We’ve been covering the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) extensively on this blog, and cannabis TCPA litigation in particular.
Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid – perhaps the most impactful case in the TCPA space today. I first wrote about Facebook in this post, where I explained that the Supreme Court had to decide whether the definition of an ATDS “encompasses any device that can ‘store’ and ‘automatically dial’ telephone numbers, even if the device does not ‘us[e] a random or sequential number generator.’” The importance of Facebook is this: in situations where the plaintiff only asserts that the defendant made phone calls or sent texts from lists of customer data, rather than through randomly generated numbers, a ruling for Facebook could completely gut the value of those claims.
Counsel for Facebook argued Duguid’s interpretation was so broad it would cover any call or message made by mobile phones and created “a statute of impossible breadth.” He argued the ban only applies to (now largely obsolete and rarely used) dialing systems that generate random or sequential phone numbers. Other notable corporations such as CVS, Home Depot, Quicken Loans, and United HealthCare all submitted
Bud Digest[otw_is sidebar=otw-sidebar-8]