U.S. Supreme Court’s “Autodialer” Ruling Under Telephone Consumer Protection Act Should Shield Debt Collectors from Liability Where Device Does Not Randomly or Sequentially Generate Numbers
Debt collectors (as well as financial institutions and other consumer-facing businesses) should take note that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the definition of an “autodialer” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as written, requires that the device must use a random or sequential number generator. This narrow interpretation should shield companies from liability in current or future actions, where the consumers’ telephone numbers are known and not random or sequentially generated.
In Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, the U.S. Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) narrowly interpreted the definition of “autodialer” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), holding the definition excludes equipment that does not use a random or sequential number generator. SCOTUS specifically held that an “automatic telephone dialing system” is limited to equipment that either stores a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator, or produces a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator.
To read the full article, please click here.
“U.S. Supreme Court’s “Autodialer” Ruling Under Telephone Consumer Protection Act Should Shield Debt Collectors from Liability Where Device Does Not Randomly or Sequentially Generate Numbers,” by Wayne Streibich, Diana M. Eng, and Andrea M. Roberts was published in the June 2021 edition of Pratt’s Journal of Bankruptcy Law (Vol. 17, No. 4), an A.S. Pratt Publication, LexisNexis. Reprinted with permission.
This article was first published as a Blank Rome Consumer Finance Litigation alert on April 5, 2021.