Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-511_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 3

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (2021) 

3 

Syllabus 

naturally relate in context.  But that canon is less suited here because 
there is only one consequent to match to two antecedents, and in any
event,  the  modifying  phrase  naturally  relates  to  both  antecedents. 
Third, Duguid broadly construes the TCPA’s privacy-protection goals.
But despite Congress’ general concern about intrusive telemarketing
practices,  Congress  ultimately  chose  a  precise  autodialer  definition. 
Finally, Duguid argues that a random or sequential number generator 
is a “senescent technology,” i.e., one likely to become outdated quickly. 
That may or may not be the case, but either way, this Court cannot 
rewrite the TCPA to update it for modern technology.  Congress’ cho-
sen definition of an autodialer requires that the equipment in question 
must use a random or sequential number generator.  That definition 
excludes  equipment  like  Facebook’s  login  notification  system,  which 
does not use such technology.  Pp. 8–11. 

926 F. 3d 1146, reversed and remanded. 

SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which  ROBERTS, 
C.  J.,  and  THOMAS,  BREYER,  KAGAN,  GORSUCH,  KAVANAUGH,  and  BAR-
RETT, JJ., joined.  ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.