Prank call
A prank call is a telephone call intended as a practical joke, in which the caller typically disguises their voice, assumes a false identity, or conveys misleading or absurd information to elicit confusion, surprise, or amusement from the recipient.[1][2] The phenomenon arose shortly after the telephone's invention in 1876, with the first recorded instance documented in 1884, when an anonymous caller in Providence, Rhode Island, contacted a local undertaker, falsely claiming a death had occurred and requesting immediate services, before abruptly disclosing the deception.[3][4] Prank calls proliferated in the early 20th century due to the relative anonymity of landline systems, enabling widespread adolescent experimentation and occasional media depictions, though empirical accounts remain sparse prior to widespread recording technology.[5] While often viewed as harmless mischief rooted in the causal dynamics of surprise and verbal deception, prank calls can escalate into harassment or resource misuse, particularly when directed at emergency lines, prompting legal prohibitions under statutes addressing malicious false communications or diversion of public safety responders.[6][7] Technological countermeasures like caller identification and traceback have curtailed traditional prank calling since the 1990s, shifting some variants toward digital media or voice modulation tools, yet ethical analyses highlight persistent risks of unintended distress or eroded trust in telephonic interactions.[8]Definition and Characteristics
Core Definition
A prank call is a telephone call in which the caller intentionally deceives the recipient through false pretenses, such as impersonating another person or conveying fabricated information, primarily to elicit a reaction for amusement or mischief.[1] This form of practical joke relies on the element of surprise, with the caller's message often absurd, nonsensical, or exaggerated to provoke confusion, laughter, or frustration from the unsuspecting party.[9] The practice emerged alongside widespread telephone adoption, enabling remote, low-risk interpersonal trickery that exploits the medium's inherent anonymity prior to modern caller identification technologies.[10] Core to prank calls is the caller's deliberate concealment of their true identity, achieved through voice alteration, scripted scenarios, or evasion of direct disclosure, distinguishing it from mere casual conversation or legitimate inquiries.[11] Recipients, unaware of the jest's nature, may initially engage earnestly, amplifying the comedic payoff for the caller, though outcomes vary from mutual hilarity to irritation depending on context and execution.[10] While frequently portrayed as harmless adolescent diversion, the intent centers on psychological manipulation via auditory deception rather than physical pranks, underscoring telephony's role in facilitating asymmetric social experiments.[9] Empirical patterns from documented cases reveal prank calls as short-duration interactions, typically under five minutes, designed for quick escalation and abrupt termination to evade repercussions.[11] This brevity aligns with first-principles of human response latency, where initial bewilderment maximizes impact before rational skepticism intervenes, though repeated or targeted instances can erode the "joke" boundary into harassment under legal scrutiny in jurisdictions prohibiting nuisance communications.[12]Psychological and Social Traits
Prank callers often display sensation-seeking behaviors, deriving pleasure from the unpredictability and risk inherent in anonymous interactions that disrupt expected social scripts. Empirical analyses of crank call communities frame the practice as a deliberate violation of conversational norms, akin to breaching experiments in ethnomethodology, where participants maintain fabricated interactional frames to elicit revealing reactions from recipients who perceive the exchange as genuine.[13] This norm-breaking yields a thrill rooted in exposing the taken-for-granted assumptions underpinning everyday communication, with callers honing skills to suppress cues like laughter that could shatter the illusion.[13] Motivations typically encompass amusement, boundary-testing, and a sense of empowerment through asymmetrical power dynamics, where the caller's anonymity shields them from reciprocity or consequences. Among children and adolescents, who constitute a significant portion of prank callers in institutional settings like helplines, the activity functions as a challenge to authority structures, involving deceptive tricks to provoke taboo-breaking responses or simply to evade serious discourse.[14] Socially, prank calling leverages technological mediation to enable disinhibition, allowing individuals to experiment with personas or aggression they might avoid in face-to-face encounters, though this can escalate in group contexts influenced by peer reinforcement.[15] In cases of repeated or escalatory pranks, psychological profiles may include elements of displaced hostility or low empathy, with studies linking the enjoyment of induced victim distress to sadistic motivations as a compensatory mechanism for personal frustrations.[16] Clinical observations of persistent callers, particularly those issuing threats or hoaxes, suggest associations with isolation, self-satisfaction through control, or underlying disturbances, though benign instances predominate among youth as transient play rather than pathology.[17] Communities of practice emerge online or via shared recordings, where expertise in sustaining deception reinforces social bonds among enthusiasts, but such groups risk normalizing harmful extensions beyond initial intent.[13]Historical Development
Pre-Telephone and Early Examples
The telephone, patented by Alexander Graham Bell in 1876, enabled a novel form of anonymous verbal deception that quickly manifested as prank calls.[4] The earliest documented instance occurred in Providence, Rhode Island, in late 1883 or early 1884, when an unidentified caller targeted multiple undertakers.[3] Posing as a bereaved relative, the prankster reported sudden deaths and urgently requested delivery of ice chests for body preservation, candlesticks for deathbed vigils, and coffins, prompting the establishments to dispatch employees and equipment posthaste—only for the callers to find no such emergencies existed.[4] This series of hoaxes, repeated across several businesses, underscored the telephone's potential for mischief in an era when the device was novel, operators manually connected calls, and tracing origins proved difficult without modern tracing technology.[5] The incident gained attention through a February 2, 1884, article in the journal Electrical World, which highlighted it as an emerging abuse of the technology just eight years after its invention.[3] Undertakers, unfamiliar with such remote solicitations, responded credulously due to the telephone's perceived reliability for urgent matters, revealing early vulnerabilities in telephony etiquette and verification protocols.[4] While pre-telephone eras featured deceptive communications via letters, telegraphs, or messengers—such as hoax notices or false summonses—the instantaneous, disembodied voice interaction of phones introduced a distinctly immersive element to pranks, amplifying surprise and inconvenience without physical risk to the perpetrator.[18] No equivalent "prank calls" predate this medium, as the format hinges on telephonic anonymity, though verbal trickery in person or via written proxies served analogous social functions in prior centuries.Mid-20th Century Popularization
The mid-20th century marked a surge in prank call popularity, driven by the rapid expansion of telephone access in the United States following World War II. By 1954, telephone penetration reached approximately 70% of households, up from lower rates in the 1940s, enabling ubiquitous use for non-essential entertainment among children and emerging teenagers.[19][20] This coincided with the cultural invention of the "teenager" as a distinct demographic with disposable time and income, fueled by postwar economic prosperity, which fostered leisure activities like group prank dialing from home phones or party lines shared among neighbors.[21][22] Among youth, prank calls evolved into standardized rituals, often involving absurd queries to elicit confusion or laughter. Early 1950s favorites included asking if "Arthur" was present before declaring "Yes, he is—tell him to stay away from my sister," or inquiring about "Prince Albert in a can" with the retort "Better let him out before he suffocates."[23][24] These exploits capitalized on limited traceability, as rotary phones lacked recording or identification features, allowing teens to dial randomly or target businesses without immediate repercussions.[5] Broadcast media amplified this trend into national entertainment. Starting in the early 1950s, comedian Steve Allen routinely broadcast live prank calls on The Tonight Show and his syndicated programs, scripting absurd scenarios like feigned emergencies to provoke reactions from unsuspecting recipients.[25][26] Johnny Carson similarly integrated them during his 1950s television appearances, including collaborative bits with Allen pranking figures like Jack Paar, which showcased the format's improvisational humor and helped legitimize it beyond juvenile pranks.[26][27] By the late 1950s, Allen released recordings such as the album Funny Fone Calls, further embedding prank telephony in American comedy culture.[28] This media endorsement, amid radio precedents from the 1940s, transitioned prank calls from informal teen diversion to a staple of lighthearted, if occasionally disruptive, public amusement.[29]1990s Boom and Media Influence
The 1990s saw a surge in prank call popularity, transitioning from niche underground recordings to mainstream comedy through commercial albums and media dissemination. The duo known as The Jerky Boys—Johnny Brennan and Kamal Ahmed—capitalized on this by releasing prank calls originally made in response to classified advertisements in New York newspapers, featuring crude characters like Frank Rizzo and Sol Rosenberg. Their self-titled debut album, issued on March 1, 1993, by Select Records, captured unscripted interactions that resonated with audiences seeking irreverent humor.[30][31] This release achieved rapid commercial traction, earning RIAA gold certification on March 4, 1994, for over 500,000 units sold, while the series as a whole moved millions of copies across cassettes and CDs, elevating prank calls from amateur pastimes to a recognized comedy genre. The format's appeal lay in its raw, improvisational authenticity, often involving persistent absurdity that elicited genuine reactions from unsuspecting recipients. Exposure on radio programs further amplified reach, fostering cultural imitation among youth despite the era's growing telephone privacy features.[30][32] Media extensions, including a 1995 feature film adaptation of their antics, solidified the boom by portraying prank calling as audacious entertainment, though it also drew criticism for offensiveness. The Jerky Boys' success pioneered counterculture pranks entering mass markets, influencing subsequent acts and underscoring how audio media democratized access to such content before digital anonymity tools altered the landscape.[33][34]Techniques and Technological Evolution
Traditional Anonymity and Methods
In the pre-digital telephone era, particularly before the widespread adoption of caller ID in the 1980s and 1990s, prank calls achieved anonymity primarily through the inherent limitations of landline systems, which transmitted no identifying information about the caller to the recipient.[35] This default anonymity dated back to the telephone's early commercial use in the late 19th century, with the first documented prank call occurring in 1884 when a caller asked an undertaker if he had Buried's (a play on "berries") in stock.[4] Pranksters exploited this by making calls from home lines or, to enhance separation from their personal records, public payphones, which were ubiquitous until the early 2000s and required only coins for operation without linking to a subscriber's identity.[36] Common methods focused on verbal deception and operational caution rather than technological aids. Callers often disguised their voices using accents, falsetto pitches, or simple modulation techniques to avoid recognition, a practice noted in social analyses of adolescent phone pranks as prevalent since the telephone's introduction.[37] Prepared scripts—short, absurd dialogues like requesting nonexistent services or posing as authority figures—allowed pranksters to maintain control and end calls abruptly if suspicion arose, minimizing exposure.[38] Victims were typically selected randomly from printed telephone directories, enabling broad targeting of households or businesses without prior knowledge.[39] To evade potential tracing, which required manual intervention by telephone operators or law enforcement subpoenas rather than real-time tools, pranksters limited call duration, avoided repeated targeting of the same victim, and sometimes called during off-peak hours when operators were less vigilant.[40] These techniques relied on the low-stakes, low-tech environment of the time, where harassment thresholds were higher and enforcement sporadic, though persistent offenders could face operator-assisted callbacks or rare police involvement via toll records.[41]Digital Tools and Software
Digital tools and software have transformed prank calling by enabling greater anonymity, voice manipulation, and automation, often leveraging Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) to bypass traditional telephone tracing. VoIP services such as Skype and Google Voice, which route calls over the internet rather than public switched telephone networks, allow users to mask their originating numbers and locations, facilitating anonymous outreach since their widespread adoption in the early 2000s.[42] Dedicated VoIP bridges like InmateBridge, an open-source application released around 2024, integrate soundboards for playing pre-recorded effects during live calls, enabling group pranks with simulated prison or celebrity audio overlays.[43] Voice changer software further enhances deception by altering audio in real-time during calls. Applications such as MagicCall, available on Android since at least 2018, apply effects including robotic distortion, pitch shifts, or celebrity impersonations by processing voice data through digital signal algorithms before transmission.[44] Similarly, Voicemod and Voice.ai provide desktop and mobile variants that interface with VoIP clients to modulate incoming and outgoing audio streams, supporting effects like helium voices or gender swaps via machine learning-based synthesis.[45] These tools typically require minimal latency processing, often under 100 milliseconds, to maintain conversational flow, though quality varies with internet bandwidth.[46] Automated prank platforms streamline execution by scripting calls without live intervention. PrankDial, originating as a web service around 2008 and expanding to mobile apps, offers over 200 pre-recorded scenarios sent from spoofed numbers, with users able to download reactions; it claims to have facilitated more than 200 million calls globally by 2023.[47] Prank Caller apps, such as those using AI bots for dynamic responses, disguise origins via third-party VoIP proxies and limit free usage to encourage premium anonymity features.[48] Recent AI integrations, like CandyCall launched post-2023, generate custom dialogues using over 300 synthesized celebrity voices, automating personalization through natural language processing models.[49]| Tool Type | Examples | Key Features | Launch/Availability |
|---|---|---|---|
| VoIP Services | Skype, Google Voice | Number masking, internet routing | Early 2000s onward[42] |
| Voice Changers | MagicCall, Voice.ai | Real-time effects (robot, celebrity) | 2018+ for mobile apps[44][45] |
| Automated Apps | PrankDial, PrankGPT | Pre-recorded/AI scripts, spoofing | 2008+ web-to-app evolution[47][50] |
Modern Adaptations Including VoIP and Apps
The advent of Voice over IP (VoIP) technology in the early 2000s facilitated new prank call methods by enabling internet-based telephony that circumvented traditional public switched telephone network limitations, such as easier caller ID spoofing and integration with digital tools like soundboards.[52] Services like HoaxCall.com, launched in 2008, exemplified this shift by combining pre-recorded audio clips with VoIP to simulate interactive conversations, allowing users to prank targets remotely without revealing their identity or location.[52] This adaptation reduced costs compared to landline calls and enabled global reach, as VoIP operates over broadband rather than carrier infrastructure.[53] By the 2010s, smartphone proliferation spurred dedicated prank call apps leveraging VoIP protocols for mobile integration, featuring automated scripts, voice modulation, and recording capabilities. PrankDial, one such app, offers hundreds of pre-scripted scenarios and has facilitated over 200 million prank calls since its inception, emphasizing anonymous delivery via VoIP to simulate realistic interactions.[54] Similarly, Prank Hotline provides automatic pre-recorded calls with live reaction listening, using VoIP to handle outbound connections without user intervention during the prank.[55] These apps often incorporate caller ID spoofing, a VoIP feature that displays fabricated numbers, enhancing deception while operating within app servers to mask origins.[56] Recent advancements incorporate artificial intelligence for dynamic, real-time responses, further evolving prank calls beyond static scripts. LMAO AI, introduced around 2025, employs AI-generated voices indistinguishable from human speech over VoIP, enabling adaptive conversations that respond to the target's replies.[57] Apps like Ownage Pranks integrate AI-driven analysis, including silence detection and contextual replies, to sustain engagement during calls.[58] Voice changers, such as those in HitPaw or Voice.ai, allow real-time alteration to mimic celebrities, robots, or other personas via VoIP processing, amplifying humorous or deceptive effects.[51][45] Despite these innovations, VoIP-based pranks remain constrained by platform policies and emerging regulations on spoofing, which some apps navigate through token-based or premium systems.[59]Notable Instances
Pranks Targeting Political Leaders
One prominent example occurred on November 1, 2008, when U.S. vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin received a six-minute phone call from two Quebec radio hosts, Marc-Antoine Audette and Sébastien Trudel of the comedy duo known as the Masked Avengers, who impersonated French President Nicolas Sarkozy and his advisor Claude Guéant.[60][61] Palin engaged in the conversation, discussing U.S. politics, her potential presidential run "in eight years," and hunting with Vice President Dick Cheney, without detecting the deception until informed afterward by her campaign.[62] The recording was aired on Montreal radio station CKOI-FM, prompting Palin's spokesperson to confirm it as a prank and criticize it as disrespectful to foreign leaders.[63] In 2011, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari accepted a call from an impersonator posing as Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee, leading to a discussion on bilateral relations that was later revealed as a hoax.[64] Similarly, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez was pranked by a caller pretending to be Fidel Castro, highlighting vulnerabilities in verifying high-level communications during that era.[65] Russian pranksters Vladimir Kuznetsov and Alexei Malikov, operating under aliases Vovan and Lexus, have repeatedly targeted Western political figures since the mid-2010s, often releasing edited recordings to amplify geopolitical narratives aligned with Russian interests.[66] On May 24, 2018, then-U.K. Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson spoke for 18 minutes with a caller impersonating the newly appointed Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, discussing regional politics before the deception was uncovered.[67] In June 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump took a six-minute call on Air Force One from comedian John Melendez, who posed as Senator Bob Menendez using a disguised voice; the discussion covered immigration policy and Supreme Court nominations, with the White House later confirming the incident but downplaying security risks.[68][69] More recently, on April 27, 2023, U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell conversed with the Russian duo pretending to be Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, addressing U.S. sanctions on Russia and military aid to Ukraine in a 25-minute exchange that Powell's office verified post-call as fraudulent.[70] These incidents underscore recurring security lapses in leader communications, often exploiting staff vetting errors rather than advanced technical breaches, and have prompted reviews of protocols in affected governments, though prosecutions remain rare due to jurisdictional challenges.[66]Pranks on Celebrities and Businesses
One prominent example involved Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate, who on November 1 received a six-minute call from the Canadian comedy duo known as the Masked Avengers; impersonating French President Nicolas Sarkozy, they discussed U.S.-France relations and flattered Palin, who failed to recognize the deception.[60][62] Actor Russell Crowe disclosed that Michael Jackson placed relentless prank calls to him throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, disguising his voice to pose as officials like FBI agents or to repeatedly ask for nonexistent individuals such as "Mr. Wall" or "Mrs. Wall," persisting until Crowe identified the caller.[71] In the realm of businesses, the Tube Bar calls of the mid-1970s stand out: pranksters John Elmo and Jim Davidson repeatedly contacted the Jersey City, New Jersey, establishment owned by Louis "Red" Deutsch, requesting patrons with names like "Al Coholic" or "Jacques Strap" that phonetically mimicked obscenities, provoking Deutsch's explosive, profanity-laced refusals; the recordings, spanning 1975–1978, achieved underground fame and influenced elements of The Simpsons' Moe Szyslak calls.[72][73] The Jerky Boys duo, comprised of Johnny Brennan and Kamal Ahmed, targeted small businesses including pizzerias, auto repair shops, and construction firms in the early 1990s through improvised calls featuring crude, persistent characters like Sol Rosenberg or Frank Rizzo, yielding reactions compiled on albums that sold over 4 million copies by 1997 and popularized the format in comedy.[32]Recent Viral and Controversial Cases
In 2025, a surge of swatting incidents targeted U.S. college campuses, involving false emergency calls reporting active shooters or bomb threats that prompted SWAT team deployments and evacuations. These hoaxes, peaking in August, affected nearly a dozen universities including Villanova University on August 21, where students and faculty were alerted to an active shooter alert that proved baseless, causing widespread panic and operational disruptions. The FBI described the wave as an "epidemic" that wasted law enforcement resources—each response costing thousands of dollars—and heightened risks to students by introducing armed officers into dorms and classrooms, with over 850 tracked swatting events nationwide from January 2023 to June 2024 alone. Experts highlighted the psychological trauma inflicted on victims, including students fleeing buildings in fear, amid suspicions of coordinated foreign or domestic actors exploiting VoIP technology for anonymous reporting.[74][75][76][77] Russian pranksters Vladimir Kuznetsov (Vovan) and Alexey Stolyarov (Lexus), known for impersonating foreign leaders via video calls, continued targeting Western officials in politically charged deceptions during the 2020s, drawing accusations of serving Kremlin propaganda interests. In June 2024, they released footage of a hoax call with UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron, posing as former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, during which Cameron discussed Ukraine aid delays and NATO dynamics, prompting the UK Foreign Office to confirm the deception while downplaying any classified disclosures. Similar tactics fooled Kosovo Prime Minister Albin Kurti in March 2025, with the duo masquerading as Latvia's president to probe Kosovo-Serbia relations, and former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson in September 2024, extracting admissions on Ukraine policy preferences. British authorities in October 2025 labeled the pair a "threat to democracy" for eroding trust in officials and amplifying Russian narratives, though the pranksters maintained their actions exposed genuine policy insights without state direction.[78][79][80][81]Motivations and Psychological Dimensions
Prankster Incentives
Prank calling attracts participants primarily through the immediate gratification of humor derived from victims' bewildered or exasperated responses, often amplified by clever wordplay and fabricated scenarios that exploit conversational norms.[82] This form of entertainment peaks during adolescence, with studies indicating highest prevalence among individuals aged 11 to 15, a period marked by heightened social experimentation and boundary-testing.[82] Social incentives play a central role, as calls are frequently conducted in groups to foster camaraderie, elicit peer laughter, and secure validation within social circles, transforming individual acts into collective rituals of bonding.[82] The anonymity afforded by telephony further incentivizes participation by minimizing perceived risks, enabling pranksters—typically subordinate to adult authority—to temporarily invert power dynamics and assume dominant roles through deception.[82] [83] Deeper psychological drivers include low-stakes rebellion against established norms, channeling hostility toward authority without tangible consequences, and cognitive exploration through role-playing unfamiliar personas.[82] [83] For some, particularly youth contacting helplines, prank calls express suppressed negative emotions or test interpersonal boundaries, categorized by counseling frameworks as developmental "testing" behaviors.[83] In certain instances, incentives veer toward darker gratifications, with empirical research linking pranking to sadistic motivations where pleasure stems from inducing discomfort as a compensatory response to the prankster's own feelings of powerlessness or inadequacy.[16] [84] This aligns with broader patterns in harmful pranks, though prank calls' remote nature sustains their appeal by decoupling the prankster from direct confrontation.[16]Effects on Victims and Bystanders
Prank calls can induce immediate emotional responses in victims, including confusion, embarrassment, anger, and heightened anxiety, as the deception is intentionally designed to elicit discomfort or surprise.[85] Repeated or persistent calls may escalate to harassment, causing sustained psychological distress akin to emotional abuse, particularly if they exploit vulnerabilities such as fear of authority or personal insecurities.[86] In severe instances, the humiliation from public exposure of the prank has contributed to tragic outcomes; for example, on December 7, 2012, British nurse Jacintha Saldanha died by suicide three days after falling for a hoax call from Australian radio hosts posing as Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Charles to inquire about Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge's treatment at King Edward VII's Hospital in London, where Saldanha had transferred the call.[87] A coroner's inquest in September 2014 confirmed the death as suicide, with Saldanha's notes criticizing hospital colleagues and media coverage, underscoring the interplay of professional shame and personal grief.[88] Victims with pre-existing mental health conditions or those in high-stress roles, such as healthcare workers, may experience amplified effects, including eroded self-esteem or triggered trauma responses, though direct causation remains challenging to establish without confounding factors like underlying depression.[89] Legal analyses recognize that even non-physical pranks can qualify as assault if they provoke substantial emotional harm, as seen in civil suits where victims seek damages for intentional infliction of distress.[90] Bystanders, including family members of victims or the broader public, face indirect repercussions, particularly when pranks target emergency services or public infrastructure. Hoax calls to 911 or equivalent lines divert first responders from legitimate crises, delaying aid and increasing risks to those in genuine peril; the FBI has highlighted how such false reports tie up resources and heighten operational strain on law enforcement.[91] In swatting incidents—a malicious variant of prank calls involving fabricated high-threat reports—unwitting targets and nearby residents encounter armed police responses, fostering fear, property damage, or even fatal errors, as responders operate under assumptions of imminent danger.[92] For instance, hoax emergency calls in the UK have been documented to waste ambulance resources equivalent to attending real patients, thereby compromising community safety.[93] Families of deceased victims, as in the Saldanha case, endure prolonged grief compounded by media scrutiny and debates over perpetrator accountability.[94]Legal and Ethical Frameworks
Jurisdictional Laws and Penalties
Laws governing prank calls, often classified as telephone harassment or malicious communications, vary significantly by jurisdiction, with prohibitions typically triggered by intent to annoy, harass, threaten, or waste resources such as emergency services.[95][12] In the United States, no comprehensive federal statute exists specifically banning prank calls, but they may violate state-level harassment statutes or federal laws if involving interstate threats or emergency lines; all states criminalize false calls to 911, often as misdemeanors with penalties including fines up to $1,000 and up to one year in jail, escalating to felonies for repeat offenses or swatting incidents that prompt armed responses.[95][96][97] In the United Kingdom, prank calls contravene the Communications Act 2003 (section 127) or Malicious Communications Act 1988 if sent to cause distress or anxiety, or the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 for repeated instances; offenses are prosecutable if grossly offensive, indecent, or threatening, with penalties ranging from fines to up to six months' imprisonment on summary conviction, or up to two years on indictment for serious cases.[98][99] Canada addresses prank calls under the Criminal Code (section 372), prohibiting communications intended to alarm, annoy, or repeatedly harass, punishable as a hybrid offense with maximum penalties of two years' imprisonment on indictment or six months on summary conviction; false emergency calls may also invoke mischief provisions with fines or jail time proportional to harm caused.[100][101] Australian jurisdictions treat prank calls as unlawful under state anti-stalking or telecommunications laws if involving threats or repetition, with hoax emergency calls (e.g., to 000) federally penalized under the Criminal Code Act 1995 up to three years' imprisonment and fines exceeding $12,000; non-emergency harassment may result in community orders or shorter custodial terms depending on severity.[102][103]| Jurisdiction | Key Legislation | Typical Penalties |
|---|---|---|
| United States (state-level) | Harassment statutes; 47 U.S.C. § 223 for obscene calls | Misdemeanor: fines $500–$1,000, up to 1 year jail; felony for emergencies: 1–5 years |
| United Kingdom | Communications Act 2003; Protection from Harassment Act 1997 | Fines; up to 6 months summary, 2 years indictable |
| Canada | Criminal Code s. 372 | Up to 2 years indictable; 6 months summary |
| Australia | Criminal Code Act 1995 (hoax calls); state anti-harassment laws | Up to 3 years jail, fines $10,000+ for emergencies |