06e197db   
   From: noloader@gmail.com   
      
   Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Facebook v.   
   Duguid—a significant case potentially limiting the reach of the   
   Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). Facebook will resolve a   
   circuit split over what qualifies as an automatic telephone dialing   
   system (“ATDS”) under the TCPA.   
      
   The TCPA makes it unlawful to call a wireless phone using an ATDS,   
   unless the called party has consented to receive such calls. The   
   statute defines an ATDS as “equipment which has the capacity—(A) to   
   store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or   
   sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.” 47 U.S.C.   
   § 227(a)(1). The question presented in Facebook is whether this   
   statutory definition requires that the equipment use a random or   
   sequential number generator to both “store” and “produce” telephone   
   numbers.   
      
   Famous grammar expert and lawyer Bryan Garner argued the plaintiff’s   
   position. He asserted the phrase “using a random or sequential number   
   generator” modifies only the verb “to produce,” but not the verb “to   
   store” in the definition based on principles of grammar and statutory   
   construction. Under this theory, the ATDS definition covers systems   
   that store or produce numbers to be dialed automatically. Plaintiff   
   also asserted that Facebook’s interpretation would destroy consumers’   
   privacy, drastically limit the TCPA’s scope, and allow the deluge of   
   unwanted robocalls to continue because the TCPA will exclude systems   
   that automatically dial stored numbers but do not employ number   
   generators to store them – which encompasses most systems.   
      
   Facebook’s attorney, former Solicitor General Paul Clement, argued   
   that under ordinary rules of grammar and canons of construction, the   
   phrase “using a random or sequential number generator” cannot be   
   decoupled from the verb “store” but instead modifies both “store” and   
   “produce.” Facebook warned that Plaintiff’s interpretation converts a   
   statute designed to target the specialized technologies of   
   telemarketers that posed distinct risks of tying up emergency numbers   
   or business lines into one that penalizes wrong numbers from nearly   
   everyone who places a phone call.   
      
   https://www.natlawreview.com/article/supreme-court-hears-oral-ar   
   ument-highly-anticipated-case-addressing-reach-telephone   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)