Supreme Court held that the TCPA’s federal-debts exemption is a content-based law that violated the First Amendment and severed the exemption from the TCPA.
A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Duran v. La Boom Disco, Inc. has interrupted the emerging consensus around the definition of “autodialer” in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). On April 7, 2020, a Second Circuit panel joined a Ninth Circuit panel in adopting a broad reading of the statutory definition of “automatic telephone dialing system” (ATDS), commonly referred to as an autodialer.
Hospitals, health care providers, health officials, and other government officials may use automated calls and text messages to communicate information about COVID-19 when “necessary to protect the health and safety of citizens,” without violating the TCPA. The FCC released the Declaratory Ruling on its own motion, without being prompted to do so by a regulated party.
The U.S. Courts of Appeal increasingly agree on how to interpret the definition of “automatic telephone dialing system” (“ATDS” or “autodialer”) in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). The Seventh Circuit held that an “autodialer” must use “a random or sequential number generator” to either store or produce numbers.
The key issue is how to interpret ambiguous language in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s (TCPA) definition of “automatic telephone dialing system.” The Eleventh Circuit panel’s decision in Glasser rejects that trend, joins the D.C. Circuit in adopting a much narrower view of the TCPA’s scope, and establishes a clear circuit split with the Ninth Circuit.
Today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted a Declaratory Ruling and Order clarifying a number of unsettled issues under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The decision, which has not yet been released, is in response to more than twenty petitions seeking clarification. The vote was 3-2 along party lines and is expected to have
Earlier this month in Leyse v. Bank of America, another federal district court judge ruled in favor of the defendant on a key Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) issue – confirming that “called party” means the intended recipient of the call. As background, the TCPA (47 U.S.C. § 227) requires callers to obtain “prior express consent”
A new federal district court decision supports industry arguments that innovative communications technologies should not be considered “automatic telephone dialing systems” (autodialers) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). It also provides some helpful language on TCPA liability issues for companies that initiate non-telemarketing, informational calls and messages. The TCPA prohibits parties from, inter