Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 28 DECEMBER 2020

Monthly TCPA Digest — December 2020

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Contributor
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Mintz is a litigation powerhouse and business accelerator serving leaders in life sciences, private...

View firm profile
Explore more from Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

We are pleased to present our latest Monthly TCPA Digest, providing insights and news related to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

United StatesConsumer Protection

We are pleased to present our latest Monthly TCPA Digest, providing insights and news related to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). This month we report on the oral argument at the Supreme Court in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, et al., a case about the statutory definition of an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) under the TCPA. The Facebook case arose from a circuit split over whether a device that stores and automatically dials telephone numbers without sequentially or randomly generating those numbers can be an ATDS, as determined by the Second, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits. The Third, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits, in contrast, held that an ATDS must be able to perform random or sequential number generation. The Justices and advocates sparred about the language in the statute and how it should be applied to modern technology.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from