December 2, 2022

Volume XII, Number 336

Advertisement

December 01, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

November 30, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

November 29, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Eighth Circuit Finds Text Messaging System did not Violate Telephone Consumer Protection Act

Recently, in Beal v. Outfield Brew House, LLC, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 7748 (8th Cir. Mar. 24, 2022the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld two district court decisions, each of which found that the marketing software called “Txt Live” used by the defendants to send promotional text messages to phone numbers randomly selected from a customer database is not an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Court further ruled that equipment which stores numbers to be dialed at a later time is not an ATDS.

The Beal decision is a welcome one for companies that use predictive dialers or text messaging to communicate with their customers. It is one of the first appellate decisions to specifically uphold Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid in regard to text messaging platforms. 

In the two cases at issue, plaintiffs Colby Beal and Zachary Smith alleged that they were sent promotional text messages using Txt Live in violation of the autodialer provision of the TCPA. While defendants manually entered contact information into the database, the Txt Live system randomly selected which numbers were being sent messages at any given time. The court analogized the process of selection to shuffling a deck of cards. But even with this element of randomness, the district courts found that it did not mean the same thing as randomly generating numbers to be called.

The Court of Appeals upheld the district courts’ decisions, finding that randomly selecting a pre-loaded number is different than randomly generating or producing the number to be dialed. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the Txt Live system “is exactly the kind of equipment Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 141 S. Ct. 1163 (2021) excluded” from the definition of an ATDS. You can read the Facebook decision here. You can read a copy of the Beal opinion here

© 2022 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.National Law Review, Volume XII, Number 102
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Karen Hockstad, Dinsmore shohl, business attorney, tax lawyer
Partner

With extensive experience representing a wide variety of businesses and entrepreneurs, Karen is adept at counseling clients through a variety of transactional and tax matters. She also has experience in guiding her clients through litigation, having represented clients in cases throughout the country. Her unique background allows her to see and help avoid potential litigation issues in business transactions. Her business and tax knowledge is an asset in helping her commercial litigation clients. Karen is a member of the Corporate and Litigation Departments.

...
614-628-6930
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement