The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case, ruling that in order to meet the definition of an automated telephone dialing system, the technology must include the capacity to randomly or sequentially generate telephone numbers to be dialed.
The Background: The plaintiff was sent a text message by a vendor that the defendant hired after the plaintiff had opted out of receiving messages. She filed a class-action lawsuit against the defendant in 2019, accusing it of violating the TCPA by using an ATDS and by using an artificial voice. A District Court judge granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, concluding that both claims failed.
The Ruling: The TCPA defines an ATDS as equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using an random or sequential number generator; and to dial such numbers.
- The plaintiff attempted to argue that the definition of an ATDS includes a system that dials numbers randomly drawn from a pre-existing list of telephone numbers, such as lists of numbers submitted by consumers who sign up for a program or benefit. The defendant countered that the definition only relates to systems that generate telephone numbers and not systems using pre-existing lists of numbers.
- Admitting that the definition of an ATDS is “no model of clarity,” the Appeals Court still determined that an ATDS is a system that generates telephone numbers.
- The TCPA was intended to protect against telephone lines being tied up unnecessarily. “These concerns are not implicated by a system that uses a pre-existing list of telephone numbers that are not automatically or randomly generated, but that are drawn from other sources, including, as here, from consumers themselves who voluntarily provided them.”
