ACA Int'l v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n
885 F.3d 687 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The FCC's expansive interpretation of 'automatic telephone dialing system' (ATDS) under the TCPA, which included any device capable of gaining ATDS functionality through software changes, was an unreasonably broad construction of the statute. Additionally, the FCC's 'one-call safe harbor' rule for calls to reassigned numbers was arbitrary and capricious due to a lack of reasoned explanation.
Facts:
- Congress enacted the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) in 1991 to address widespread consumer complaints about unwanted robocalls and text messages, generally prohibiting the use of an 'automatic telephone dialing system' (ATDS) to call wireless numbers without prior express consent.
- The TCPA defines an ATDS as equipment with the capacity 'to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and to dial such numbers.'
- In 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a Declaratory Ruling and Order to clarify various aspects of the TCPA's restrictions.
- The FCC interpreted a device's 'capacity' to function as an ATDS to encompass its 'potential functionalities' through modifications like software changes, acknowledging that this interpretation would effectively include all smartphones.
- The FCC determined that for reassigned wireless numbers, the 'called party' refers to the current subscriber, not the intended recipient (who may have previously consented), and established a 'one-call safe harbor' allowing one liability-free call after reassignment even without caller knowledge of the reassignment.
- The FCC clarified that consumers could revoke consent for autodialer calls through 'any reasonable means' that clearly expresses a desire to receive no further messages, declining to allow callers to unilaterally designate revocation methods.
- The FCC granted a limited exemption from the consent requirement for certain time-sensitive healthcare-related calls (e.g., appointment reminders, lab results) but explicitly excluded calls containing telemarketing, billing, debt collection, or other financial content.
Procedural Posture:
- In 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a Declaratory Ruling and Order, addressing 21 separate petitions for rulemaking or requests for clarification concerning the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
- Various regulated entities, including ACA International, et al., and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp., filed petitions for review of the FCC's 2015 Declaratory Ruling and Order in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. These petitions were consolidated for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does the FCC's interpretation of 'automatic telephone dialing system' (ATDS) in the TCPA, which broadly includes any device capable of gaining ATDS functionality through software changes (like smartphones), constitute an unreasonably expansive and arbitrary/capricious construction of the statute? 2. Is the FCC's interpretation of 'called party' as the current subscriber and its establishment of a one-call safe harbor for calls to reassigned wireless numbers, even without caller knowledge of reassignment, arbitrary and capricious? 3. Did the FCC act arbitrarily and capriciously by allowing consumers to revoke consent to receive autodialer calls through 'any reasonable means' rather than prescribing standardized revocation procedures? 4. Did the FCC act arbitrarily and capriciously, or in conflict with HIPAA, by narrowly limiting the exemption from the TCPA's consent requirement for certain healthcare-related calls to exclude billing or marketing content?
Opinions:
Majority - Srinivasan, Circuit Judge
1. Yes, the FCC's interpretation of 'automatic telephone dialing system' (ATDS) was unreasonably expansive and arbitrary and capricious. The court found that defining a device's 'capacity' to include potential functionalities achievable through software changes, thereby sweeping in all smartphones, was an impermissible construction of the statute under Chevron Step Two. This interpretation would extend a law originally aimed at 'hundreds of thousands of telemarketers' to 'hundreds of millions of everyday callers,' conflicting with congressional findings. The court also held that the FCC's ruling on ATDS functions failed arbitrary-and-capricious review because it provided unclear and contradictory guidance on whether a device must generate random or sequential numbers, or dial without human intervention, to qualify as an ATDS. 2. Yes, the FCC's one-call safe harbor for calls to reassigned wireless numbers was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the FCC's interpretation of 'called party' as the current subscriber (citing Soppet v. Enhanced Recovery Co.), meaning consent from a previous subscriber is extinguished upon reassignment. However, the court found no reasoned explanation for why a caller's 'reasonable reliance' on prior consent necessarily ceases after only one call, especially if the first call gives no indication of reassignment. Since the FCC declined to impose a 'severe' strict-liability (zero-call) standard, the court could not conclude that the agency would have adopted such a rule without a justified safe harbor. Therefore, the court set aside the FCC’s entire treatment of reassigned numbers. 3. No, the FCC did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by allowing consumers to revoke consent through 'any reasonable means.' The court found petitioners' concerns about uncertainty to be 'overstated,' noting that the FCC's rule absolves callers of adopting systems that would entail 'undue burdens.' Callers are incentivized to provide clear opt-out methods, and consumers' attempts to use idiosyncratic methods might be deemed unreasonable. The court also distinguished this from specific opt-out mechanisms for exempted calls, noting different default rules for consent. The ruling does not preclude mutually agreed-upon contractual revocation procedures. 4. No, the FCC did not act arbitrarily or capriciously, nor did it conflict with HIPAA, by narrowly limiting the healthcare exemption. The court clarified that HIPAA governs the disclosure of protected health information but does not supersede the TCPA's consent requirements. The FCC's decision to provide a narrower exemption for wireless numbers compared to residential lines was justified, as the TCPA itself presupposes greater privacy interests for calls to cell phones. Calls for billing or marketing do not qualify as 'emergency purposes' that would justify overriding the TCPA's consent regime.
Analysis:
This decision significantly restricts the FCC's authority to broadly interpret the TCPA's definition of an 'automatic telephone dialing system,' particularly as it relates to modern communication devices like smartphones. It mandates that the FCC provide clearer, more consistent guidance on what constitutes an ATDS, likely requiring a closer alignment with the original congressional intent to target mass telemarketing equipment rather than everyday personal devices. The vacatur of the reassigned numbers rule creates a regulatory void, compelling the FCC to devise a new framework that balances consumer privacy with caller diligence, possibly involving new databases or extended safe harbors. The affirmation of consumer autonomy in revoking consent reinforces the proactive burden on callers to honor such requests, impacting compliance strategies for businesses that engage in automated calling.
