Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
CommunitySub-MenuPublishersChannelsProductsSub-MenuBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAboutContactResourcesSubscribeSupport
Join
Search
Close

TCPA: Ninth Circuit Rejects Duguid’s “Footnote Seven” Argument, Holding That Storage of a Pre-Produced List Does Not Turn a System Into an ATDS

By Virginia Bell Flynn, Chad R. Fuller, Alan D. Wingfield & Brooke Conkle on January 20, 2022
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
hand pressing key

In a succinct, emphatic opinion issued on January 19, the Ninth Circuit quietly rejected one of the last remaining arguments made by plaintiffs attempting to neutralize the Supreme Court’s decisive Facebook opinion interpreting the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant and held that a system that stores a pre-produced list of numbers does not qualify as an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) under the statute.

Background

In the much-anticipated Facebook v. Duguid case on April 1, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision, holding that the TCPA must be read as it is written, namely, that an ATDS must have capacity to store or produce a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator. The Court’s bottom line was plain: No random or sequential number generator, no ATDS.

In the months following the opinion, TCPA plaintiffs’ counsel latched onto footnote seven in an attempt to save TCPA claims, especially against defendants who employ predictive dialers. Footnote seven reads:

Duguid argues that such a device would necessarily “produce” numbers using the same generator technology, meaning “store or” in § 227(a)(1)(A) is superfluous. “It is no superfluity,” however, for Congress to include both functions in the autodialer definition so as to clarify the domain of prohibited devices. For instance, an autodialer might use a random number generator to determine the order in which to pick phone numbers from a preproduced list. It would then store those numbers to be dialed at a later time. In any event, even if the storing and producing functions often merge, Congress may have “employed a belt and suspenders approach” in writing the statute.

Courts, however, have not looked favorably on this argument, with many rejecting the footnote seven argument. Many have held their breath, however, waiting to see how the Ninth Circuit would address it.

The Ninth Circuit’s Decision

Appellant Richard Meier appealed the Southern District of California’s grant of appellee Allied Interstate LLC’s motion for summary judgment on Meier’s TCPA claim. Echoing footnote seven of Duguid, Meier alleged that Allied Interstate’s click-to-dial, HCI system — the LiveVox Platform — was an ATDS under the TCPA because the system stores telephone numbers using a sequential number generator and produces them to be dialed in the same order they were provided.

The Ninth Circuit rejected Meier’s argument. “Under Meier’s interpretation, virtually any system that stores a pre-produced list of telephone numbers would qualify as an ATDS (if it could also autodial the stored numbers …).” The court further noted that footnote seven was “not central” to the interpretation of the TCPA and that it was not required to adopt the “expansive interpretation” proffered by Meier.

The court also found that the LiveVox system was not an ATDS because it does not have the capacity to automatically dial telephone numbers and, though Meier highlighted the system’s ability to switch from “dialer” functions to click-to-dial functions, the court nevertheless concluded that the system was not an ATDS. “The fact that LiveVox offers multiple dialers to its customers does not bring every call that LiveVox makes within the scope of the TCPA.”

The opinion packs a serious punch to eliminate footnote seven arguments in the Ninth Circuit and beyond.

Photo of Virginia Bell Flynn Virginia Bell Flynn

Virginia specializes in complex litigation, business disputes, financial services litigation, and consumer litigation.

Read more about Virginia Bell FlynnEmail Virginia Bell's Linkedin Profile
Photo of Chad R. Fuller Chad R. Fuller

Chad specializes in the defense of consumer class actions and general business litigation. He is one of the few attorneys in the country that has tried TCPA cases to verdict.

Read more about Chad R. FullerEmail Chad R.'s Linkedin Profile
Photo of Alan D. Wingfield Alan D. Wingfield

Alan Wingfield is a partner in the firm’s Consumer Financial Services practice, with a focus on Financial Services Litigation and consumer law compliance counseling. Alan has represented businesses in many venues nationally in class action and individual consumer litigation. Alan’s practice includes compliance…

Alan Wingfield is a partner in the firm’s Consumer Financial Services practice, with a focus on Financial Services Litigation and consumer law compliance counseling. Alan has represented businesses in many venues nationally in class action and individual consumer litigation. Alan’s practice includes compliance counseling to help businesses with the myriad federal and state consumer protection laws and laws regulating financial services companies.

Read more about Alan D. WingfieldEmail Alan's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
Photo of Brooke Conkle Brooke Conkle

Brooke focuses her practice on complex litigation and federal consumer protection statutes, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Regulation V (Reg V), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and Regulation B (Reg B), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and Unfair…

Brooke focuses her practice on complex litigation and federal consumer protection statutes, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Regulation V (Reg V), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and Regulation B (Reg B), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices laws (UDAP).

Read more about Brooke ConkleEmail Brooke's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Financial
  • Blog:
    Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor
  • Organization:
    Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center

New to the Network

  • Boston ERISA & Insurance Litigation Blog
  • Stridon News and Insights
  • Taft Class Action & Consumer Insights
  • Labor and Employment Law Insights
  • Age of Disruption
Copyright © 2022, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo