Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I have previously written about the federal ban on "autodialers" contained in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In our Perspectives from FSF Scholars paper, "The FCC Should Stop Runaway Liability for Smartphone Owners," we called on the Commission to adopt a sensible definition of "autodialers" that tracks with a plain reading of the TCPA and its intent to combat commercial automated mass robocallers. Going forward, the Commission ought to consider the common-sense reading of the TCPA's "autodialer" provision by a federal district court's decision from September 2019.
In Smith v. Premier Dermatology, Judge Jorge Alonso of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois wrote:
[T]he plain text of the statutory definition provides that an ATDS [autodialer] is a device that (1) stores or produces telephone numbers that (2) were randomly or sequentially generated and (3) dials them automatically.
Because the Court finds that the statutory definition is not ambiguous, it need not reach plaintiffs' arguments about "the context and the structure of the statutory scheme." …But even if the Court were to consider them, they are unpersuasive.
The District Court's conclusion that the TCPA's language is unambiguous as well and interpretation of prohibited "autodialer" capabilities are both contrary to the Ninth Circuit's decision in Marks v. Crunch San Diego LLC(2018). As Mr. May and I explained in our Perspectives paper, the Ninth Circuit deemed the relevant statutory language and ambiguous and misinterpreted "autodialers" to include callers using equipment that is merely capable of dialing ortexting a stored telephone number. The court disregarded the TCPA's provision that autodialer equipment also must have number generating capability – and dial the telephone numbers automatically. In consequence, the Ninth Circuit's decision in Marks makes anyone with a smartphone potentially liable under the TCPA for making a single unwanted phone call or text. (I also addressed the autodialer issue in my Perspectives paper, "The FCC Should Halt Bogus Lawsuits Threatening Popular Texting Services.")
A federal district court decision does not create binding precedent. So the legal uncertainty caused by the Ninth Circuit's misguided decision in Marks remains a problem that requires the FCC's attention. However, the Commission should take stock of the District Court's sensible ruling in Premier Dermatology. And the Commission should adopt a narrower autodialer definition that targets mass robocallers while avoiding open-ended liability for all smartphone owners.
Posts
