PD Editorial: Supreme Court tells robocallers go ahead and dial pressdemocrat.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from pressdemocrat.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
, a telephone number.
Previously, companies were at risk of TCPA claims asserting only that the text messages or calls were made with devices that simply have the capacity to
store and automatically dial a telephone number.
Digital health companies still have to comply with other applicable patient and consumer protection laws, including no texts or calls to number on do-not-call lists, and the HIPAA privacy and security rules, particularly with respect to text messages (and emails) containing unencrypted patient protected health information.
Telemedicine and remote patient monitoring companies will have an easier time engaging with their patients via text message. As we reported last week, on April 1st, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed with Facebook’s interpretation of the definition of “automatic telephone dialing system” (commonly referred to as an “autodialer”) in a lawsuit accusing Facebook of violating the TCPA.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court today held that Facebook's "login notification" text messages (sent to users when an attempt is made to access their Facebook account from an unknown device.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
On April 1, 2021, the United States Supreme Court issued a long-awaited landmark decision that finally resolves a deep split of authority in the Circuit Courts of Appeal regarding the definition of an autodialer under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In a unanimous opinion, the justices overturned a Ninth Circuit ruling that broadly defined the type of automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) prohibited by the TCPA. See Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, Case No. 19-511 (2021).
While the TCPA defines an ATDS as equipment that has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers, the Ninth Circuit broadly construed that definition and held that it is enough for a phone to be able to dial stored numbers automatically to qualify as an ATDS under the TCPA which definition would encompass the capabilities of most smartphones. Gi
On April 1st, the Supreme Court held 9-0, in
Facebook v. Duguid, that equipment
must be capable of random or sequential number generation in order
to qualify as an automatic telephone dialing system
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), among
other things, restricts certain communications made with an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS). The TCPA
defines an ATDS as equipment that can both store or produce
telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number
generator, and dial those numbers. The interpretive question
before the Court was whether the phrase using a random or