Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 25 AUGUST 2021

Post-Facebook v. Duguid Litigation Roundup

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Contributor
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Manatt is a multidisciplinary, integrated national professional services firm known for quality and...

View firm profile
Explore more from Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

As part of Manatt's continuing monthly coverage of the aftermath of the Facebook v. Duguid decision and how district courts are applying it when determining whether a calling system...

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

As part of Manatt's continuing monthly coverage of the aftermath of the  Facebook v. Duguid decision and how district courts are applying it when determining whether a calling system meets the Supreme Court's newly clarified definition of an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), there have been several notable decisions since our last roundup. While many courts have continued to hold that a calling system must actually use (not just have a hypothetical capacity to use) a random or sequential number generator in order to qualify as an ATDS consistent with the Facebook holding and have dismissed such claims at the pleadings stage lacking such facts, the results have not been uniform.

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.

See more popular content from