Facebook Inc. v. Duguid | |
---|---|
Argued December 8, 2020 Decided April 1, 2021 | |
Full case name | Facebook, Inc. v. Noah Duguid, et al. |
Docket no. | 19-511 |
Citations | 592 U.S. 395 (more) 141 S. Ct. 1163 209 L. Ed. 2d 272 |
Case history | |
Prior | |
Subsequent | Remanded, 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 | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Sotomayor, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Breyer, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett |
Concurrence | Alito (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.