Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-511_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 13

10 

FACEBOOK, INC. v. DUGUID 

Opinion of the Court 

mately comes up short.  It is true that, as a matter of ordi-
nary  parlance,  it  is  odd  to  say  that  a  piece  of  equipment 
“stores” numbers using a random number “generator.”  But 
it is less odd as a technical matter.  Indeed, as early as 1988, 
the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office issued patents for 
devices that used a random number generator to store num-
bers to be called later (as opposed to using a number gener-
ator for immediate dialing).7  Brief for Professional Associ-
ation for Customer Engagement et al. as Amici Curiae 15– 
21.  At any rate, Duguid’s interpretation is contrary to the 
ordinary reading of the text and, by classifying almost all 
modern cell phones as autodialers, would produce an out-
come that makes even less sense. 

Duguid’s reliance on the distributive canon fails for simi-
lar reasons.  That canon provides that “[w]here a sentence
contains  several  antecedents  and  several  consequents,”
courts  should  “read  them  distributively  and  apply  the
words  to  the  subjects  which,  by  context,  they  seem  most
properly  to  relate.”    2A  Singer,  Sutherland  Statutes  and 
Statutory Construction §47:26, at 448.  Set aside for a mo-
ment  that  the  canon’s  relevance  is  highly  questionable 
given  there  are  two  antecedents  (store  and  produce)  but 
only one consequent modifier (using a random or sequential 

—————— 

7 Duguid argues that such a device would necessarily “produce” num-
bers  using  the  same  generator  technology,  meaning  “store  or”  in 
§227(a)(1)(A) is superfluous.  “It is no superfluity,” however, for Congress 
to include both functions in the autodialer definition so as to clarify the 
domain of prohibited devices.  BFP v. Resolution Trust Corporation, 511 
U. S. 531, 544, n. 7 (1994).  For instance, an autodialer might use a ran-
dom  number  generator  to  determine  the  order  in  which  to  pick  phone 
numbers from a preproduced list.  It would then store those numbers to 
be dialed at a later time.  See Brief for Professional Association for Cus-
tomer Engagement et al. as Amici Curiae 19.  In any event, even if the 
storing  and  producing  functions  often  merge,  Congress may  have  “em-
ployed a belt and suspenders approach” in writing the statute.  Atlantic 
Richfield Co. v. Christian, 590 U. S. ___, ___, n. 5 (2020) (slip op., at 10, 
n. 5).