From: telecomdigestsubmissions@remove-this.telecom-digest.org   
      
   by Caroline E. Oks (New Jersey)   
      
   In April 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a circuit split   
   interpreting the Telephone Consumer Protection Act's (TCPA) definition   
   of "automatic telephone dialing system" or (ATDS). In Facebook,   
   Inc. v. Duguid, the Court held that the clause "using a random or   
   sequential number generator" in the statutory definition of ATDS, 47   
   U.S.C. § 227(a)(1), modifies both "store" and "produce," thereby   
   "specifying how the equipment must either 'store' or 'produce'   
   telephone numbers." Accordingly, "a necessary feature of an autodialer   
   under § 227(a)(1)(A) is the capacity to use a random or sequential   
   number generator to either store or produce phone numbers to be   
   called." Duguid thus reversed the Ninth Circuit's interpretation that   
   the clause "using a random or sequential number generator" modifies   
   only "produce," such that a device could be an autodialer if it has   
   the capacity to store and automatically dial numbers, even if the   
   numbers are not generated by a random or sequential number   
   generator. Under Duguid, equipment that makes calls to   
   "targeted...numbers linked to specific accounts" are excluded from   
   liability under the TCPA.   
      
   https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/telecoms-mobile-cable-commun   
   cations/1093226/following-duguid-south-carolina-district-court-l   
   mits-reach-of-tcpa39s-autodialer-definition?email_access=on   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)