T-Mobile: Accepting Applications Without SSNs Threatens Calif. LifeLine
T-Mobile condemned a plan allowing people without social security numbers to seek low-income telephone support in California. In comments this week, T-Mobile subsidiary Assurance Wireless said the California Public Utilities Commission’s July 22 proposed decision "poses a serious threat to the integrity and the functionality of” California LifeLine. Consumer advocates applauded the plan that requires providers to accept applications from those without SSNs, though they raised major privacy concerns with a proposal to use LexisNexis’ TrueID authentication software for identity verification. The CPUC may vote Aug. 22 on the proposal in docket R.20-02-008 (see 2407230040).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The T-Mobile subsidiary continued arguing it should be optional for carriers to accept applications from people who can’t provide the last four digits of their SSNs. Those in that situation could include the homeless, foster children and undocumented immigrants. The CPUC proposal would require that providers "offer a separate pathway for individuals without [SSNs] to participate in the program but offers no reliable -- or tested -- method at this time for preventing duplicate or non-verifiable accounts,” complained Assurance. “To compound matters, it then declines to provide a safe harbor for the providers who are otherwise compelled to provide service to those same subscribers. Such a scenario places Assurance ... in an untenable situation.”
The CPUC’s plan explicitly rejected providers’ calls for a safe harbor, which would remove liability for providers if an application they approve is later determined to be fraudulent. The CPUC argued in its proposal that a safe harbor would relieve providers of their duty to stop fraud.
While not asking to make it optional to accept applications from people without SSNs, Verizon’s Tracfone shared the T-Mobile subsidiary’s concerns about rejecting a safe harbor. A safe harbor "will protect service providers against potential financial liabilities while significant uncertainty still exists,” it said. “Because of the risk of duplicate applications, providers will be subject to potential enforcement actions.”
Low-income advocates are "elated" that the proposed decision would make LifeLine available to people without SSNs and provide "a clear timeline" for implementation, Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County and other advocates said. But the advocates said they continue to have concerns about requiring TrueID for ID checks.
"The Commission has quickly, and with very little information or notice, undertaken a decision of great magnitude,” the low-income advocates said: “It will outsource making determinations about individuals who may not have legal status in the United States to a third-party vendor that sells information to [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement], and will use facial recognition and artificial intelligence to make these decisions." Forcing people to submit their data and image into a LexisNexis tool may violate "California's Constitutional right to privacy" and other state laws, the advocates said. Using TrueID could also create barriers because people who lack phones are applying, but the verification tool requires a digital device that can upload selfies and photos of ID documents, they argued.
The CPUC should clarify "that LexisNexis will not retain any LifeLine consumer data to sell because LexisNexus will delete LifeLine applicants’ data immediately after completing an identification check,” The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and the Greenlining Institute, which otherwise generally supported the CPUC proposed decision, said. Such "consumer privacy protections are important because eligible consumers may be discouraged from applying for and receiving California LifeLine services if they fear their privacy and personal information may be compromised.” The groups similarly flagged LexisNexis’ contractual relationship with ICE.
Facial recognition "can be unreliable and inconsistent," added TURN and Greenlining. “For example, existing facial recognition technology is known to be less accurate in identifying women and people with darker skin tones, which could potentially result in discriminatory outcomes.” The consumer groups proposed that the CPUC conduct monthly reviews of applications that fail facial recognition identity verification, and provide a way for applicants who fail such reviews to request a manual review of ID documents by the LifeLine third-party administrator.
Small local exchange carriers share the privacy concerns and believe that the CPUC shouldn't commit to using TrueID, they said in joint comments. The small LECs "recognize the efficiency and convenience that TrueID may offer in processing the anticipated influx in LifeLine applications,” but "the privacy concerns around TrueID remain significant and should be examined further prior to a decision about whether to utilize this service." While TrueID lets users opt out of having their information sold to third parties and request limits on the use of sensitive information, those mechanisms "are generally only known, understood, and regularly utilized by businesses, government entities, and other sophisticated users,” the small LECs said.