Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid

Noah Duguid received several login-notification text messages from Facebook alerting him to activity on an account linked to his phone number, even though he had never created a Facebook account. Duguid sued Facebook in a putative class action, alleging that the company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) to send these texts without his consent. The district court dismissed the complaint, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that a system which automatically dials stored numbers qualifies as an ATDS. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split over the definition of an ATDS.

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that to qualify as an ATDS under the TCPA, a device must have the capacity either to store a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator or to produce a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator. The Court found that Facebook's notification system did not use such technology, and therefore did not violate the TCPA.

The central issue was whether the phrase "using a random or sequential number generator" in the TCPA's definition of an ATDS modifies both verbs "store" and "produce," or only the verb "produce." This determined whether equipment that merely stores and dials telephone numbers, without using a random or sequential number generator, qualifies as an ATDS under the statute.

The decision significantly narrowed the scope of the TCPA, making it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring class action lawsuits based on the use of automated dialing equipment. It was a major victory for businesses that use predictive dialing and automated text messaging systems. Consumer advocates criticized the ruling as a blow to anti-robocall protections, warning that it would lead to a surge in unwanted automated calls and texts. The Court's opinion emphasized that any update to the statute to address modern technology is the responsibility of Congress, not the judiciary.