Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-511_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

4 

FACEBOOK, INC. v. DUGUID 

Opinion of the Court 

Facebook  moved  to  dismiss  the  suit,  arguing  primarily
that  Duguid  failed  to  allege  that  Facebook  used  an  auto-
dialer  because  he  did  not  claim  Facebook  sent  text  mes-
sages to numbers that were randomly or sequentially gen-
erated.  Rather,  Facebook  argued,  Duguid  alleged  that 
Facebook  sent  targeted,  individualized  texts  to  numbers
linked to specific accounts.  The U. S. District Court for the 
Northern  District  of  California  agreed  and  dismissed 
Duguid’s  amended  complaint  with  prejudice.    2017  WL 
635117, *4–*5 (Feb. 16, 2017). 

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed.  As  relevant  here,  the  Ninth  Circuit  held  that 
Duguid had stated a claim under the TCPA by alleging that
Facebook’s notification system automatically dialed stored 
numbers.  An autodialer, the Court of Appeals held, need 
not be able to use a random or sequential generator to store
numbers; it need only have the capacity to “ ‘store numbers
to  be  called’ ”  and  “ ‘to  dial  such  numbers  automatically.’ ”  
926 F. 3d 1146, 1151 (2019) (quoting Marks v. Crunch San 
Diego, LLC, 904 F. 3d 1041, 1053 (CA9 2018)).

We  granted  certiorari  to  resolve  a  conflict  among  the 
Courts  of  Appeals  regarding  whether  an  autodialer  must 
have the capacity to generate random or sequential phone 
numbers.4  591 U. S. ___ (2020).  We now reverse the Ninth 
Circuit’s judgment. 

II 

Section 227(a)(1) defines an autodialer as: 

“equipment which has the capacity— 

—————— 

4 Compare 926 F. 3d 1146, 1151–1152 (CA9 2019); Duran v. La Boom 
Disco,  Inc.,  955  F. 3d  279,  290  (CA2  2020);  and  Allan  v.  Pennsylvania 
Higher  Educ.  Assistance  Agency,  968  F. 3d  567,  579–580  (CA6  2020), 
with Gadelhak v. AT&T Servs., Inc., 950 F. 3d 458, 468 (CA7 2020) (Bar-
rett, J., for the court); Glasser v. Hilton Grand Vacations Co., 948 F. 3d 
1301, 1306–1307 (CA11 2020); and Dominguez v. Yahoo, Inc., 894 F. 3d 
116, 119 (CA3 2018).