Supreme Court Narrows TCPA Ban on Autodialers

01 April 2021 Consumer Class Defense Counsel Blog
Authors: Michael D. Leffel Susan Poll Klaessy

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued its long-awaited ruling on what constitutes an “automatic telephone dialing system” (ATDS) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), in Facebook Inc. v. Duguid, Case No. 19-511. The TCPA prohibits certain telephone calls or texts sent with the use of an ATDS, which is defined as “equipment which has the capacity — (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.”  A circuit split developed between the various courts of appeals over what technology qualified as an ATDS. The Ninth and Second Circuits held that the term ATDS encompassed all devices with the capacity to store and automatically dial numbers. Alternatively, the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits held that an ATDS only covers devices that send messages or make calls to randomly or sequentially generated phone numbers.

The Supreme Court in Facebook unanimously overturned the Ninth Circuit’s broad interpretation of an ATDS, delivering a significant win for TCPA defendants.  One of the key arguments was whether the statute’s phrase “using a random or sequential number generator” modifies both “store” and “produce.” The Court ultimately held that, “[t]o qualify as an ‘automatic telephone dialing system’ under the TCPA, a device must have the capacity either to store a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator, or to produce a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator.” (Those interested in the rules of grammar and canons of statutory construction will enjoy reading the decision and concurrence.)

The result of the ruling is that equipment like that used by Facebook, which does not randomly store or generate numbers, is not covered by the TCPA as an ATDS.  Facebook’s system maintained a database of phone numbers and—using a template and coding that automatically supplied the browser information and time of access—programmed its equipment to send automated messages to those numbers each time a new device accessed the associated account. 

While the ruling provides much-needed clarity on the equipment itself, it has no impact on the TCPA’s prerecorded message restrictions.  Companies using automated messaging to connect with consumers should remain vigilant, as the TCPA landscape continues to evolve through new case law and adapt to emerging technologies.  The decision is, however, expected to have a significant impact in a number of pending cases, particularly as it relates to text messaging programs.

 

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services