Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid - 141 S. Ct. 1163 (2021)

Rule:

The statutory context confirms that the autodialer definition excludes equipment that does not use a random or sequential number generator. 47 U.S.C.S. § 227(a)(1)(A). Consider the restrictions in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) on the use of autodialers. Section § 227(b)(1) makes it unlawful to use an autodialer to call certain emergency telephone lines and lines for which the called party is charged for the call. § 227(b)(1)(A). It also makes it unlawful to use an autodialer in such a way that two or more telephone lines of a multiline business are engaged simultaneously. § 227(b)(1)(D). These prohibitions target a unique type of telemarketing equipment that risks dialing emergency lines randomly or tying up all the sequentially numbered lines at a single entity. Expanding the definition of an autodialer to encompass any equipment that merely stores and dials telephone numbers would take a chainsaw to these nuanced problems when Congress meant to use a scalpel

Facts:

Petitioner Facebook, Inc., maintained a social media platform with an optional security feature that sent users “login notification” text messages when an attempt was made to access their Facebook account from an unknown device or browser. If necessary, the user can then log into Facebook and take action to secure the account. The user must provide and verify a cell phone number to which Facebook can send messages. In 2014, respondent Noah Duguid received several login-notification text messages from Facebook, alerting him that someone attempted to access the Facebook account associated with his phone number from an unknown browser. Duguid never had a Facebook account and never gave Facebook his phone number. Unable to stop the notifications, Duguid brought a class action against Facebook. He alleged that Facebook violated the TCPA by maintaining a database that stored phone numbers and programming its equipment to send automated text messages to those numbers each time the associated account was accessed by an unrecognized device or web browser. Facebook moved to dismiss the suit, arguing primarily that Duguid failed to allege that Facebook used an autodialer because he did not claim Facebook sent text messages to numbers that were randomly or sequentially generated. The district court dismissed Duguid’s complaint with prejudice. On appeal, the judgment was reversed and held that an autodialer need not be able to use a random or sequential generator to store numbers; it need only have the capacity to “‘store numbers to be called’” and “‘to dial such numbers automatically.’” 926 F. 3d 1146, 1151 (2019).

Issue:

Did Facebook violate the TCPA?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The statutory context confirms that the autodialer definition excludes equipment that does not “us[e] a random or sequential number generator.” 47 U. S. C. §227(a)(1)(A). §227(b)(1) makes it unlawful to use an autodialer to call certain “emergency telephone line[s]” and lines “for which the called party is charged for the call.” §227(b)(1)(A). It also makes it unlawful to use an autodialer “in such a way that two or more telephone lines of a multiline business are engaged simultaneously.” §227(b)(1)(D). These prohibitions target a unique type of telemarketing equipment that risks dialing emergency lines randomly or tying up all the sequentially numbered lines at a single entity.

Expanding the definition of an autodialer to encompass any equipment that merely stores and dials telephone numbers would take a chainsaw to these nuanced problems when Congress meant to use a scalpel. Duguid’s interpretation of an autodialer captured virtually all modern cell phones, which have the capacity to “store telephone numbers to be called” and “dial such numbers.” §227(a)(1). The TCPA’s liability provisions, then, could affect ordinary cell phone owners in the course of commonplace usage, such as speed dialing or sending automated text message responses. Facebook did not violate the TCPA by maintaining a database that stored phone numbers and by sending automated text messages to those numbers each time an account was accessed by an unrecognized device because the definition of an autodialer required that in all cases, whether storing or producing numbers to be called, the equipment in question had to use a random or sequential number generator, which petitioners did not.