by Caroline E. Oks (New Jersey)
In April 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a circuit split
interpreting the Telephone Consumer Protection Act's (TCPA) definition
of "automatic telephone dialing system" or (ATDS). In Facebook,
Inc. v. Duguid, the Court held that the clause "using a random or
sequential number generator" in the statutory definition of ATDS, 47
U.S.C. § 227(a)(1), modifies both "store" and "produce," thereby
"specifying how the equipment must either 'store' or 'produce'
telephone numbers." Accordingly, "a necessary feature of an autodialer
under § 227(a)(1)(A) is the capacity to use a random or sequential
number generator to either store or produce phone numbers to be
called." Duguid thus reversed the Ninth Circuit's interpretation that
the clause "using a random or sequential number generator" modifies
only "produce," such that a device could be an autodialer if it has
the capacity to store and automatically dial numbers, even if the
numbers are not generated by a random or sequential number
generator. Under Duguid, equipment that makes calls to
"targeted...numbers linked to specific accounts" are excluded from
liability under the TCPA.
https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/telecoms-mobile-cable-communications/1093226/following-duguid-south-carolina-district-court-limits-reach-of-tcpa39s-autodialer-definition?email_access=on
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)