Restaurants Say Reservation Confirmations Are Not Nuisance Robocalls
WASHINGTON – The Restaurant Law Center wants the Supreme Court to overturn a 9th Circuit ruling that effectively classified calls and text messages to confirm dining reservations as nuisance robocalls.
The Center, an industry association representing about 1 million restaurant and food service outlets across the country, contend the 9th Circuit ruling in Facebook v. Duguid creates an “untenable and abusive legal landscape for legitimate businesses and consumers who request to communicate using modern technology.”
The plaintiff in the underlying case, Noah Duguid, sued Facebook after the social media giant sent him numerous automatic text messages without his consent.
Duguid said he was not on Facebook, and yet for 10 months he was repeatedly alerted by text message that someone was attempting to access his nonexistent Facebook account.
Duguid sued Facebook for violating a provision of the Telephone and Consumer Protection Act of 1991 that forbids calls placed using an automated telephone dialing system or autodialer.
A federal district court dismissed the lawsuit, accepting Facebook’s explanation that the equipment it used to send text messages to Duguid was not an ATDS within the meaning of the statute.
But the 9th Circuit reversed the lower court ruling, concluding that Facebook’s equipment plausibly fell under the definition of an ATDS because it had “the capacity to store numbers to be called and to dial such numbers automatically.”
In July, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, specifically to address a question at the heart of a nationwide circuit split: “Whether the definition of [an automatic telephone dialing system] … 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.’”
Currently, the 3rd, 7th, and 11th Circuits require number generation in order for technology to qualify as an ATDS. The 2nd and 9th Circuits, in contrast, have construed the statutory text more broadly and do not require number generation.
In its Amicus Brief, the Restaurant Law Center argues the resulting flurry of lawsuits and legal confusion caused by the circuit court split have forced restaurants and other retailers to choose between the types of communications valued by consumers or “exposing themselves to potentially crushing TCPA liability.”
“Rejecting the 9th Circuit’s interpretation will enable retailers and restaurants to send customers the information they want and need without facing the inherent risk of arbitrary and massive liability for doing so,” Restaurant Law Center Executive Director Angelo Amador said in a written statement.
“This case is not about robocalls. It is about important communications that consumers want like reminders and confirmations from familiar businesses,” Amador said.
“These types of communications, including those requested by consumers, are distinct from the types of intrusive robocalls that triggered Congress to write the TCPA. Overturning this case will enable customers to communicate with businesses using modern technology and will enable businesses to do so without threat of frivolous lawsuits,” he added.
In The News
WASHINGTON - Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., told the Federalist Society in a keynote address Thursday night the coronavirus pandemic has led to "previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty." "I am not diminishing the severity of the virus's threat to public health," Alito continued in a... Read More
WASHINGTON -- So much for the new conservative majority of the Supreme Court dismantling the Affordable Care Act. On Tuesday, during oral arguments for California v. Texas, one of this term's most anticipated cases, two members of that majority, suggested they're not inclined to strike down... Read More
WASHINGTON — This morning, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on a legal challenge seeking to overturn the Affordable Care Act. This third major challenge to the ACA heard by the Supreme Court, Texas v. California seeks to decide whether Congress, by eliminating the penalty... Read More
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court with new Justice Amy Coney Barrett hears oral argument Tuesday in a case that threatens to wipe out the 2010 health care law, likely the term's most consequential case, under a political spotlight that rarely shines brighter on justices who would rather stay out of it.... Read More
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday set aside an appeals court ruling by a panel of conservative judges that held an injured police officer could sue and win damages from the leader of a Black Lives Matter protest rally. The case had raised alarms among civil libertarians, who said it... Read More
WASHINGTON — Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined her new colleagues on the Supreme Court Monday, participating in oral arguments for the first time. The cases on the docket Monday were no head-turners. The first, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club Inc., concerned public disclosure... Read More