The can-you-hear-me robocall records your yes to authorize charges later

A phone rings, a voice on the other end asks a single, seemingly harmless question, “can you hear me?” and the instinct for most people is to answer with a quick “yes” before the call even fully registers. That reflexive answer is exactly what the call is designed to capture. For years, consumer-protection agencies have warned that this simple exchange is not a wrong number or a bad connection, but a scripted opening line built to generate a recording that can later be used to claim a person agreed to something they never actually heard.

The scam has persisted for years precisely because it relies on a habit almost everyone shares: answering yes to a simple question without thinking twice about who is asking or why.

Why the Question Is Designed to Extract One Specific Word

The mechanics of the scam are simpler than most phone fraud, which is part of what makes it hard to spot in the moment. According to the Federal Trade Commission’s consumer alert on the tactic, scammers place calls, often through automated systems, that open with a version of “can you hear me?” specifically because it prompts an automatic, affirmative response. The call itself may be a live scammer or a robocall recording the interaction, and once that “yes” is captured, it exists as an audio clip that can theoretically be spliced into a different context to make it sound as though the person agreed to a purchase, a service, or a change to an existing account.

How a Recorded Yes Becomes Leverage for Fraudulent Charges

The underlying threat is that a scammer could use the recorded confirmation to push back against a dispute later, presenting the clip as proof of consent if a victim challenges an unauthorized charge on a phone bill, subscription service, or utility account. The FTC’s alert notes it received hundreds of complaints tied to this exact pattern, describing a scheme built around collecting a usable “yes” that could be attached to a claim of authorization well after the original call ended. Because the recording captures only a single word stripped of its original context, it can be difficult for a victim to prove after the fact that the “yes” was never actually an agreement to anything specific.

Why “Just Hang Up” Beats Every Other Response

Consumer-protection groups have converged on the same advice for handling these calls, and it is notably simple: do not answer the question at all, and hang up as soon as the pattern becomes clear. The Better Business Bureau, which has tracked the recurring “can you hear me” scam across multiple years of consumer complaints, warns against pressing any number to be removed from a calling list or speaking with a live representative, since either response confirms to the caller that the number is active and being answered by a real person, which tends to generate more calls rather than fewer.

How the Scam Fits Into the Broader Robocall Problem

The “can you hear me” call is one variant within a much larger volume of automated and spoofed calls that regulators have spent years trying to curb. Federal guidance on handling unwanted robocalls generally recommends not engaging with unfamiliar numbers at all, screening calls when possible, and reporting suspicious numbers so patterns can be tracked across a wider pool of complaints. That reporting matters because it helps regulators identify and act against the networks running these calls at scale, even though enforcement against the specific operators behind any one call can be difficult given how easily caller ID information can be spoofed.

Catching Fraudulent Charges After a Stray Yes

For anyone who has already answered “yes” to one of these calls, the recommended response is not panic but vigilance. Reviewing upcoming phone, subscription, and credit card statements closely for unfamiliar charges, and disputing anything unrecognized immediately with the billing company rather than waiting, gives a person the best chance of catching fraudulent activity before it compounds. Documenting the date and number of the suspicious call, and reporting it directly to the FTC, also helps build the kind of pattern-level evidence that has historically supported action against the networks responsible for these calls, even when a single incident might otherwise go unpursued.

Legal Limits on What a Recording Can Actually Prove

Even in the worst-case scenario, consumer advocates note that a single recorded word carries far less legal weight than the scam’s premise implies. Authorizing a real charge typically requires more than an isolated affirmative response spliced out of context; billing disputes generally hinge on account-level verification, itemized authorization records, and a documented relationship between the caller and the billing party, none of which a scammer can manufacture from a stray “yes” alone. That gap between the scam’s threat and its actual leverage is part of why regulators frame the danger less as an unstoppable legal trap and more as a nuisance call worth avoiding altogether, since the simplest way to deny a scammer any material to work with is never producing the word they are fishing for in the first place.

This article was produced with the assistance of AI and reviewed by Morning Overview editors prior to publication.

More from Morning Overview