Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid
592 U. S. ____ (2021) (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To qualify as an “automatic telephone dialing system” (ATDS) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), a device must have the capacity to either store or produce telephone numbers using a random or sequential number generator.
Facts:
- Petitioner Facebook, Inc. maintains a social media platform that offers an optional security feature to send users “login notification” text messages when an attempt is made to access their account from an unknown device or browser.
- To opt into this service, a user must provide and verify a cell phone number to which Facebook can send messages.
- Respondent Noah Duguid received several login-notification text messages from Facebook, alerting him to access attempts on a Facebook account associated with his phone number.
- Duguid had never created a Facebook account and never provided his phone number to Facebook.
- Duguid was unable to stop the unwanted notifications despite his attempts.
Procedural Posture:
- Noah Duguid filed a putative class action lawsuit against Facebook, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging violations of the TCPA.
- Facebook moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that Duguid failed to allege the use of an ATDS because its system did not randomly or sequentially generate phone numbers.
- The District Court agreed with Facebook and dismissed Duguid's amended complaint with prejudice.
- Duguid appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (appellant Duguid, appellee Facebook).
- The Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's decision, holding that an ATDS need only have the capacity to "store numbers to be called" and "to dial such numbers automatically," thus not requiring the use of a random or sequential number generator for storing numbers.
- Facebook, Inc. then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals (petitioner Facebook, respondent Duguid).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an "automatic telephone dialing system" under 47 U. S. C. §227(a)(1) of the TCPA encompass equipment that can store and dial telephone numbers automatically, even if the device does not use a random or sequential number generator to store or produce those numbers?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Sotomayor
No, an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) under the TCPA does not encompass equipment that can store and dial telephone numbers automatically unless the device uses a random or sequential number generator to store or produce those numbers. The Court interpreted the clause "using a random or sequential number generator" in 47 U.S.C. §227(a)(1)(A) to modify both the verbs "store" and "produce" based on conventional rules of grammar, specifically the series-qualifier canon. This canon dictates that a modifier at the end of a series of nouns or verbs normally applies to the entire series, especially when the modifying phrase follows a concise, integrated clause and is separated by a comma. The Court rejected Duguid's reliance on the "rule of the last antecedent," noting its context-dependent nature and that, even if applied, the last antecedent before the modifying clause is "telephone numbers to be called," not merely "produce." The statutory context further supports this interpretation, as Congress's original concern when enacting the TCPA was with specific autodialer technology that could randomly dial emergency lines or tie up sequentially numbered lines, not all equipment capable of storing and dialing numbers. A broader interpretation, as advanced by Duguid, would illogically classify virtually all modern cell phones as ATDSs and subject ordinary usage to TCPA liability. While acknowledging Duguid’s arguments regarding the TCPA’s privacy-protection goals and the potentially "senescent technology" of random number generators, the Court emphasized its duty to interpret the text Congress wrote, not to update it for modern technology or broader policy objectives.
Concurring - Justice Alito
Yes, Justice Alito concurred in the judgment, agreeing that an “automatic telephone dialing system” under the TCPA must have the capacity to store telephone numbers using a random or sequential number generator. However, he wrote separately to express caution regarding the Court’s "heavy reliance" on interpretive canons, such as the "series-qualifier canon." Justice Alito clarified that these canons are not "inflexible rules" but rather presumptions about what an intelligently produced text conveys, and their usefulness is highly dependent on context. He provided several common English sentences where the natural understanding contradicts the interpretation suggested by the series-qualifier canon, illustrating that "the sense of the matter" often prevails over strict grammatical rules. He argued that statutory interpretation should not be a mechanical application of arcane rules, but rather an attempt to understand how a "reasonable reader, fully competent in the language," would have understood the text at the time it was issued, emphasizing that appellate judges should approach statutory language as they would English prose.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of what constitutes an “automatic telephone dialing system” under the TCPA, limiting the statute's applicability to devices that employ random or sequential number generators for storing or producing numbers. This ruling effectively exempts many modern automated calling systems that merely dial from pre-programmed or pre-existing lists or databases, which do not rely on random or sequential number generation. As a result, future TCPA litigation will require plaintiffs to demonstrate that the defendant's technology utilizes this specific type of number generation, potentially reducing the success rate of claims against companies using more sophisticated, but not randomly or sequentially generating, auto-dialing technology. This outcome may prompt legislative action to update the TCPA to better address contemporary automated calling practices and consumer protection concerns.
