The court adopted a narrow reading of the definition of an autodialer in the TCPA, which arguably should resolve the circuit court split on the issue. Editor’s note: This article is available for members only.
4/5/2021 8:30
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a unanimous decision in Facebook v. Duguid, holding that, "To 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.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling reverses and remands the 9th Circuit decision.
“The Supreme Court’s decision today in Facebook vindicates the more than decade of advocacy ACA International and its members have engaged in to seek clarity on the TCPA, which is often abused by lawyers in the plaintiffs’ bar seeking to profit off of small businesses and other legitimate informational callers,” said ACA CEO Mark Neeb. “The Supreme Court’s decision is an important step forward in recognizing that Congress has always intended this statute for abusive telemarketers or bad actors, not legitimate callers that consumers need information from.”
Register for April 6 Hot Topic webinar: Facebook v. Duguid: The Game Changer: What do We do Now?
Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the court, which Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joined. Justice Samuel Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.
The Facebook v. Duguid case looked at whether the definition of an “automatic telephone dialing system” (ATDS) in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act includes any device that can “store” and “automatically dial” telephone numbers, even if the device does not “us[e] a random or sequential number generator.”
According to the court’s April 1 opinion, “the question before the court [was] whether that definition encompasses equipment that can ‘store’ and dial telephone numbers, even if the device does not ‘us[e] a random or sequential number generator.’ It does not. To qualify as an ‘automatic telephone dialing system,’ a device must have the capacity either to store a telephone number using a random or sequential generator or to produce a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator.”
Case Background
In July, the Supreme Court granted a Writ of Certiorari in Facebook v. Duguid, Sup. Ct. No. 19-511, ACA International previously reported. The Supreme Court case resulted from Facebook’s appeal of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit decision in October 2019, which presented the questions also noted above: (1) Whether the TCPA’s prohibition on calls made using an ATDS is an unconstitutional restriction of speech and, if so, whether the proper remedy is to broaden the prohibition to abridge more speech, and (2) whether the definition of an ATDS in the TCPA encompasses any device that can “store” and “automatically dial” telephone numbers, even if the device does not “us[e] a random or sequential number generator.”
The grant of certiorari applies only to the second question presented by the petition pertaining to the definition of an ATDS. That question had been left open—at least according to some courts—in the wake of ACA International v. FCC, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018), which expressly invalidated the FCC’s 2015 declaratory ruling that “clarified” (really, largely reiterated) the agency’s interpretation of what devices constitute an ATDS under the TCPA.
Several courts have stayed decisions on similar cases until the Supreme Court issued this opinion.
ACA and industry trade associations filed an amici curiae brief in the case to advocate for legal clarity when using modern methods to communicate with consumers. Read more about the brief and ACA’s advocacy efforts with the case here.
ACA has been advocating with the Federal Communications Commission, Congress, and at the Supreme Court to take action to resolve this issue and limit needless litigation in this area.
ACA has been seeking clarity on the definition of an ATDS for many years and today’s decision is a major step forward in those efforts to clarify the law for ACA members.
Subscribe to ACA Daily and Member Alerts for updates.
