Facebook v. Duguid

Whether the Telephone Consumer Protection Act prohibits use of a mass telephone dialing system that dial numbers from a database when the system does not also have the capacity to generate random or sequential numbers.

Summary

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") protects American consumers from invasive automated calls. One of its several provisions prohibits use of automated dialing systems (also called "autodialers") without the consent of the called party. Noah Duguid received several security alert text messages from Facebook despite not being a Facebook user and never consenting to the texts. His repeated attempts to stop the texts failed. Duguid filed a putative class action aganst Facebook, alleging violations of the TCPA's autodialer restriction. The district court dismissed the case, holding that Facebook's software was not an autodialer. The Ninth Circuit reversed. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case to resolve a split betweel federal courts of appeals over the proper scope of the autodialer definition.

Background

Legal Background

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act was enacted in 1991 to protect consumers from unwanted automated and prerecorded calls. It bans using “any automatic telephone dialing system” (commonly called an "autodialer") to call a cell phone without the consent of the party called. The law defines an autodialer as “equipment which has the capacity—(A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.” Companies that want to autodialer consumers argue that an autodialer must use a random or sequential number generator to store or produce numbers. Consumers argue the opposite: the statute targets systems that can automatically dial numbers that are stored in the system, or they can dial automatically dial numbers that the system produces with a random or sequential number generator.

The FCC has long recognized that autodialers include predictive dialers, which dial numbers from a database in anticipation of a live agent being ready to conduct the call. But in the 2015 case ACA International v. FCC, the D.C. Circuit found that the FCC's orders on the autodialer definition were inconsistent, and vacated the FCC's autodialer definition.

Since ACC International, federal courts of appeals have split over the proper scope of the autodialer ban. Prior to taking up Duguid's case, the Ninth Circuit adopted the broad definition of autodialer in Marks v. Crunch San Diego, reasoning that "using a random or sequential number generator" modifies "produce" but not "store".

Factual Background

Noah Duguid has never been a Facebook user. Yet, over a ten month period in 2014, Facebook sent Duguid a series of text messages containing automated security alerts for an account he didn't have. Duguid requested that the messages stop both over text and email, to no avail. Finally, Duguid sued Facebook for violating the TCPA.

Procedural History

In the district court, Facebook argued that Duguid failed to properly allege that Facebook's text messaging system is an autodialer because it texted numbers in a database, and did not have the capacity to dial random or sequential numbers. Facebook also argued that the autodialer restriction was unconstitutional because the exemption for callers collecting a government backed debt was an unconstitutional content-based restriction on speech. The district court dismissed the complaint based on a narrow definition of autodialer.

The Ninth Circuit reversed based on its prior decision in Marks. The Ninth Circuit also found that, while the government debt exemption violated the First Amendment, it could be severed from the remainder of the statute.

Facebook asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit's decisions on both the autodialer and the First Amendment questions. The Court resolved the First Amendment question in Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, and then granted review in Duguid to resolve the circuit split over the definition of an autodialer.

EPIC's Interest

EPIC supports strong enforcement of the TCPA to protect American consumers from the privacy invasion of unwanted automated calls. EPIC routinely participates as amicus in TCPA cases. EPIC filed a brief in the Seventh Circuit case Gadelhak v. AT&T, which also concerned the scope of the autodialer restriction. EPIC also filed briefs in Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants (First Amendment challenge to the TCPA before the U.S. Supreme Court), Gallion v. Charter Communications (First Amendment challenge to the TCPA before the Ninth Circuit), ACA International v. FCC (challenge to the validity of FCC TCPA orders before the U.S. Supreme Court), and PDR Networks v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic (scope of federal court deference to FCC TCPA orders before the U.S. Supreme Court). EPIC also files comments before the FCC on TCPA implementation.

Legal Documents

U.S. Supreme Court (No. 19-511)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (No. 17-15320)

U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California (No. 15-cv-00985)

Resources

Share this page:

Defend Privacy. Support EPIC.
US Needs a Data Protection Agency
2020 Election Security