Roth Jackson | Legal Services - Richmond VA & McLean VARoth Jackson | Legal Services - Richmond VA & McLean VA
  • Home
  • Our Team
    • Richmond Office
      • E.G. Allen, III
      • Joseph P. Bowser
      • caroline e. browder
      • andrew m. condlin
      • sean m. gibbons
      • kim m. lacy
      • jennifer d. mullen
      • allyson martin sladic
      • C. Taylor Smith
      • Jennifer L. West
    • Tysons Office
      • genevieve c. bradley
      • Joseph P. Bowser
      • joseph f. jackson
      • ashley b. kyle
      • mitchell n. roth
      • Jennifer S. Varughese
  • What We Do
    • banking & finance
    • bankruptcy & creditor rights
    • commercial litigation
    • commercial real estate
    • corporate
    • direct marketing & regulatory compliance
    • employment & labor law
    • Immigration
    • land use & zoning
    • privacy and data security practice group
  • News & Insights
    • TCPA
    • Immigration News
    • Employment & Labor Law News
  • Community Outreach
  • Contact Us

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Creates Circuit Split With Broad Autodialer Ruling

October 9, 2018FreshysitesTCPA

No company using modern technology to communicate with their customers was unhappy when the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the FCC’s overly broad interpretation of what equipment qualifies as an “automatic telephone dialing system” (“ATDS” or, colloquially, an “autodialer”) under the TCPA. But it is equally true that the D.C. Circuit’s ruling created a vacuum behind it: without a single, nationwide standard from the FCC, the various federal courts that need to decide the many TCPA cases in front of them have had to develop their own interpretation of what technology meets the statutory definition of an ATDS.

And while the trial courts have not been entirely consistent in their holdings, the two federal appeals court decisions on the issue—the Second Circuit’s King decision and, even better yet, the Third Circuit’s Dominguez opinion—were both a welcome tightening of the FCC’s now-rejected, seemingly limitless standard. In Dominguez, the Third Circuit (which covers Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware) took Congress at its word in holding that technology is a regulated ATDS only if the calling device is currently capable of “randomly or sequentially generat[ing] telephone numbers, and dial[ing] those numbers.” In light of that interpretation, Yahoo prevailed because its text messages were sent to users based on a defined set of criteria, and thus not in a fashion that was randomly or sequentially generated.

So encouraged by those two positive outcomes on the East Coast, those of us in the TCPA trenches were cautiously optimistic that the Ninth Circuit would rule similarly in the long-pending Marks v. Crunch case. (The facts of Marks are essentially beside the point; he allegedly received three unsolicited text messages from his gym.) But, alas, our hopes have been dashed.

The Marks opinion did set off on the right foot. Unlike some trial courts that have held that the D.C. Circuit’s ACA decision did not also invalidate the FCC’s 2003 and 2008 rulings that predictive dialers are an ATDS, the Ninth Circuit agreed with Crunch that the D.C. Circuit’s opinion also invalidated the FCC’s earlier rulings that were embodied in the 2015 Order that the D.C. Circuit vacated in relevant part. That is, the Ninth Circuit found that it was not bound to follow the FCC’s earlier holdings that predictive dialers are an ATDS under the TCPA.

But with that blank slate, the Ninth Circuit panel proceeded to rewrite what it found to be an ambiguous definition supplied by Congress. Congress gave us the following definition of ATDS: “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.” 47 USC 227(a)(1). To the Third Circuit and various other courts, we can read that italicized portion in only one way: you have to store or produce the numbers you call with a “random or sequential number generator.” The equipment, therefore, has to generate the numbers. So if you upload a curated list of phone numbers, that should not qualify as an ATDS.

The Ninth Circuit rejected that interpretation. It flatly held that the “statutory definition of ATDS includes a device that stores telephone numbers to be called, regardless of whether or not those numbers have been generated by a random or sequential number generator.” Put differently, the court held that equipment qualifies as an ATDS if it has “the capacity to dial stored numbers automatically.” In the process, the Ninth Circuit explicitly rejected the Third Circuit’s holding in Dominguez, which the Ninth Circuit derided as “unpersuasive” insofar as it was rooted in an “unreasoned assumption.”

There is no denying the Ninth Circuit’s opinion’s significance. It is binding law in the federal trial courts in populous states like California, Oregon, Washington, and Arizona. It clearly creates a direct conflict with another Court of Appeals decision. Crunch may seek “en banc” review (review by the entire Ninth Circuit). It may also pursue a Supreme Court appeal. But in light of the FCC’s active dockets on various issues surrounding the TCPA, which could moot the conflict, the Supreme Court may be unlikely to take the appeal. (Given the impending midterm elections, FCC action on a hot-button topic like this is unlikely in the near term.) In short: stay tuned, as the post-ACA vacuum has us all in for a bumpy ride until we get some nationwide guidance from the FCC, Congress, or both.

By Joe Bowser

For more information contact Joe Bowser at jbowser@rothjackson.com or Visit Attorney Profile Here

Recent Posts

  • Phone Hacked at Local Immigration Court
  • Important Reminder for Missing / Delayed RFEs
  • Uncertainty Surrounding Personal Jurisdiction and Purposeful Availment in TCPA cases post-Hood
  • Reminder for Employers with 100+ Employees, OSHA’s Vaccine/Weekly Testing Mandate Becomes Effective January 10, 2022

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required
Categories

Archives

  • August 2022
  • May 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • January 2020
  • June 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
Awarded in 2016, 2018, and 2019

find us at

Facebook
LinkedIn

Richmond

1519 Summit Avenue
Suite 102
Richmond, VA 23230

(804) 441-8440
(804) 441-8438

Tysons Corner

8200 Greensboro Drive
Suite 820
McLean, VA 22102

(703) 485-3535
(703) 485-3525

  • Home
  • Our Team
    • Richmond Office
      • E.G. Allen, III
      • Joseph P. Bowser
      • caroline e. browder
      • andrew m. condlin
      • sean m. gibbons
      • kim m. lacy
      • jennifer d. mullen
      • allyson martin sladic
      • C. Taylor Smith
      • Jennifer L. West
    • Tysons Office
      • genevieve c. bradley
      • Joseph P. Bowser
      • joseph f. jackson
      • ashley b. kyle
      • mitchell n. roth
      • Jennifer S. Varughese
  • What We Do
    • banking & finance
    • bankruptcy & creditor rights
    • commercial litigation
    • commercial real estate
    • corporate
    • direct marketing & regulatory compliance
    • employment & labor law
    • Immigration
    • land use & zoning
    • privacy and data security practice group
  • News & Insights
    • TCPA
    • Immigration News
    • Employment & Labor Law News
  • Community Outreach
  • Contact Us
© 2018 Roth Jackson Gibbons Condlin, PLCFreshySites
Terms and Conditions
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING: Case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case.
Case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.