) (Forfeiture Policy Statement), recons. denied,

15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80. In 2013, the Commission adjusted many of its base forfeiture amounts to

account for inflation, but did not adjust the base forfeiture amount for marketing of unauthorized equipment. See

Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission’s Rules, Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties to Reflect

Inflation, Order, 28 FCC Rcd 10785 (Enf. Bur. 2013) (2013 Amendment to Section 1.80(b) Order).

32 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(8), Note (“The Commission and its staff retain the discretion to issue a higher or lower

forfeiture than provided in the guidelines, to issue no forfeiture at all, or to apply alternative or additional sanctions

as permitted by the statute.”).

33 See Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (codified as amended in

scattered sections of 5, 26, 28, 31, and 41 U.S.C., including 28 U.S.C. § 2461 Note) (DCIA).

34 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b); see also 2013 Amendment of Section 1.80(b) Order, supra note 31.

Specifically, as applicable here, Section of 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act initially established that “the amount of any

forfeiture penalty determined under this subsection shall not exceed $10,000 for each violation or each day of a

continuing violation, except that the amount assessed for any continuing violation shall not exceed a total of $75,000

for any single act or failure to act . . . . ”

47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D).

Pursuant to the DCIA, federal agencies, such as

the FCC, are required to adjust civil monetary penalties at least once every four years to account for inflation.

See

supra note 33. Based on this statutory authority, the Commission has adjusted for inflation the statutory maxima in

Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act by amending Section 1.80(b) of the Rules over the years.

Currently, under Section

1.80(b)(7), “the amount of any forfeiture penalty determined under [Section 1.80 of the Rules] shall not exceed

$16,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, except that the amount assessed for any continuing

violation shall not exceed a total of $122,500 for any single act or failure to act . . . .”

See 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(7).

See also Section 2013 Amendment of Section 1.80(b) Order, supra note 31.

35 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(7); see also supra note 34.

6

image07-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-92

signal jammer prohibition violation, the Commission may impose up to $16,000 for each day of such

continuing violation up to a maximum forfeiture of $122,500 for any single act or failure to act.36

For

instance, the Commission may impose separate forfeitures for each signal jammer marketed and/or for

each day on which a signal jammer is marketed, but only up to these statutory limits.

16.

We are mindful of the serious public safety risks posed by the marketing of signal

jamming devices and of the apparent need to provide greater incentives for individuals and businesses to

cease marketing them to U.S. consumers altogether.37

Accordingly, we propose a separate forfeiture for

each model of jamming device that was advertised for sale in violation of the Act and our Rules.38

Further, we will assess this forfeiture for each day on which the illegal marketing activity continued, up to

the maximum forfeiture amount permitted by statute.

17.

Consistent with this approach, we find that C.T.S. Technology apparently committed 285

separate violations of the Act and our Rules through its documented advertisements to U.S. consumers.

Based on the evidence in the record, we further find that the online jammer advertisements are continuing

violations, with many lasting more than two years.39

18.

In assessing the appropriate monetary penalty for this misconduct, we must take into

account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,

circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of

culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.40

C.T.S. Technology marketed to U.S. consumers multiple radio frequency devices that are inherently

illegal, designed for no purpose other than performing functions that violate U.S. law, and expressly

prohibited for consumer use in the United States. These signal jammers could pose a critical public safety

hazard by potentially blocking authorized communications, including essential 9-1-1 calls and law

36 47 U.S.C. § 503; 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(7). see also supra note 34. These amounts are subject to further adjustment

for inflation and the forfeiture amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory amount

designated at the time of the violation. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(9); see also supra note 31.

37 Cf. Phonejammer.com, 25 FCC Rcd 3827, supra note 4. In Phonejammer.com, the Bureau upwardly adjusted the

base forfeiture of $7,000, which is applicable to typical equipment marketing violations, to $12,500 due to the

retailer’s continued marketing of signal jamming devices after its receipt of a Citation. Id. at 3834, para. 13. The

Commission is taking more aggressive action in the instant case because vendors and manufacturers have not taken

corrective action and continue to market signal jammers in violation of the Rules. We also note that the instant case

is especially egregious given the lengthy duration of the violations, the high power level of some of the signal

jammers offered for sale, and the number of signal jammers marketed and actually sold into the United States.

38 We assess the present forfeiture on a per model basis, as we have in other equipment marketing cases, to better

reflect the seriousness of the violations and deter future misconduct. See Hauppauge Computer Works, Inc., Notice

of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 5272, 5278–79, para. 18 (2009) (“We find that

calculating forfeitures for violations of the DTV tuner requirement involving television receivers without an

associated viewing screen on a per model basis will result in forfeiture amounts that reflect the seriousness of the

violations will deter future misconduct.”); Syntax-Brillian FO, 23 FCC Rcd 6323, supra note 30; Regent U.S.A.,

Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 10520 (2007); see also San Jose Navigation Inc.,

Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 2873, 2877, para. 14 (2006) (finding that the marketing of

each separate unauthorized model constitutes a separate violation); ACR Elec., Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for

Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 22293, 22302, para. 23 (2004) (same), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order, 21 FCC Rcd

3698 (2006) (forfeiture paid).

39 Illegal marketing was first observed on C.T.S. Technology’s websites on October 14, 2011; was continually

observed on numerous occasions throughout 2012 and 2013; and continues as of the release of this enforcement

action. A sample of the 285 signal jammers illegally offered for sale to U.S. consumers by C.T.S. Technology is

provided in Appendix A to this NAL. See also Aiswa website, available at http://www.aiswa.com/category-18-b0-

RF+signal+jammers.html (last visited June 18, 2014).

40 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).

7

image08-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-92

enforcement communications. Furthermore, C.T.S. Technology marketed several extremely high power

jammers, including a 100 watt GPS jammer and a 180 watt cell phone jammer with ranges exceeding

3,200 feet. And, even more troubling, C.T.S. Technology sought to mislead U.S. consumers,

misrepresenting in its online marketing materials that certain of the devices were approved by this agency.

We find this continuing misconduct to be particularly egregious and harmful, warranting a substantial

upward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount.

19.

Therefore, applying the approach used in three recent Notices of Apparent Liability for

Forfeiture involving the operation of signal jammers and reflecting the discretion afforded us by the

Forfeiture Policy Statement, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the statutory factors,41 we propose the

maximum forfeiture authorized by statute for each of the 285 marketing violations. Specifically,

consistent with Section 503(b)(2) of the Act, which authorizes separate forfeiture penalties for each day of

a continuing violation, we will apply the $16,000 statutory maximum to each day on which these 285

violations continued up to the statutory maximum of $122,500 for each of the continuing violations.42

We

therefore conclude that C.T.S. Technology is apparently liable for a total forfeiture in the amount of

$34,912,500 for its apparent willful and repeated violations of Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections

2.803 and 15.201(b) of the Rules.

20.

C.T.S. Technology should immediately implement any necessary measures to ensure

compliance with the Act and the Commission’s rules.43

Without limiting the measures C.T.S. Technology

can take, such compliance measures may include removing jamming devices from online displays that are

accessible to U.S. consumers; expressly excluding consumers in the United States and its territories as

potential customers in any online or print marketing material; implementing technical limitations that

prevent any order processing system from accepting U.S. addresses for shipment; declining to otherwise

complete any sales transaction involving consumers in the United States and its territories; and removing

statements on its websites, directed to U.S. or other consumers, that the signal jammers it advertises for

sale are certified or otherwise approved by the Federal Communications Commission, when, in fact, they

are not.44

41 See Supply Room NAL, 28 FCC Rcd at 4986–87, para. 14; Taylor Oilfield NAL, 28 FCC Rcd at 4977, para. 14;

Gary P. Bojczak, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 28 FCC Rcd 11589, 11592–93, para. 10 (2013).

Accord R&N Manufacturing, Ltd., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 29 FCC Rcd 3332 (2014) (R&N

Manufacturing). See also 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(8).

42 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2). C.T.S. Technology has marketed a large number of signal jammers to U.S. consumers for

well over two years. The most recent violations, involving 285 jammer models, have been ongoing for over eight

months or 240 days, which yields a forfeiture calculation of $16,000 per day x 240 days = $3,840,000 per model

(reduced to $122,500, the statutory cap) x 285 models = $34,912,500.

43 See R&N Manufacturing, 29 FCC Rcd at 3332, para. 3 (“We expect individuals and businesses, like RNM, to take

immediate steps to ensure compliance and to avoid any recurrence of this type of misconduct, including ceasing

operation of any signal jamming devices that may be in its possession, custody, or control.”); Supply Room NAL, 28

FCC Rcd at 4982, para. 3 (same); see also TD Spot Inc. dba Spy Spot Investigations, Citation and Order, 27 FCC

Rcd 7642, 7642, para. 2 (Enf. Bur. 2012) (ordering retailer of jamming devices to “take immediate steps to come

into compliance and to avoid any recurrence of [the] misconduct, including actions such as removing illegal signal

jamming devices from displays and declining to sell signal jamming devices in the United States”).

44 See Illegal Marketing of Signal Jamming Devices, Omnibus Citation and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 13565,13566, para.

2 (Enf. Bur. 2011) (Omnibus Citation) (“Each Online Vendor must take immediate steps to cease marketing signal

jamming devices to consumers in the United States and its territories and to avoid any recurrence of this misconduct.

This may include actions such as removing the illegal signal jamming devices from online display, expressly

excluding consumers in the United States and its territories as potential customers, and declining to sell signal

jamming devices or complete any sales transaction to consumers in the United States and its territories.”). See also

Behringer U.S.A., Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 1820, 1829, para. 24 (2006)

(ordering retailer to produce an affidavit within 30 days confirming compliance with the Act and Rules with respect

to each model of unauthorized radio frequency devices that it was found to have been illegally importing and

(continued…)

8

image09-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-92

21.

In addition, we direct C.T.S. Technology to submit the information requested in non-

public Appendix B hereto concerning C.T.S. Technology’s signal jammer distribution channels and sales,

including the purchasers of each illegal signal jamming device sold to consumers in the United States or

its territories, the websites that C.T.S. Technology has used to market the devices to consumers in the

United States or its territories, and the corrective actions C.T.S. Technology has taken, is taking, or will

take as required by this NAL.45

We direct C.T.S. Technology to submit its response within forty-five (45)

calendar days after service of this NAL.

V.

ORDERING CLAUSES

22.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications

Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules, C.T.S. Technology Co., Limited is

hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of thirty-

four million nine hundred twelve thousand and five hundred dollars ($34,912,500) for apparent willful

and repeated violations of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections

2.803 and 15.201(b) of the Commission’s rules.46

23.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules,

within thirty (30) calendar days after the service of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and

Order, C.T.S. Technology Co., Limited SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or

SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

24.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 302(b), and 403 of

the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,47 and also Sections 2.803 and 15.201(b) of the

Commission’s rules,48 C.T.S. Technology Co., Limited SHALL COMPLY with the directive set forth in

paragraph 20 above; and within forty-five (45) calendar days after the service of this Notice of Apparent

Liability for Forfeiture and Order SHALL SUBMIT the information requested in non-public Appendix B

hereto concerning C.T.S. Technology Co., Limited’s signal jammer distribution channels and sales,

including the purchasers of each illegal signal jamming device sold to consumers in the United States or

its territories, the websites that C.T.S. Technology Co., Limited has used to market the devices to

consumers in the United States or its territories, and a detailed statement about the corrective actions

C.T.S. Technology Co., Limited has taken, is taking, or will take as required by this Notice of Apparent

Liability for Forfeiture and Order.

Further, the required written response (as well as any correspondence

(Continued from previous page)

marketing in the United States, and if not, providing plans for full compliance); St. George Cable, Inc., Notice of

Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 11447 (2012) (proposing a forfeiture against cable

operator for failing to comply with prior order requiring installation of an operational Emergency Alert System

equipment, that it operate its cable system within required signal leakage limits, and to immediately suspend

operations until it received written authorizations from the Commission; further order issued requiring operator to

confirm within 30 days that it was now in full compliance with FCC rules).

45 We order the production of this information pursuant to our authority under Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 403 of the

Act. 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 403. See Supply Room NAL, 28 FCC Rcd at 4982, para. 3 (seeking

information concerning the source from which it purchased or received jamming devices); Taylor Oilfield NAL, 28

FCC Rcd at 4973, para. 3 (same); Omnibus Citation, 26 FCC Rcd at 13566, para. 3 (seeking a report on the specific

actions taken to correct the violations; information concerning signal jamming device suppliers, distribution

channels, and sales; and information on websites that have been used to market the devices in the United States or its

territories). See also Behringer U.S.A., Inc., 21 FCC Rcd at 1829, para. 24; SBC Communications, Inc., Notice of

Apparently Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 19091, 19126, para. 27 (2001) (ordering carrier to file

detailed reports regarding future compliance).

46 47 U.S.C. §§ 302a(b), 503(b); 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.80, 2.803, 15.201(b).

47 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i)–(j), 302a(b), 403.

48 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.803, 15.201(b).

9

image10-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-92

with the Federal Communications Commission concerning this Notice of Apparent Liability for

Forfeiture and Order) shall be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau,

Spectrum Enforcement Division, ATTN: EB-SED-12-00005692, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, DC

20554.

C.T.S. Technology Co., Limited also shall e-mail the written response to: jammerinfo@fcc.gov.

25.

Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, wire transfer, or

credit card, and must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN referenced above. C.T.S. Technology

Co., Limited. shall also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to

jammerinfo@fcc.gov. Regardless of the form of payment, a completed FCC Form 159 (Remittance

Advice) must be submitted.49 When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the Account Number in block

number 23A (call sign/other ID) and enter the letters “FORF” in block number 24A (payment type code).

Below are additional instructions CTS Technology Co., Limited should follow based on the form of

payment it selects:

Payment by check or money order must be made payable to the order of the Federal

Communications Commission. Such payments (along with the completed Form 159)

must be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis,

MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank – Government Lockbox

#979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.

Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004, receiving bank

TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001. To complete the wire transfer and

ensure appropriate crediting of the wired funds, a completed Form 159 must be faxed to

U.S. Bank at 1-314-418-4232 on the same business day the wire transfer is initiated.

Payment by credit card must be made by providing the required credit card information

on FCC Form 159 and signing and dating the Form 159 to authorize the credit card

payment. The completed Form 159 must then be mailed to Federal Communications

Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to

U.S. Bank – Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St.

Louis, MO 63101.

26.

Any request for making full payment over time under an installment plan should be sent

to: Chief Financial Officer—Financial Operations, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th

Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington, D.C. 20554.50

If you have questions regarding payment

procedures, please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by phone, 1-877-480-3201, or by

e-mail, ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.

27.

The written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture, if any,

must include a detailed factual statement supported by appropriate documentation and affidavits pursuant

to Sections 1.16 and 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission’s rules.51 Mail the written statement to Federal

Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Spectrum Enforcement Division, ATTN: EB-SED-

12-00005692, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20554 and, include the NAL/Acct. Number

referenced in the caption. C.T.S. Technology Co., Limited. also shall e-mail the written response to:

jammerinfo@fcc.gov. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response

to a claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits: (1) financial statements prepared according to

generally accepted accounting practices (GAAP); or (2) some other reliable and objective documentation

49 An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be obtained at

http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.

50 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.

51 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.16, 1.80(f)(3).

10

image11-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-92

that accurately reflects the petitioner’s current financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must

specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the financial documentation submitted.

28.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability for

Forfeiture and Order shall be served on C.T.S. Technology Co., Limited in accordance with U.S. and

international law at 3F, OCT Building, No. 2010, Shennan Road E., Shenzhen, Guangdong, Peoples

Republic of China, 518000 and to C.T.S. Technology, Co., Limited at Rm 4B128, Pacific Security

Market Bldg, Huanqiang Rd (N.), Futian, Shenzhen, 518031, Guangdong, People’s Republic of China.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

11

image12-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-92

APPENDIX A

Sample of Illegally Marketed Jamming – AISWA.COM

Marketing Image

Product Name/ Description

Marketed Frequency/

Date Marketing

Services Jammed

First Observed

GPS GSM JAMMER CTS-3000A

GPS, UHF, LoJack, 3G,

FOR GPS L1/ L2 GSM /CDMA /3G

GSM, CDMA, DCS,

10/14/2011

WiFi

1~5m 5-Band Cigarette Cell Phone

GSM, DCS, PHS, 3G,

Jammer EST-808SC

CDMA

10/14/2011

Super GPS Jammers 100W output up

to 500~1000M range

GPS, GSM

10/14/2011

32w High Power Cell Phone Jammer

GSM, CDMA, PCS,

DCS, 3G

10/14/2011

100m Shielding Range High Power

(45W) Indoor mobile Phone Jammer

CDMA, GSM, DCS, 3G

10/14/2011

High power 25w GPS Jammer - Anti

tracking

GPS

10/14/2011

12

image13-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-92

Marketing Image

Product Name/ Description

Marketed Frequency/

Date Marketing

Services Jammed

First Observed

24/7 working 5 bands GPS

GSM/CDMA JAMMERS CTS-

GPS, GSM, CDMA

10/14/2011

JX5000E with built-in battery

150W Powerful Cell Phone Bomb

CDMA, GSM, DCS, 3G,

Jammer/blocker CTS-VIP150

GPS

10/14/2011

180W High Power VHF UHF Jammer

Bomb Jammer

GSM, DCS, 3G

10/14/2011

25W 6 bands FM 434 868 MID

433/868 MHz Cell phone Jammers

FM, GSM, CDMA, 3G

10/14/2011

70W High Power Cell Phone Jammer

for 4G Wimax with Omni- directional

CDMA, GSM, DCS,

6/9/2013

Antenna

PCS, 3G, 4G

Car remote control Jammer

303MHz/335MHZ/315

MHZ/433MHz/868MHz

6/19/2013

13

image14-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-92

Marketing Image

Product Name/ Description

Marketed Frequency/

Date Marketing

Services Jammed

First Observed

40W GPS L1 L2 GSM 3G Full bands

Jammer

GPS, GSM, CDMA, 3G

6/19/2013

UHF VHF Jammer walkie-talkie

Jammer with battery

VHF, UHF, LoJack

6/19/2013

High Power 8 Antenna Cell Phone,

CDMA, GSM, DCS,

3G, WiFi, GPS, VHF, UHF Jammer

PCS, 3G, GPS, WiFi,

6/19/2013

VHF, UHF

Waterproof 75W High Power 3G

CDMA, GSM, DCS,

Mobile Phone Signal Jammer

PHS, 3G

9/11/2013

120W High Power Cellular Mobile

GSM, CDMA, PCS,

Phone Jammer

DCS, 3G

9/11/2013

Waterproof Cell Phone Jammer

AMPS, N-AMPS, NMT,

(Worldwide use)

TACS, GSM, CDMA,

9/11/2013

TDMA, IDEN, UMTS

14

image15-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-92

Marketing Image

Product Name/ Description

Marketed Frequency/

Date Marketing

Services Jammed

First Observed

Mini Medium Power Cellphone

CDMA, GSM, DCS,

Jammer

PCS, 3G

9/11/2013

70W High Power Cell Phone Jammer

for 4G LTE with Omni-directional

CDMA, GSM, DCS,

Antenna

PCS, 3G, 4G

9/11/2013

Powerful Golden Portable Cell phone

GPS, CDMA, DCS,

& Wi-Fi & GPS Jammer

GSM, CDMA, WiFi

9/11/2013

Customized 5-Band Painting Cell

GSM, CDMA, DCS,

Phone Jammer for 2G & 3G Network

PHS,3G

9/11/2013

Adjustable 3G 4G Wimax Mobile

GSM, CDMA, DCS,

Phone WiFi Signal Jammer with Bulit-

PCS, 3G, 4G WiMax,

9/11/2013

in Directional Antenna

WiFi

Ultimate 8-Band Wireless Signal

2G, 3G, 4G, WiFi, UHF,

Terminator

VHF, GPS, LoJack

9/11/2013

15

image16-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-92

Marketing Image

Product Name/ Description

Marketed Frequency/

Date Marketing

Services Jammed

First Observed

Portable GPS Jammer (GPSL1/L2)

GPS

9/11/2013

High Power 6 Antenna Cell Phone

GSM, 3G, WiFi, GPS,

GPS WiFi VHF UHF Jammer

VHF, UHF

9/11/2013

7W Powerful All GPS Signals Jammer

(GPS L1,L2,L3,L4.L5)

GPS

9/11/2013

High Power Portable GPS (GPS

L1/L2/L3/L4/L5) Jammer

GPS

9/11/2013

3-Band Civil GPS Tracker Preventer

GPS

9/11/2013

Vehicle Car Anti Tracker Mini GPS

Jammer Blocker

GPS

9/11/2013

16

Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.