In December, we reported on the oral argument in the U.S. Supreme Court in Facebook v. Duguid, which presented the question of what was required for equipment to qualify as an automatic.
Uncertainty over the definition of an “automatic telephone dialing system” (ATDS or autodialer) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) has fueled a steady flow of litigation.
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in
TransUnion v. Ramirez, which poses significant questions about Article III standing and Rule 23’s typicality requirement for class certification.
Ramirez will likely be one of the most consequential standing cases since
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, affecting litigation involving violations of consumer protection statutes such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and various states’ privacy laws as well as cases involving data breaches, which have been a hotbed of disputes over standing. The decision will likely help define the parameters of federal court standing, particularly in cases with questionable harm.
The Supreme Court on Thursday issued its long-awaited ruling on what constitutes an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
The Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Facebook v. Duguid, unanimously adopting a narrow definition of what constitutes an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS).