Legal Sidebari

What Is an Autodialer (Part II)?
The Supreme Court (Mostly) Resolves
a Robocall Enforcement Question
April 28, 2021
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) makes it illegal to call any wireless phone number using
an “automatic telephone dialing system” (an autodialer) or an artificial or prerecorded voice. While the
text of the TCPA defines “automatic telephone dialing system,” uncertainty has emerged over how this
definition—written in 1991—applies to a technological landscape that is far different today from what
existed at the time the TCPA became law.
On April 1, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, reversing
the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of the term “automatic telephone dialing system” used in the TCPA. The
TCPA defines an automatic telephone dialing system as “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.” The Ninth Circuit had held that the qualifying phrase “random or sequential number
generator” only applies to the word “produce.” Consequently, according to the Ninth Circuit, the
definition includes “devices with the capacity to dial stored numbers automatically,” even if those devices
do not have the capacity to store or produce numbers using a random or sequential number generator. The
Supreme Court disagreed. It held that an automatic telephone dialing system is one that has the capacity
to either store a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator or produce a telephone
number using a random or sequential number generator.
This Legal Sidebar briefly discusses the Supreme Court’s decision and considerations for Congress
relating to the TCPA’s autodialer definition. For a more detailed background on the autodialer definition
and prior legal developments, see this earlier Legal Sidebar.
Background
Facebook offers its users the ability to receive automated text message notifications when a user’s
account is accessed from a new device. Despite not being a Facebook user, Noah Duguid received these
text message notifications repeatedly. Duguid asked Facebook to stop sending the notifications by text
message and email but he continued to receive messages. Duguid then sued Facebook for violating the
TCPA, specifically alleging that Facebook sent the text messages using an automatic telephone dialing
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10594
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

---

Congressional Research Service
2
system in violation of the law. In response, Facebook argued that its automated notification system is not
an autodialer under the TCPA because it does not use randomly or sequentially generated numbers.
After the trial court dismissed Duguid’s lawsuit, the Ninth Circuit held on appeal that the lawsuit could
proceed. Relying on earlier Ninth Circuit precedent, the court held that the TCPA’s autodialer definition
includes equipment capable of storing numbers, even if the numbers are not randomly or sequentially
generated. Following the Ninth Circuit’s decision, a circuit split emerged: the Second Circuit followed the
Ninth Circuit’s interpretation, while the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits did not, holding instead that
“using a random or sequential number generator” modifies both “store” and “produce.”
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and held that an autodialer 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.” Writing for a unanimous court,
Justice Sotomayor focused on the TCPA’s text, grammar, and punctuation to determine that the clause
“using a random or sequential number generator” modifies both “storing” and “producing” telephone
numbers. Justice Sotomayor also voiced concerns that a broad autodialer definition could apply to
“virtually all modern cell phones, which have the capacity to ‘store . . . telephone numbers to be called’
and ‘dial such numbers.’” She concluded by again emphasizing that the Supreme Court “must interpret
what Congress wrote, which is that ‘using a random or sequential number generator’ modifies both ‘store’
and ‘produce.’”
Considerations for Congress
While the Supreme Court’s decision resolves a circuit split over what functions an autodialer must
perform, it does not address what it means for equipment to have the “capacity” to perform those
functions. The Second, Third, and D.C. Circuits have all interpreted “capacity” to refer to a device’s
capabilities at the time of the offending call. On the other hand, the Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits
have focused on an autodialer’s functions, rather than its capacity to perform those functions. Some TCPA
practitioners have speculated that future court decisions may hinge on how courts apply the “capacity”
language in the TCPA’s autodialer definition.
Some lawmakers have already expressed a desire to amend the TCPA in response to the Supreme Court’s
decision. Should Congress seek to modify the TCPA’s autodialer definition, one consideration may be the
specificity the statute uses to define an autodialer’s technology. The Supreme Court was unwilling to
extend the TCPA’s autodialer definition beyond equipment that uses a “random or sequential number
generator,” though the Federal Communications Commission has interpreted the autodialer definition to
include other technologies (such as predictive dialers), reasoning that technological changes in
telemarketing may have rendered random or sequential number generation obsolete. An autodialer
definition delineated by reference to a specific technology may require future amendments if callers can
employ new technology to circumvent the TCPA’s restrictions.

---

Congressional Research Service
3
Author Information

Eric N. Holmes

Legislative Attorney




Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

LSB10594 · VERSION 1 · NEW

---