Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid

Facebook Inc. v. Duguid
Argued December 8, 2020
Decided April 1, 2021
Full case nameFacebook, Inc. v. Noah Duguid, et al.
Docket no.19-511
Citations592 U.S. 395 (more)
141 S. Ct. 1163
209 L. Ed. 2d 272
Case history
Prior
  • Motion to dismiss granted, Duguid v. Facebook, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-00985, 2017 WL 635117 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2017)
  • Reversed and remanded, 926 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2019)
  • Cert. granted, Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 141 S. Ct. 193 (July 9, 2020)
SubsequentRemanded, Duguid v. Facebook, Inc., 847 F. App'x 464 (9th Cir. 2021)
Questions presented
Whether the definition of automatic telephone dialing system in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 encompasses any device that can "store" and "automatically dial" telephone numbers, even if the device does not "us[e] a random or sequential number generator".
Holding
To qualify as an "automatic telephone dialing system" under the TCPA, a device must have the capacity either to store a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator, or to produce a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan · Neil Gorsuch
Brett Kavanaugh · Amy Coney Barrett
Case opinions
MajoritySotomayor, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Breyer, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
ConcurrenceAlito (in judgment)
Laws applied
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA)

Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the definition and function of auto dialers under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) to send unsolicited text messages. In a unanimous decision based on statutory interpretation of the TCPA, the Supreme Court ruled that auto dialers are defined by their function to either store or produce telephone numbers from a random or sequential number generator.


Developed by StudentB