Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-511_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

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

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to 
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that 
corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 19–511 
_________________ 

FACEBOOK, INC., PETITIONER v. 
NOAH DUGUID, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

[April 1, 2021]

 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court. 
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA)
proscribes abusive telemarketing practices by, among other 
things, imposing restrictions on making calls with an “au-
tomatic  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 tele-
phone 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 ran-
dom or sequential number generator.”  It does not.  To qual-
ify  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 tel-
ephone number using a random or sequential number gen-
erator.