At a unanimous conclusion , the Supreme Court expressly overturned the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion in Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC, by holding,”to qualify as a’automatic phone dialing system’ under the TCPA, a device should have the capacity to keep a phone number with a random or sequential number generator, or to generate a phone number with a random or sequential number generator” Watch Facebook v. Duguid, 592 U.S. (2021). “Congress’ definition of an autodialer demands that in most instances, whether preserving or generating numbers to be predicted, the equipment in question should utilize a sequential or random number generator. This definition excludes gear like Facebook’s login notification system, which doesn’t utilize such technologies.”
Justice Sotomayor wasted no time disposing of these criteria set forth by the Second, Sixth, and Ninth circuits. From the very first paragraph of this view, she wrote:”the issue before the Court is whether [the ATDS] definition encompasses equipment that may’save’ and dial phone numbers, even if the device doesn’t’us[e] a random or sequential number generator’ It doesn’t.”
The Court agreed that a frequent sense reading of the language affirms that amount generation is demanded: that the clause”with a random or sequential number generator” contrasts both genders that precede it (“shop” and”create”). Echoing concerns raised during oral argument, the Court noted that the issue with an expansive interpretation:”Duguid’s interpretation of an autodialer would catch virtually all modern mobile phones, which have the capability to’save… phone numbers to be called’ and’dial such numbers. ”’
The opinion should offer relief for several defendants facing possible liability. The view should also offer the plaintiffs’ bar pause prior to submitting new activities in light of this norm that currently applies across the nation.
