## Facts

- Noah Duguid alleged he received repeated text messages from Facebook’s login-alert/notification program, even though he said he did not have a Facebook account.
- Duguid alleged he tried to stop the messages, but they continued.
- Duguid filed a putative class action in federal district court alleging Facebook violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227, by sending texts using an “automatic telephone dialing system” (ATDS) without his consent.
- The TCPA defines an ATDS as equipment with the capacity “to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator,” and “to dial such numbers.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1).
- Facebook contended that the phrase “using a random or sequential number generator” modifies both “store” and “produce,” so an ATDS must use such a generator to store numbers or to produce numbers.
- Duguid argued that the generator phrase modifies only “produce,” so equipment that can store numbers to be called (even from a set list) and dial them automatically would qualify.
- Facebook maintained that its notification system did not use a random or sequential number generator to store or produce numbers, even if it stored phone numbers in a database.
- The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to allege use of a random or sequential number generator.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, reading the statute to reach devices that can store numbers and dial them automatically, even if the numbers were not generated randomly or sequentially.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve disagreement over the reach of the TCPA’s ATDS definition.

## Issues

1. Does the TCPA’s definition of “automatic telephone dialing system” cover equipment that can store and automatically dial numbers from a list, even if it does not use a random or sequential number generator?
2. In § 227(a)(1)(A), does “using a random or sequential number generator” modify both “store” and “produce,” or only “produce”?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court held that “using a random or sequential number generator” modifies both “store” and “produce” in § 227(a)(1)(A).
- To qualify as an ATDS, equipment must have the capacity either (a) to store telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator, or (b) to produce telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial those numbers.
- The Court rejected the broader reading that would treat equipment as an ATDS merely because it can store numbers and dial them automatically.
- The Court reasoned that the statute’s text and structure point to a focus on random- or sequential-number dialing technology, not ordinary tools that dial from a stored list of known contacts.
- Justice Alito concurred in part and in the judgment, agreeing with the result while warning against overuse of interpretive canons.
- Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, concurred in the judgment, agreeing that Facebook’s system was not an ATDS under the proper reading of the text.

## Legal Principles

- In 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1)(A), the phrase “using a random or sequential number generator” applies to both verbs in the phrase “to store or produce telephone numbers to be called.”
- An ATDS requires the capacity to use a random or sequential number generator to store numbers to be called or to produce numbers to be called, plus the capacity to dial those numbers.
- Reading the statute to reach any device that stores and dials numbers would sweep in ordinary consumer devices and common calling functions, which the Court found inconsistent with the statutory text and context.
- Statutory context, including the harms Congress targeted in 1991, supports construing “autodialer” as aimed at random/sequential dialing technology rather than targeted messaging from curated lists.

## Conclusion

Facebook v. Duguid held that the TCPA’s autodialer restriction applies only to equipment that uses a random or sequential number generator to store or to produce telephone numbers to be called (and to dial them), so a system that merely stores numbers and sends automated texts from that list, without such number generation, does not qualify as an ATDS under § 227(a)(1).


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