To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
On April 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a narrow interpretation of a key clause of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”), which restricts the use of devices known as “automatic telephone dialing systems” or “autodialers.” In a unanimous opinion in
Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid et al., No. 19-511, the Court overturned a Ninth Circuit decision that broadly defined an autodialer to cover any equipment that has the capacity to store and dial numbers, regardless of whether those numbers were generated by a random or sequential number generator.
www tigerdirect com Terms & Conditions tigerdirect.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from tigerdirect.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that, at least in the short run, is likely to dramatically reduce litigation under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). In
Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, the Court held that only a narrow set of telephone equipment meets the definition of “an automatic telephone dialing system” (“ATDS”) for purposes of the statute’s ban on making certain types of calls with an ATDS. The TCPA’s prohibition on using an ATDS to call a cell phone without prior express consent has spawned a considerable volume of consumer class action litigation, and led to large pay-days for some plaintiffs’ attorneys. Significantly, the Court held that the statutory definition of an ATDS is limited to devices with the capacity to use a random or sequential number generator to either store or produce telephone numbers for dialing. While automated dialers at one time may have re
Americans can expect to receive more cellphone robocalls and texts because of a US Supreme Court decision issued Thursday, according to a consumer advocacy
The Supreme Court’s
Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid decision finally settled the confusion over what equipment constitutes an automatic telephone dialing system (a robodialer) that can violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Consumers have filed a mountain of class actions collectively seeking billions in statutory damages in the past two decades over unwanted robocalls and texts that they received from businesses calling using software rather than manual dialing. It was unclear, however, whether the software or technology actually violated the TCPA.
The act defines automatic telephone dialing systems 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.” But lower courts split on whether this phrase applied more broadly to equipment that can store and dial numbers, even if it doesn t use a number generator (i.e., a smartphone that can store and then