CEB Prac. Guide § 2B.23: ATDS

Subscribe to Consumer Finance

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Consumer Finance Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

In Brickman v. Meta (9th Cir. No. 21-16785),  the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is poised to rule on efforts to evade the SCOTUS' ruling in Duguid.  According to the Respondent's Brief, the issue is framed as: This appeal involves an effort to evade the consequences of binding Supreme Court precedent that squarely forecloses Plaintiff’s claim. The Telephone Consumer Protection… Read More

In In re Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, Consumer Act Litig., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141028, at *30-34 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2022), Judge Houston stayed a TCPA case based on an ATDS issue currently pending before the 9th Circuit in Brinkman. Plaintiffs seek a stay of this action pending the resolution of Brickman v. Facebook, Inc., currently before the Ninth… Read More

In Soliman v. Subway Franchisee Advert. Fund Tr., Ltd., No. 3:19-cv-592 (JAM), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126468, at *6-8 (D. Conn. July 18, 2022), Judge Meyer disposed of the argument that Subway's text message software was an ATDS. And under Soliman's reading, the Act would probably cover much more than mass dialing. As she admits, sequential number generation is "an… Read More

In Mina v. Red Robin Int'l, Inc., Civil Action No. 20-cv-00612-RM-NYW, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104423, at *10-16 (D. Colo. June 10, 2022), Judge Wang dismissed a TCPA case at the pleadings stage for absence of an ATDS under Duguid. [Defendant] maintains that Duguid does not foreclose a conclusion that the text messaging program used by Defendants constitutes an autodialer under… Read More

In Barnett v. First Nat'l Bank of Omaha, Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-337-CHB, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104029, at *5-8 (W.D. Ky. June 10, 2022), Judge Boom denied a motion to reconsider a finding that the TCPA defendant's LiveVox system was not an ATDS. In his Motion, Barnett claims that the Court failed to consider FNBO's use of the TWX system in… Read More

In Demesa v. Treasure Island, LLC, No. 2:18-cv-02007-JAD-NJK, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98511, at *8-9 (D. Nev. June 1, 2022), Judge Dorsey rejected a TCPA Plaintiff's attempted end-around Duguid, where the Plaintiff argued that a standard text message fell within section 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B)'s prohibition against using "artificial or prerecorded voice" without consent. DeMesa's alternative theory of liability fares no better.… Read More

In Eggleston v. Reward Zone USA LLC, No. 2:20-cv-01027-SVW-KS, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20928, at *11-14 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2022), Judge Wilson dismissed a TCPA "pre-recorded voice" case premised on the theory that the standard text messages that she received did not constitute a "voice" under the TCPA. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant's text messages violated § 227(b) because… Read More

In Pascal v. Concentra, Inc., No. 19-cv-02559-JCS, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 239583, at *23-30 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2021), Judge Spero granted summary judgment to a TCPA defendant on the basis that no ATDS was used. Based on the undisputed facts relating to Textedly's functionality, Plaintiff does not dispute that the text messages at issue in this case were not… Read More

In Raphael Aus. v. Alorica, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-05019-ODW (PVCx), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 240677, at *5-6 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2021), Judge Wright dismissed a TCPA claim but allowed a Rosenthal Act claim to proceed.  As to the TCPA claim, Judge Wright held: The parties dispute whether alleging that a system calls a prepopulated list of customers or clients is… Read More

In In re Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, No. 11md02295 JAH - BGS, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216747, at *32-34 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2021), Judge Houston denied TCPA plaintiffs' request for further discovery from the dialer manufacturer on whether its product was an ATDS. On May 27, 2021, this Court granted Plaintiffs' motion seeking to reopen discovery for the limited… Read More

In Brickman v. Facebook, Inc., No. 16-cv-00751-WHO, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175700, at *10-12 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 15, 2021), Judge Orrick dismissed a TCPA case at the pleadings stage. I recognize that some courts have considered the determination of whether a plaintiff has plausibly shown the use of an ATDS covered by Duguid to be more appropriately resolved on summary… Read More

In Borden v. Efinancial, LLC, No. C19-1430JLR, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153086, at *13-16 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 13, 2021), Judge Robart dismissed a TCPA case based on Duguid.   In this context, Mr. Borden's allegations are insufficient to establish that eFinancial's system is an ATDS. He alleges that eFinancial's system uses a sequential number generator to select which stored phone numbers to… Read More

In Hufnus v. Donotpay, Inc., No. 20-cv-08701-VC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118325, at *1-5 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2021), Judge Chhabria dismissed a TCPA claim on the basis that defendant did not call using an ATDS. DoNotPay's motion to dismiss is granted. To state a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), Hufnus must allege that DoNotPay sent messages using… Read More

In Timms v. Usaa Fed. Sav. Bank, No. 3:18-cv-01495-SAL, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108083, at *8 (D.S.C. June 9, 2021), Judge Lydon ruled against a TCPA plaintiff on whether an aspect dialer was an ATDS after Duguid.  Defendant's Motion submits that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the TCPA claim because it did not use an ATDS… Read More

In Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid (No. 19-511) (2021), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that The question before the Court is whether that definition encompasses equipment that can “store” and dial telephone numbers, even if the device does not “us[e] a random or sequential number generator.” It does not. To qualify as an “automatic telephone dialing system,” a device… Read More

In In Stoutt v. Travis Credit Union, No. 2:20-cv-01280 WBS AC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57392 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2021), Judge Schubb certified the Creasy TCPA issue for review by the 9th Circuit.  The facts were as follows: In this putative class action, plaintiff Shawntel Stoutt claims that defendant Travis Credit Union violated § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the Telephone Consumer Protection… Read More

In Ewing v. Freedom Forever Ltd. Liab. Co., No. 20-cv-880-JLS (AHG), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53561 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2021), Judge Sammartino dismissed part of a TCPA claim, but let the balance proceed.   Judge Sammartino held that some of the calls were barred by the statute of limitations, but still remained relevant. Defendants argue that "most of Plaintiff's… Read More

1 2 3 11