The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has overturned a lower court’s dismissal of a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case involving calls made to an individual after she defaulted on a debt.
The background: The plaintiff filed suit, alleging she received hundreds of calls from the defendant to her cell phone, alleging she did not provide consent to be contacted. While the District Court judge correctly recognized that the plaintiff failed to allege use of an automated telephone dialing system, the defendant did not make the calls using a random or sequential number generator. The defendant had the plaintiff’s number because she provided it.
The ruling: Where the District Court judge went wrong, however, according to the Appeals Court, was by not looking at the other circumstances in which a claim under Section 227(b)(1)(A) of the TCPA can proceed. Along with using a random or sequential number generator, situations where an artificial or prerecorded voice are used are also prohibited under that section of the TCPA.
A plaintiff may state a TCPA claim by alleging the use of an artificial or prerecorded voice whether or not an ATDS was used, the Appeals Court noted.
On these grounds, the plaintiff was correct in claiming the District Court judge erred, the Appeals Court ruled. The plaintiff does not need to allege the use of an ATDS in order to state a TCPA claim, so the Appeals Court reversed the ruling an remanded the case back to the District Court for further proceedings.
