Insight for counsel · Responsibility and control
Does a Carrier’s Position in the Call Path Establish Liability?
No. A carrier’s presence in a call path establishes that it performed some function; it does not, without more, establish what the carrier knew, what it controlled or whether its conduct caused the alleged harm.
Written by Leonardus “Leo” Herps · Published 19 October 2026
Separate the network functions
- Origination and customer relationship
- Authentication and STIR/SHAKEN attestation
- Transit and intermediate carriage
- Termination to the destination network
- Platform, reseller or downstream service functions
Connect evidence to responsibility
The analysis should identify the information available to each provider at the relevant time, the controls it could exercise, the requests or warnings it received and the operational decision allegedly linked to the harm. Call-detail records, SIP Identity headers, contracts, customer files and correspondence must be considered together.
Avoid hindsight reasoning
A later complaint or traceback result does not prove that the same facts were available earlier. A useful opinion distinguishes what was technically knowable at the time from what became apparent only after investigation.
How Leo can help
As a carrier operator with hands-on network and regulatory experience, Leo can reconstruct the call path, distinguish the role of each provider and test whether allegations of knowledge, control, reasonableness and causation match the technical record.
Public sources
FCC call authentication information↗For counsel
Discuss the technical record.
Engagements are subject to conflicts and scope review. Initial enquiries are treated as confidential.
Contact Leo Herps ↗