SCOTUS Ended Debate On Autodialer Definition, But This Isn't The End Of The TCPA

• Published date: 06 April 2021
• Subject Matter: Consumer Protection, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment, Mobile & Cable Communications, Consumer Law, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Dodd-Frank, Consumer Protection Act
• Law Firm: InfoLawGroup
• Author: Ms Justine Young Gottshall and Brian C. Schaller

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, held that in order to be defined as an automatic telephone dialing system (also known as an autodialer) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), equipment must use a random or sequential number generator. In reversing the Ninth Circuit's judgement against Facebook, the Supreme Court ended what has been an ongoing debate among the Circuit Courts over the autodialer definition. This has great consequences for companies that call or text consumers, limiting both the compliance requirements and legal risk of $500-$1,500 in statutory damages per call/text. In this article we examine the Supreme Court decision, describe how we got here, and discuss key takeaways businesses should know.

The question before the Supreme Court, here, was whether the autodialer definition encompasses equipment that can store and dial telephone numbers, even if the device does not use a random or sequential number generator. And, the Supreme Court's holding is unequivocal, with the Justices stating: "The statutory context confirms that the TCPA's autodialer definition excludes equipment that does not use a random or sequential number generator" and "Congress' chosen definition of an autodialer requires that the equipment in question must use a random or sequential number generator." The unanimous decision was written by Justice Sotomayor, with one concurring opinion by Justice Alito.

So, that resolves the Circuit split, and the whiplash that TCPA followers have been feeling for the last 6 years. As we have described in previous posts, a lot of the debate on what constituted an autodialer focused on the statutory interpretation. The language in question states that an autodialer is defined 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. The FCC brought this issue to the forefront in its 2015 TCPA Omnibus Declaratory Ruling and Order, when it broadened the definition by asserting that a device merely had to have the future capacity to random/sequentially dial to be an autodialer (see our post). Then in ACA International, et al., v. Federal Communications Commission, the DC Circuit Court threw out portions of the 2015 Order, including the autodialer definition, holding that the definition was an unreasonably expansive interpretation (see our post). Other Circuit courts then jumped in with...