Term: 2020
Docket: 19-511
Facebook Inc. v. Duguid
- Pro
19-511 FACEBOOK, INC. V. DUGUID DECISION BELOW: 926 F.3d 1146 LIMITED TO QUESTION 2 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. CERT. GRANTED 7/9/2020 QUESTION PRESENTED: Congress enacted the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCP A") to prohibit calls made to a cell phone without consent using an "automatic telephone dialing system" ("ATDS"). That prohibition exempts calls made "to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States" or "made for emergency purposes." 47 U.S. §227 (b)(l )(A)(iii). Here, Petitioner was sued for violating this prohibition and defended on the ground, inter alia, that the prohibition unconstitutionally discriminated on the basis of content and that the text messages at issue here did not involve an ATDS. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the TCPA was unconstitutional, but denied Petitioner any relief by taking the extra ordinary step of rewriting the TCPA to prohibit more speech by eliminating the government-debt-collection exception. To make matters worse, the Ninth Circuit adopted a counter-textual and expansive definition of an ATDS that encompasses any device that can store and automatically dial telephone numbers - even if that device cannot store or produce them “using a random or sequential number generator," as the statutory definition requires, id. §227(b)(1)(A). That holding- which conflicts with the Third and D.C. Circuits - sweeps into the TCPA's prohibition almost any call or text made from any modern smartphone. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the TCPA's prohibition on calls made using an ATDS is an unconstitutional restriction of speech, and if so whether the proper remedy is to broaden the prohibition to abridge more speech. 2. Whether the definition of ATDS in the TCPA 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." LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 17-15320
In the case of Facebook Inc. v. Duguid, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Facebook, determining that to qualify as an "automatic telephone dialing system" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) a device must have the capacity to either store or produce numbers using a random or sequential number generator. The lawsuit was initiated by Noah Duguid who received unwanted text messages from Facebook despite not having an account with them. He claimed that this violated TCPA which prohibits any calls made without prior express consent through automatic telephone dialing systems and prerecorded voice mechanisms. However, because Facebook's notification system sent targeted texts based on stored phone numbers rather than randomly generated ones, it did not fall within TCPA's definition of an autodialer according to Justice Sonia Sotomayor who delivered the opinion for unanimous court.
In the dissenting opinion for Facebook Inc. v. Duguid, Justice Sotomayor argued that the majority's interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) was too narrow and failed to account for modern technology advancements in auto-dialers. She contended that this ruling could potentially allow companies to harass consumers with unwanted calls and texts without repercussions, undermining TCPA’s purpose which is to protect consumer privacy rights against unsolicited automated calls or messages. The justice also expressed concern over how this decision might limit Congress' ability to regulate new technologies as they evolve, arguing that it would be more appropriate for Congress rather than courts to define what constitutes an autodialer under law.
