Translation. Region: Russian Federation –
Source: Mainfin Bank –
An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.
Image: mainfin.ru
Why are major banks advocating for changes to call labeling regulations?
Outgoing call labeling is a legal requirement aimed at combating fraud and spam. Since September 1st of last year, businesses making bulk calls have been required to enter into paid contracts with telecom operators, with subscribers having the right to refuse such calls. The current requirements have not been met with satisfaction. banks, who identified several problems associated with the implementation of the labeling law:
Not all calls made by banks are mass calls; most are personalized; telecom operators have been granted the right to block any calls unless the bank has signed a contract with them; criteria for defining mass calls are not established by law, which leads to abuse by operators; the rate of 0.25 rubles for each call, including unsuccessful ones, is excessive.
Banks' key complaint is the high cost of call labeling services, which forces businesses to pay not just for the call itself, but even for the attempt to reach the client.
What rules for mass calls are banks proposing to implement?
Major Russian banks are proposing a change to their approach to call labeling. The relevant requirements are outlined in a package of amendments to the "Antifraud 2.0" bill. Specifically, the proposals include:
Create an exception for mass calls made in compliance with regulatory requirements—labeling will not be required for these calls; eliminate the possibility of telecom operators obtaining unjustified economic benefits; and establish an alternative method for labeling calls—through the centralized Antifraud platform.
"This initiative doesn't stand up to scrutiny—banks are looking for a loophole to circumvent the ban on spam calls by offering to treat themselves like government agencies," T2 operator noted.
Telecom operators rejected the initiative, believing that such an approach would lead to chaos and lack of transparency in the industry. Banks were accused of trying to sell their products at any cost, even if the client had opted out of mass calls. The proposal will be considered during the second reading of the "Antifraud 2.0" bill.
09:00 03/10/2026
Source:
Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source. It represents an accurate account of the source's assertions and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.