On April 1, 2021, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) under the TCPA is limited by the plain grammar of the statute itself. The Court, in a decision authored by Justice Sotomayor, held that a device must have the capacity to use a random or sequential number generator in either storing or producing a telephone number, to qualify as an ATDS under the TCPA. Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid et al., Case No. 19-511 (2021).

Our preview of the Supreme Court’s consideration of Duguid can be found here and our analysis of the oral argument can be found here. The Court’s decision is discussed below, and its opinion can be found here.


Continue Reading Supreme Court Defines ATDS Under The TCPA

For the second time this year, the TCPA came before the Supreme Court via teleconference oral argument in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, et al, Case No. 19-511 (2020). The Supreme Court’s disposition of Facebook’s petition is expected to resolve a widening Circuit split over what qualifies as an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) under the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., and thus determine much of the scope of the TCPA’s calling restrictions.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument Over the TCPA’s Definition of an Autodialer

On January 20, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, where it was considering whether a plaintiff seeking damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) is able to maintain his individual claim and claims on behalf of a putative class once that plaintiff has received an offer from the defendant to settle his individual claim in full.  The court – by a 6-3 vote – held that in this case, the defendant’s unaccepted settlement offer did not render the plaintiff’s claim moot for Article III jurisdiction purposes.  It also held that the defendant in this case was not entitled to derivative sovereign immunity from TCPA liability despite being a contractor for the Navy.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Sustains TCPA Plaintiff’s Claim Following an Unaccepted Settlement Offer

In FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., the US Supreme Court reversed FCC indecency fines against two TV broadcast networks.   The decision has garnered a lot of attention in the broadcast industry and conventional media (and rightly so).   News stories describe the decision as a clear victory for broadcasters.  Many commentators also noted the apparently shaky ground of the 1978 Pacifica decision finding George Carlin’s “Filthy Words” monologue indecent.   (Including this decidedly non-legal discussion.) These are topics of great interest to the broadcast industry.

For all its significance in the broadcast world, the decision is equally significant for non-broadcasters.  In Fox Television, the Supreme Court sets a high bar for FCC enforcement of general obligations under the Communications Act, not just the FCC’s indecency standard.  As a result, Fox Television will constrain the FCC’s enforcement abilities in several prominent areas of common carrier regulation as well.  Most significantly, we believe that Fox Television limits the FCC’s ability to impose fines for violations of Section 201(b)’s prohibition on unjust and unreasonable practices.  Unless the FCC has provided fair notice to common carriers of the conduct required under Section 201(b), it may not impose sanctions in the enforcement context.


Continue Reading What FCC v. Fox Television Means for Non-Broadcasters