By Matt Knowles , Saba Bajwa and Amy C. Pimentel

The Supreme Court's 2021 decision in Facebook v. Duguid1 changed the
landscape of Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) litigation. For
years prior, aggressive plaintiffs had stretched the TCPA's antiquated
language defining automatic telephone dialing systems (ATDS) well
beyond its breaking point. The ATDS definition is critical, as use of
an ATDS triggers consent requirements under Section 227(b) of the TCPA
and failure to comply can result in catastrophic liability.

Duguid emphasized that Congress meant what it said in defining an
ATDS, and its definition must be applied as written. An ATDS is
defined as "equipment which has the capacity - (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number
generator; and (B) to dial such numbers." The Supreme Court held that
the phrase "using a random or sequential number generator" was meant
to qualify the entire preceding phrase, such that an automatic dialing
system must use random or sequential number generators to either store
or produce telephone numbers in order to qualify as an ATDS.

https://tinyurl.com/2p8nr4ad

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)