Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-511_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 15

12 

FACEBOOK, INC. v. DUGUID 

Opinion of the Court 

at 39 (internal quotation marks omitted).

To begin with, Duguid greatly overstates the effects of ac-
cepting Facebook’s interpretation.  The statute separately
prohibits calls using “an artificial or prerecorded voice” to
various  types  of  phone  lines,  including  home  phones  and 
cell  phones,  unless  an  exception  applies.    See  47  U. S. C. 
§§227(b)(1)(A)  and  (B).    Our  decision  does  not  affect  that 
prohibition.    In  any  event,  Duguid’s  quarrel  is  with  Con-
gress, which did not define an autodialer as malleably as he 
would have liked.  “Senescent” as a number generator (and
perhaps the TCPA itself ) may be, that is no justification for 
eschewing  the  best  reading  of  §227(a)(1)(A).    This  Court 
must interpret what Congress wrote, which is that “using a 
random  or  sequential  number  generator”  modifies  both
“store” and “produce.” 

* 

* 

* 
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 re-
versed,  and  the  case  is  remanded  for  further  proceedings
consistent with this opinion. 

It is so ordered.