February 8, 2023

Volume XIII, Number 39

Advertisement

February 07, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

February 06, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

The U.S. Supreme Court Narrowly Construes the Definition of an ATDS (or Autodialer) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid,1 resolved a circuit split on how to interpret the term “automatic telephone dialing system” (ATDS, or autodialer) in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) (47 U.S.C. § 227). A unanimous Court adopted a narrow definition of ATDS that requires that an autodialer have the capacity to generate numbers randomly or sequentially (and not merely the ability to dial from a list), thereby limiting the types of equipment and systems that are subject to TCPA’s restrictions. This decision provides clarity to entities that rely on calls to mobile phones and text messages for marketing and communicating with customers, as well to numerous federal courts that have stayed litigation pending the Supreme Court’s decision.

The TCPA prohibits any person from calling a wireless telephone number using an ATDS (or autodialer) unless: (1) the caller has obtained the called party’s prior express consent for informational calls or prior express written consent for telemarketing calls; or (2) the call is made for emergency purposes.2 The TCPA also contains restrictions on the use of an artificial or prerecorded voice for calls. For example, the TCPA requires prior consent for calls to residential lines using an artificial or prerecorded voice, but does not require consent for autodialed calls to residential lines unless those calls use an artificial or prerecorded voice. The Facebook opinion does not address calls that use an artificial or prerecorded voice, but that do not use an autodialer, nor does it address fax marketing or calls made to landline phone numbers.

The TCPA defines ATDS 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.”3 While three circuits construed the term to require the capacity to generate numbers randomly or sequentially,4 three other circuits had considered the phrase “using a random or sequential number generator” to modify only the word “produce” and not both “store” and “produce” and thus broadly construed the term to include equipment that can store and dial telephone numbers (even if the equipment does not use a random or sequential number generator).5 Under the narrower definition of autodialer ultimately adopted by the Supreme Court, equipment that automatically dials telephone numbers from a list of customer numbers would not be considered an autodialer. As explained by Justice Sotomayor, writing for the Court, “Congress’ definition of an autodialer requires that in all cases, whether storing or producing numbers to be called, the equipment in question must use a random or sequential number generator.”6 Stated differently, she wrote that “[t]he statutory context confirms that the autodialer definition excludes equipment that does not ‘us[e] a random or sequential number generator.’”7

The Facebook case was an appeal from a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In the underlying case, the plaintiff, Noah Duguid, alleged that Facebook sent him several text messages notifying him that someone had attempted to log into a Facebook account associated with his telephone number, even though he alleged that he did not have a Facebook account and had not provided Facebook with his telephone number (which the Court suggested might have resulted from a reassigned number). The federal district court for the Northern District of California granted Facebook’s motion to dismiss on the basis that the plaintiff failed to allege that Facebook used an autodialer because he did not assert that the text messages were sent to numbers that were randomly or sequentially generated. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit found that the plaintiff had stated a claim under the TCPA because, under preexisting Ninth Circuit precedent, to qualify as an autodialer a device only needed to have the capacity to store numbers to be called and to automatically dial those numbers.

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit, writing that “[t]o 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 generator.” The Supreme Court based its conclusion on a natural reading of the sentence and conventional rules of grammar, which provide that when there is a series of nouns or verbs followed by a modifier at the end of the list, the modifier normally applies to the entire series. The Supreme Court also noted that the placement of a comma before the modifying phrase “using a random or sequential number generator” suggests that the phrase applies to both preceding elements, i.e., to store and to produce. The Court cautioned that a broad interpretation of the term ATDS to include any equipment that stored and dialed telephone numbers would include all calls and texts coming from smartphones – a result that is at odds with the aim of the TCPA to proscribe narrowly only limited types of calls. Based on this natural reading of the statute, the Supreme Court held that Facebook’s login notification system, which does not use a random or sequential number generator, did not fall within the TCPA’s definition of ATDS.

While the Facebook decision should limit the volume of litigation seeking statutory damages of up to $1,500 per text or call under the TCPA, businesses that engage in lawful text and other mobile marketing should be careful to ensure that their practices and procedures comply with all aspects of the TCPA, as well as other laws governing telemarketing and any applicable industry guidelines. In recent months, for example, plaintiffs’ lawyers have increasingly sued over alleged do-not-call violations (including calls to reassigned landline numbers). Plaintiffs’ lawyers will likely continue to explore ways to file putative class action suits seeking statutory damages. For this reason, businesses should ensure that they comply with the TCPA’s restrictions on artificial and prerecorded voice calls, the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule, the requirements associated with the national and state do-not-call registries, and the requirements to maintain company-specific, internal do-not-call lists. Compliance may include establishing calling procedures, maintaining accurate opt-out records, and training personnel.


1 Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, _ S. Ct. _, 2021 WL 1215717 (U.S. Apr. 1, 2021).

2 47 U.S.C. § 227(b); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a). The Court assumed, without deciding, that a text message is a call under the TCPA.

3 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1).

4 See Dominguez v. Yahoo, Inc., 894 F.3d 116 (3d Cir. 2018); Gadelhak v. AT&T Servs., 950 F.3d 458 (7th Cir. 2020); Glasser v. Hilton Grand Vacations Company, LLC, 948 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2020). Greenberg Traurig, LLP represented the successful defendant in the Dominguez case, which was the first circuit court to construe the term (and did so consistently with the way the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled).

5 See Duran v, La Boom Disco, Inc., 955 F.3d 279 (2d Cir. 2020); Allan v. Pennsylvania Higher Educ. Assistance Agency, 968 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2020); Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC, 904 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2018), cert. dismissed, 139 S. Ct. 1289 (2019); see generally 4 Ian C. Ballon, E-Commerce & Internet Law 2d § 29.16 (2020) (cited in the petition for cert. in Duguid, explaining the evolution of the law in this area and the circuit split preceding the Supreme Court’s ruling).

6 Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, _ S. Ct. _, 2021 WL 1215717, at *5 (U.S. Apr. 1, 2021).

7 Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, _ S. Ct. _, 2021 WL 1215717, at *6 (U.S. Apr. 1, 2021), quoting 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1)(A).

©2023 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved. National Law Review, Volume XI, Number 93
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Shareholder

Ian Ballon is an intellectual property and Internet litigator who represents clients in copyright, DMCA, trademark, trade secret, right of publicity, privacy, security, software, database and Internet disputes and in the defense of data privacy, security breach, behavioral advertising, TCPA and other Internet-related class action suits.

Mr. Ballon, who splits his time between the firm's Silicon Valley and LA offices, is the author of the four-volume legal treatise, E-Commerce and Internet Law: Treatise With Forms 2d Edition, Thomson...

310-586-6575
Lori Chang Internet Litigation Attorney Greenberg Traurig Los Angeles, CA
Shareholder

Lori Chang is an intellectual property and Internet litigator, and represents clients in matters involving copyright, DMCA, trademark, the Communications Decency Act, and other Internet law-related issues. She also represents companies in class action suits brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and other privacy laws. In addition, she counsels clients on privacy and data security matters.

Concentrations

  • Internet litigation
  • Intellectual property litigation
  • Defense of privacy and TCPA class...
310-586-3863
Ed Chansky, Greenberg Traurig Law Firm, Las Vegas, Intellectual Property Law Attorney
Shareholder

Ed Chansky focuses his practice in the areas of intellectual property (particularly development, selection, protection and licensing of trademarks worldwide) and advertising, sales promotion, and trade-regulation law, including charitable promotions, cause-related marketing, sweepstakes, contests, gift cards, eCommerce, substantiation of advertising claims, social gaming, social media, and all aspects of unfair or deceptive trade practices in a wide variety of industries.

A trusted advisor to many national companies, Ed is a frequent speaker at...

702-599-8016
Brian Feeney Financial Attorney Greenberg Traurig
Shareholder

Brian T. Feeney has more than 20 years of experience representing major financial institutions, Internet companies, education companies, major retailers, and other corporate clients in a wide variety of  commercial and business disputes, particularly in claims arising under unfair trade practices laws, consumer fraud disputes, real estate disputes, and contract disputes. He has litigated and won multiple arbitrability disputes at both the trial and appellate court levels.  Brian also represents commercial lenders in disputes with borrowers and guarantors, securing victories on behalf of...

215.988.7812
David Thomas, Greenberg Traurig Law Firm, Boston, Labor and Employment Litigation Attorney
Shareholder

David Thomas is a litigation, trial, and appellate attorney focusing on defending companies against unfair or deceptive business practices claims in individual and putative class action settings. Among other things, David represents (1) manufacturers and retailers facing false advertising claims arising out of alleged violations of federal and state consumer protection statutes, including the Federal Trade Commission Act and "little FTC Acts" like Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A – the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, and (2) lenders, mortgage brokers and...

617-310-6040
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement