Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.

Facebook v. Duguid

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Facebook v. Duguid
Term: 2020
Important Dates
Argument: December 8, 2020
Decided: April 1, 2021
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
9-0
Majority
Sonia Sotomayor • Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett
Concurring
Samuel Alito

Facebook v. Duguid is a case argued on December 8, 2020, during the court's October 2020-2021 term.

In a unanimous ruling, the court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that a device must be able to store or produce a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator in order to be considered an automated telephone dialing system under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Samuel Alito filed a concurring opinion.[1] Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Facebook, a social media site, allows users to receive text message alerts when their accounts are accessed from unknown devices or browsers. Noah Duguid did not have a Facebook account and never consented to receive those alerts. He sued Facebook after receiving multiple text messages and attempting to opt out. He claimed Facebook violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act's ban on calling or sending text messages to cell phones using an automated telephone dialing system (ATDS). The U.S. district court dismissed the lawsuit. On appeal, the 9th Circuit reversed the district court's ruling.[2][3]
  • The issues: It concerned the definition of an automated telephone dialing system in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
  • The questions presented: "Whether the definition of ATDS in the TCPA 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.'"[4]
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. You can review the lower court's opinion here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • April 1, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings
    • December 8, 2020: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
    • July 9, 2020: The court agreed to hear the case.
    • October 17, 2019: Facebook, Inc., the petitioner, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • June 13, 2019: The 9th Circuit reversed the district court's ruling and remanded the case.

    Background

    Telephone Consumer Protection Act

    The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) prohibits calls or text messages to cell phones using an automated telephone dialing system (ATDS).[5] The act defines an ATDS as:

    “ equipment which has the capacity—
    (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and

    (B) to dial such numbers.[6]
    		 ”
    —TCPA (47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1))

    Factual history

    Facebook, a social media site where users create profiles and share content, allows users to opt in to certain security features. One of those features allows users to provide Facebook with a cell phone number so the user can receive text message alerts when their account is accessed from an unknown device or browser.[2]

    Noah Duguid, the respondent, did not have a Facebook account and never consented to receiving text message alerts from Facebook. From January to October 2014, Duguid received unsolicited text messages from Facebook saying an unknown user was trying to access Duguid's nonexistent account. Duguid replied to the texts and emailed Facebook in an attempt to stop receiving the messages.[3]

    After continuing to receive the messages, Duguid sued Facebook. He claimed the company sent text messages using an ATDS in violation of the TCPA. Duguid sued on behalf of (1) people who received a message from Facebook without providing their cell phone number to the company and (2) people who received messages from Facebook after notifying the company they wished to opt out of the message alerts.[3]

    Litigation

    The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed Duguid's lawsuit on the grounds that he did not adequately allege Facebook violated the TCPA.[3]

    On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed the lower court's ruling, holding Duguid adequately alleged a TCPA violation.[3] The 9th Circuit held "that the statutory definition of ATDS is not limited to devices with the capacity to call numbers produced by a ‘random or sequential number generator,’ but also includes devices with the capacity to dial stored numbers automatically."[2]

    In its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Facebook wrote, "In reaching that conclusion, the Ninth Circuit expressly disagreed with the Third Circuit’s conclusion 'that a device must be able to generate random or sequential numbers in order to qualify as an ATDS.'"[2]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following question to the court:[4]

    Questions presented:
    “ Whether the definition of ATDS in the TCPA 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."[6] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[7]



    Transcript

    Outcome

    In a unanimous ruling, the court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that a device must be able to store or produce a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator in order to be considered an automated telephone dialing system under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Samuel Alito filed a concurring opinion.[1]

    Opinion

    In her opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote:[1]

    “ The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) proscribes abusive telemarketing practices by, among other things, imposing restrictions on making calls with an “automatic telephone dialing system.” As defined by the TCPA, an “automatic telephone dialing system” is a piece of equipment with the capacity both “to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator,” and to dial those numbers. 47 U. S. C. §227(a)(1). 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 must have the capacity either to store a telephone number using a random or sequential generator or to produce a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator.


    ... We hold that 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. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.[6]

    		”
    —Justice Sonia Sotomayor

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Samuel Alito filed a concurring opinion.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Alito wrote:[1]

    “ I agree with the Court that an “automatic telephone dialing system,” as defined in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, must have the capacity to “store . . . telephone numbers” by “using a random or sequential number generator.” 47 U. S. C. §227(a)(1) I also agree with much of the Court's analysis and the analysis in several Court of Appeals decisions on this question. See Gadelhak v. AT&T Servs., Inc., 950 F. 3d 458, 463–468 (CA7 2020); Glasser v. Hilton Grand Vacations Co., 948 F. 3d 1301, 1306–1312 (CA11 2020).


    I write separately to address the Court’s heavy reliance on one of the canons of interpretation that have come to play a prominent role in our statutory interpretation cases. Cataloged in a treatise written by our former colleague Antonin Scalia and Bryan A. Garner, counsel for respondents in this case, these canons are useful tools, but it is important to keep their limitations in mind. This may be especially true with respect to the particular canon at issue here, the “series-qualifier” canon.

    ... Appellate judges spend virtually every working hour speaking, listening to, reading, or writing English prose. Statutes are written in English prose, and interpretation is not a technical exercise to be carried out by mechanically applying a set of arcane rules. Canons of interpretation can help in figuring out the meaning of troublesome statutory language, but if they are treated like rigid rules, they can lead us astray. When this Court describes canons as rules or quotes canons while omitting their caveats and limitations, we only encourage the lower courts to relegate statutory interpretation to a series of if-then computations. No reasonable reader interprets texts that way.

    For these reasons, I respectfully concur in the judgment.[6]

    		”
    —Justice Samuel Alito

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2020-2021

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 5, 2020. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[8]

    The court issued 67 opinions during its 2020-2021 term. Two cases were decided in one consolidated opinion. Ten cases were decided without argument. Click here for more information on the court's opinions.

    The court agreed to hear 62 cases during its 2020-2021 term. Of those, 12 were originally scheduled for the 2019-2020 term but were delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Five cases were removed from the argument calendar.


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 U.S. Supreme Court, Facebook v. Duguid, decided April 1, 2021
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Supreme Court of the United States, Facebook v. Duguid, "Petition for a writ of certiorari," accessed July 13, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, Duguid v. Facebook, decided June 13, 2019
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Supreme Court of the United States, Facebook v. Duguid, "Questions presented," accessed July 13, 2020
    5. ↑ The TCPA exists in U.S. law under 47 U.S.C. § 227.
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," accessed December 11, 2020
    8. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court," accessed April 20, 2015
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Facebook_v._Duguid&oldid=9117196"