On April 1st, the Supreme Court held 9-0, in Facebook v. Duguid, that equipment must be capable of random or sequential number generation in order to qualify as an "automatic telephone dialing system" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), among other things, restricts certain communications made with an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS). The TCPA defines an ATDS as equipment that can both "store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator," and dial those numbers. The interpretive question before the Court was whether the phrase "using a random or sequential number generator" modifies both "store" and "produce," or just "produce." This question makes enormous practical difference — the use of random or sequential number generators is not common, while a wide range of equipment stores lists of numbers to be called. The courts of appeals were divided on the interpretive question. The Ninth Circuit held that Facebook's equipment, which sent text messages to a set list of numbers stored in its database rather than to random or sequentially generated numbers, nonetheless qualified as an ATDS.

The issue before the court was whether the TCPA's definition of an ATDS encompasses equipment that can store and dial telephone numbers, even if the device does not use a random or sequential number generator.

In an opinion by Justice Sotomayor, a unanimous Supreme Court reversed. The Court held that "Congress' definition of an autodialer requires that in all cases, whether storing or producing numbers to be called, the equipment in question must use a random or sequential number generator."

The Court began with the text of the TCPA, noting that "conventional rules of grammar" and punctuation support reading the phrase "using a random or sequential number generator" to apply to both "store" and "produce."

The Court further reasoned that its textual conclusion was bolstered by the statutory context, because many of the TCPA's restrictions on the use of autodialers "target a unique type of telemarketing equipment that risks dialing emergency lines randomly or tying up all the sequentially numbered lines at a single entity." The respondent's contrary interpretation, the Court warned, "would capture virtually all modern cell phones" and commonplace activities such as speed dialing or sending automatic text message replies.

Finally, the Court concluded that the respondent's counterarguments could not overcome the "clear commands" of the statutory text and the statutory context. For instance, the Court noted that the statute separately prohibits calls using artificial or prerecorded voices regardless of the technology used—prohibitions that are unaffected by Congress' narrow definition of an autodialer.

Justice Alito authored a concurrence, agreeing with the Court's interpretation of the TCPA, but cautioning against "heavy reliance" on canons of interpretation, which he warns are not "inflexible rules" capable of mechanical application.

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2020. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.