September 24, 2022

Volume XII, Number 267

Advertisement

September 23, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 22, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 21, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

TCPA Litigation Update – Federal Circuits Weigh In on Facebook and Congress Seeks to Amend the TCPA

Federal Circuits Weigh In on Facebook and Congress Seeks to Amend the TCPA

In 2021, the Supreme Court decided Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid,[1] which held, “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.” For a unanimous majority Justice Sotomayor wrote: “the question before the Court is whether [the ATDS] 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.”[2] 

Since the Duguid decision, district courts around the country have interpreted the Supreme Court’s decision, with most casting doubt over ATDS claims post-Duguid.[3] Notably, there have been some key rulings by courts of appeal at the summary judgment stage. In January 2022, the Ninth Circuit in Meier v. Allied Interestate LLC concluded that a “system that stores a pre-produced list of telephone numbers [and that] could also autodial the stored numbers” is “precisely” what the Supreme Court held is not an ATDS.[4] Similarly, in March 2022, the Eighth Circuit joined this chorus when it held in Beal v. Outfield Brew House, LLC that a system, that “merely stores and dials telephone numbers . . . is exactly the kind of equipment Facebook excluded from § 227(a)(1).”[5]

A new bill, however, introduced by seven members of Congress (H.R. 8334) on July 12, 2022, now has the potential to undo years of judicial work.[6] The bill originated in the Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, which is chaired by Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL), one of the bill’s co-sponsors. The bill is titled the Robotext Scam Prevention Act and is meant to revise the definition of ATDS, by striking “using a random or sequential number generator.” The bill also seeks to amend the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227, to “prohibit the use of automated telephone equipment to send unsolicited text messages.” Finally, the bill would order the Federal Communications Commission within 18 months of enactment to issue a rule defining “automatically,” “dial,” “send,” and “charged for the call.”[7]

Given the significant evolution in technology since the TCPA was passed in 1991, this bill could result in major changes for businesses and consumers alike. While it is far from guaranteed that the bill will be passed into law, businesses are encouraged to watch this space, given the bill’s potential to substantially alter the TCPA’s landscape once again.


FOOTNOTES

[1] 141 S. Ct. 1163 (2021).

[2] Facebook, Inc., 141 S. Ct. at 1167.

[3] https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2776/2021-12-26-tcpa-litigation-update-district-courts-reach-consensus#_ftn1

[4] No. 20-55286, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 1413, *2-*3 (9th Cir. Jan. 19, 2022).

[5] 29 F.4th 395-96 (U.S. 8th Cir. 2022).

[6] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8334

[7] As written, the bill would prohibit certain calls and texts where the “recipient of such call or text message is charged for receiving such call or text message.”

©1994-2022 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume XII, Number 210
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Joshua Briones Litigation Lawyer Mintz
Member / Managing Member, Los Angeles Office

Joshua, Managing Member of the firm’s LA office, is a highly experienced trial lawyer with a national practice. He has received awards and national recognition for his innovative approach and specializes in high-stakes, bet-the-company litigation. He represents clients in such industries as financial services, building products, retail, pharmaceuticals, automotive, professional sports, food and beverage, petroleum, chemical manufacturing, health care, high technology, and higher education. He frequently publishes and lectures before national and local bar and industry...

310-226-7887
Associate

Adam is an associate in the Mintz Litigation section. His practice encompasses a wide range of complex commercial litigation, with an emphasis on consumer fraud, contract disputes, and product liability defense. He has extensive experience successfully defending against class action claims in both state and federal court brought under California False Advertising Laws (UCL, CLRA, FAL), California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA), Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act....

310-226-7847
Esteban Morales, Mintz, Class Action Defense Lawyer, financial services litigation
Associate

Esteban is an experienced litigator whose practice is principally focused on class action defense and financial services litigation. Esteban has successfully defended both small and large corporate clients targeted in class action suits alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and California’s Invasion of Privacy Act. Results include dismissals at the pleading stage and without any discovery following aggressive defense strategies. In addition to defending class actions, Esteban has represented clients in real...

310-226-7841
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement