Autodialer Claims Are No Longer Automatic
How The Supreme Court’s TCPA Ruling In Facebook, Inc. V. Duguid Reestablishes Some Semblance Of Bounds For The Act
The federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) imposes a variety of restrictions on making unsolicited telephone calls, sending text messages, and fax advertisements for telemarketing purposes. The original intent for the now 30-year old Act was focused on preventing the use of automatic telephone dialing systems (ATDS) and artificial prerecorded voice technology from exponentially increasing the number of calls being placed through advancing technology. At the time, it was theorized that these systems would cause real harm by endlessly tying up emergency phone lines. As a result, it is now only permissible to use such systems to place calls or text messages (which are treated as phone calls) where the consumer receiving the message has given his “prior express consent” to be contacted.
Over time, case law had degraded the definition of an ATDS to the point that almost any phone call made – even from a cell phone– was being treated as a de facto ATDS violation unless the caller could affirmatively and conclusively demonstrate it had received the consumer’s consent to call. However, in recent landmark ruling, Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, the Supreme Court unanimously narrowed the definition of an ATDS limiting the ability of Plaintiffs to bring these claims.
Under the terms of the TCPA an ATDS is “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.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1). In recent years, however, at least three federal circuits expanded this definition to include any phone system capable of storing a list of telephone numbers that could be automatically dialed. Thus, a predictive dialing system – where calls are automatically dialed only off a pre-programmed list – could instigate a TCPA violation.
The Supreme Court in Facebook v. Duguid, dealt with text messages notifications sent to a consumer (Duguid) who was not a Facebook user but was receiving messages about unauthorized access to his account. Duguid took the position that Facebook was operating an ATDS because it had the ability to store phone numbers and rely on programming to send automated text messages. The Ninth Circuit agreed with Duguid. Facebook appealed on the basis that the TCPA did not apply because its technology did not use a “random or sequential number generator.”
The Supreme Court found that extending the definition of an ATDS beyond the strict terms as set forth in the TCPA would include “virtually all modern cell phones.” Instead, the Court has now held that to qualify as an ATDS a device or system must either (1) have the capacity to either store a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator, or (2) produce a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator."
It is to be seen whether a system that is “capable” of dialing random numbers but is not actually programed to do so at the time it calls a plaintiff will lead to future erosion of the decision. Either way, plaintiffs now face a more ardent test for demonstrating that an ATDS was used. Still, be aware that any call utilizing a pre-recorded voice continues to require explicit consent. Moreover, a call placed to a consumer whose number appears on the National Do-Not-Call Registry continues to be unlawful, as is the practice of sending unsolicited faxes without the appropriate disclosure language. As a result, those who purchase lists of telephonic consumer leads need to continue to vet the validity of the information being received with frequency.
Please remember that while the placement of calls can be outsourced to vendors, these companies often institute terms that make clear that it is the end-user’s responsibility to ensure compliance with the TCPA, including fulfilling procedural and record keeping requirements. As these claims are frequently brought as class actions, and with damages ranging from $500 to $1,500 for each and every violation, the upper bounds of liability can quickly become unfathomable. Even only a few weeks or months of mismanaged communications has the potential to yield catastrophic consequences. As a result, and despite this victory, companies need to carefully manage their compliance related to practices covered by the TCPA.
If you have questions about this or any other legal matter, contact Ari Karen at
or John Allegretto at .
ABOUT ARI KAREN
Ari Karen is an experienced litigator and speaker who has focused his practice in representing financial institutions in both government investigations and litigation before state and federal trial and appellate courts nationwide.
Mr. Karen's practice is diverse, representing clients on matters concerning banking regulations, Dodd Frank financial reform laws, contractual disputes, employment and labor statutes, wage-hour class actions, employment discrimination and fair lending matters,
ABOUT JOHN ALLEGRETTO
John Allegretto is a Labor & Employment attorney and a member of the firm’s Employee Mobility Team. John’s practice includes the litigation of trade secret disputes and restrictive covenant claims in federal and state courts, and before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). In these matters, time is often of the essence. John is well-versed in seeking and defending against temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. In addition to litigation, he also counsels employers on ways to mitigate risk when hiring employees from the competition, and drafts employers’ restrictive covenant and non-disclosure agreements.
ABOUT OFFIT KURMAN
At Offit Kurman, we are our clients’ most trusted legal advisors, professionals who help maximize and protect business value and personal wealth. In every interaction, we focus on furthering our clients’ objectives and provide timely services and within budget, all while focusing on the clients’ interests and goals.
Offit Kurman is one of the fastest-growing, full-service law firms in the United States. With over 230 attorneys offering a comprehensive range of services in virtually every legal category, the firm is well-positioned to meet dynamic businesses' needs, as well as the needs of the people who own and operate them. We also provide representation of individuals and families in diverse matters ranging from estate planning and asset protection to intellectual property structuring and entrepreneurial start-ups. Our International Group provides clients with a broad range of services for transactions and dispute representation for clients worldwide, including Europe, Canada, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Africa.
At Offit Kurman, we distinguish ourselves by the quality, breadth, and global reach of our legal services — as well as our unique operational structure, which encourages a culture of collaboration and entrepreneurialism. The same approach that makes our firm attractive to legal practitioners interested in representing clients in the middle market, also gives clients access to experienced counsel in almost every area of the law and in many jurisdictions in the U.S. and abroad
Subscribe and follow us on our Blog, and on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, and LinkedIn. You can also sign up to receive LawMatters, Offit Kurman’s monthly newsletter covering a diverse selection of legal and corporate thought leadership content.
DELAWARE | MARYLAND | NEW JERSEY | NEW YORK | NORTH CAROLINA | PENNSYLVANIA |SOUTH CAROLINA | VIRGINIA | WASHINGTON, DC