A letter from the New York State Attorney General has accused the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of refusing to cooperate with an ongoing investigation into the fraudulent use of Americans’ identities to manipulate the public comment process surrounding proposed changes to net neutrality rules.
Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman states that his office has spent the past six months investigating a large-scale scheme in which “enormous numbers” of identities were used fraudulently to drown out genuine public input from citizens and businesses. According to Schneiderman, researchers and journalists discovered a flood of suspicious comments submitted to the FCC’s docket on net neutrality, many of which appeared to be fake or submitted without the knowledge or consent of the named individuals.
Schneiderman’s letter points out that this conduct likely constitutes identity fraud under state law. Despite that, he says, “the FCC has refused multiple requests for crucial evidence in its sole possession that is vital to permit that law enforcement investigation to proceed.” The records requested include log files and other materials tied to the FCC’s public comment system that could help identify the source or sources of the fraudulent submissions.
The notice-and-comment process is a key avenue for citizens and businesses to share their opinions on federal rulemaking. Given the broad impact of net neutrality rules on consumers, internet companies and the digital economy, the issue has elicited substantial public interest and passionate responses. Schneiderman has long advocated for strong net neutrality protections under Title II of the Communications Act, and he emphasizes that the available evidence suggests the overwhelming majority of genuine public comments opposed repeal, while only a small minority favored it.
While the letter does not explicitly accuse the FCC of participating in wrongdoing, Schneiderman expresses concern about the agency’s repeated refusal to provide the records his investigation needs. He observes that the FCC, as a regulator with a duty to protect consumers and maintain the integrity of its processes, should have an interest in assisting efforts to determine who corrupted the public comment record.
Schneiderman says his office reached out repeatedly to the FCC over several months, requesting relevant records. “In June 2017, we contacted the FCC to request certain records related to its public comment system that were necessary to investigate which bad actor or actors were behind the misconduct,” he wrote. “We made our request for logs and other records at least nine times over five months: in June, July, August, September, October (three times), and November.”
The Attorney General and his staff contacted multiple FCC officials, including three successive acting FCC General Counsels and the FCC’s Inspector General, and offered to keep any sensitive records confidential to protect privacy and investigative integrity. Schneiderman asserts that despite these offers and repeated requests, the agency has not turned over the requested materials that could illuminate how the fraudulent comments were created, submitted, or automated.
Investigators, researchers and reporters first detected the anomaly in May, when they noticed an unusually large volume of public comments on the FCC’s net neutrality docket that appeared fake or bot-generated. Many suspicious submissions used real names and addresses, which Schneiderman compares to identity theft because innocent individuals’ personal information was used without consent to create the misleading impression of broad public support for a particular policy outcome.
Observers have also criticized the timing and handling of the FCC’s repeal announcement. Several outlets noted that the agency released its decision to move forward with repealing net neutrality protections just before the U.S. Thanksgiving holiday, a period when many journalists and advocates are away from their desks. Using major holidays or other quiet news windows to publish controversial rulings or legislation is a tactic sometimes employed to reduce immediate scrutiny and public reaction.
Law enforcement agencies should be free to investigate suspected identity fraud wherever it occurs, especially when the alleged conduct affects a democratic process on a national scale. Schneiderman argues that cooperation among government entities is essential to ensure those responsible for corrupting public participation are identified and held accountable. He stresses that transparency and accountability are critical to preserving trust in regulatory processes and civic institutions.
The Attorney General’s letter highlights a broader concern about the integrity of online public participation in rulemaking. When comment systems are vulnerable to manipulation—either through automated bot activity, forged identities, or mass submission campaigns using stolen personal information—the official record no longer reliably reflects public views. That undermines the legitimacy of decision-making and can distort policy outcomes in ways that favor powerful actors or illicit campaigns over genuine citizens and small businesses.
Schneiderman’s effort to obtain the FCC records reflects a push to protect both individual victims of identity misuse and the broader public interest in honest deliberation. By seeking logs and technical records, investigators hope to trace the origin of mass submissions, identify any automated tools or coordinated actors involved, and determine whether infrastructure or procedural weaknesses at the agency enabled the abuse.
Ultimately, the outcome of this dispute could influence how federal agencies handle requests from state law enforcement and the extent to which public comment systems are secured against abuse. If the investigation identifies clear evidence of coordinated fraudulent activity, it could lead to criminal or civil actions against responsible parties and prompt reforms to strengthen comment systems and identity verification measures.
Are you concerned by the FCC’s reluctance to assist the investigation? Share your thoughts in the comments.