Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid

Under 47 U.S.C. §227(a)(1)(A), an autodialer must have the capacity “to use a random or sequential number generator” to either “store or produce phone numbers” to be called.

Petitioner received automatic login-notification text messages for a Facebook account that was not his; Petitioner had never given Facebook his phone number.  Petitioner brought a class action against Facebook, alleging Facebook had violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 by operating an autodialer in violation of 47 U.S.C. §227(a)(1).  The District Court of the Northern District of California dismissed Petitioner’s complaint because he had failed to allege that Facebook had used an autodialer which sent messages to numbers “that were randomly or sequentially generated.”  The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and held that an autodialer need not use a random or sequential generator to store numbers.  On appeal, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s judgment, holding that in §227(a)(1)(A), the clause “using a random or sequential number generator” modifies both verbs, “store” and “produce.”  The Supreme Court, after examining the grammatical structure, statutory context, and legislative history of §227(a)(1)(A), determined that Congress’ definition requires an autodialer to use a random or sequential number generator whether storing or producing numbers to be called.  Facebook’s login notification system does not fall under this definition of an autodialer.  REVERSED and REMANDED.