On April 1, the U.S. Supreme Court released its decision in Facebook v. Duguid regarding the scope of the federal statute that prohibits unwanted robocalls from "autodialers." Justice Sotomayor's opinion for the court, which was joined by seven other justices and unanimous in the result, sums up the anti-autodialing provision, the question before the court, and its ruling:
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) proscribes abusive telemarketing practices by, among other things, imposing restrictions on making calls with an "automatic telephone dialing system." As defined by the TCPA, an "automatic telephone dialing system" is a piece of equipment with the capacity both "to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator," and to dial those numbers. 47 U. S. C. §227(a)(1). The question before the Court is whether that 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. To 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 number generator.
As the Court notes, the FCC has interpreted the anti-autodialing provision to apply to text messages. At issue in the case was Facebook's sending of text messages to users whose numbers it had stored. This blog takes no view on whatever specific processes or techniques that Facebook used. Rather, the decision was important in rejecting an over-expansive definition of an "autodialer" that potentially would subject countless American's to potential claims under the TCPA:
Expanding the definition of an autodialer to encompass any equipment that merely stores and dials telephone numbers would take a chainsaw to these nuanced problems when Congress meant to use a scalpel. Duguid’s interpretation of an autodialer would capture virtually all modern cell phones, which have the capacity to "store . . . telephone numbers to be called" and "dial such numbers." §227(a)(1). The TCPA's liability provisions, then, could affect ordinary cell phone owners in the course of commonplace usage, such as speed dialing or sending automated text message responses. See §227(b)(3) (authorizing a $500 fine per violation, increased to $1,500 if the sender acted "willfully" or "knowingly").
Professor Daniel Lyons, a member of the Free State Foundation's Board of Academic Advisers, previewed the Court's just-released decision in his Perspectives from FSF Scholars paper titled "Trilogy of Supreme Court Cases Highlight Deficiencies in Anti-Robocall Statute."
Posts
