Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 04 JANUARY 2016

"Human Intervention" A Question Of Fact For Jury

A recent opinion from the Southern District of California suggests that now there is no bright-line rule regarding what qualifies as human intervention for purposes of determining whether an autodialer was used.

United StatesPrivacy

A recent opinion from the Southern District of California suggests that now there is no bright-line rule regarding what qualifies as human intervention for purposes of determining whether an autodialer was used. In denying a motion for summary judgment filed by Yahoo, the court found that:

"there are genuine issues of fact as to whether the [Messenger platform] is an ATDS. A reasonable jury could conclude that the welcome text is produced and sent by an ATDS as the term is defined in the TCPA."

Zeroing in on the FCC's recent order describing the ATDS as "case-by-case" decision, the court entirely ignored the crux of the FCC's directive on autodialers: "the basic functions of an autodialer are to dial numbers without human intervention and to dial thousands of numbers in a short period of time." Yahoo's Messenger platform required the users to initiate the transmission of each welcome message, and the platform could not send thousands of welcome messages in a

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