From: malQRMassimilation@gmail.com   
      
   By Christine M. Reilly (Los Angeles) , Alexandra N. Krasovec (Los   
   Angeles), John W. McGuinness (Los Angeles), A. Paul Heeringa   
   (Chicago), Cody A. DeCamp (Los Angeles), Madelaine A. Newcomb   
   (Chicago) and Tina P. Lapsia (Washington, DC)   
      
   As part of Manatt's continuing monthly coverage of the aftermath of   
   Facebook v. Duguid and how district courts are applying it to   
   determine 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), we report on some   
   notable decisions since our last roundup. While the results remain   
   somewhat mixed, a growing number of federal courts (if not a majority)   
   are adopting Facebook and holding that use of a random or sequential   
   number generator is a necessary prerequisite to an ATDS finding. At   
   the district court level, defendants have generally continued to fare   
   well under the new ATDS standard both at the pleadings and the summary   
   judgment stage. These courts are also increasing rejecting what some   
   have called the "Footnote 7" argument—referring to footnote 7 in the   
   Facebook decision, where the Supreme Court suggested in dicta that   
   randomly or sequentially selecting numbers from a predetermined list   
   might qualify as an ATDS—with judges focusing on the generation, not   
   the selection, of numbers.   
      
   https://www.mondaq.com/article/news/1290104?q=1803232&n=722&tp=2&tlk=9&lk=24   
      
   --   
   (Please remove QRM for direct replies)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)