Duguid v. Facebook, Inc.
Issues
Does the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 prohibit the use of a system that stores phone numbers and dials them automatically?
This case asks the Supreme Court to interpret the definition of an automated telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) as set forth under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”). The statute defines an ATDS as equipment that “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.” Employing a grammatical analysis, Respondent Facebook contends that a system is an ATDS only when it can automatically call phone numbers that were produced or stored using a random number generator. Also using a grammatical analysis, Petitioner Noah Duguid counters that an ATDS encompasses a system that can store and automatically call phone numbers, irrespective of whether the system uses a random number generator. The outcome of this case has significant implications in determining the type of devices and systems that could qualify as an ATDS and what callers could be subject to the $1,500-per-call statutory liability under the TCPA.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether the definition of an "automatic telephone dialing system" in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 encompasses any device that can “store” and “automatically dial” telephone numbers, even if the device does not “us[e] a random or sequential number generator.”
Responding to the rise of unsolicited and intrusive robocalls, Congress passed the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”). Duguid v. Facebook, Inc., (9th Cir.
Edited by
Additional Resources
- Michelle Pector & Jared Wilkerson, Facebook v. Duguid – US Supreme Court to Decide Crucial Issue Affecting TCPA Liability, JD Supra (Nov. 3, 2020).
- Nikku D. Khalifian, Facebook and the United States Submit Briefs in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, The National Law Review (Sept. 23, 2020).