Source: https://www.ontariosystems.com/resources/how-the-u-s-supreme-court-just-might-change-your-dialing-world/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 17:10:47+00:00

Document:
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) litigation is hot. Fueled by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision last March in ACA International v. FCC, callers of all types are being sued and cases before all courts are being appealed faster than we can spell certiorari. Why? Because the stakes are high.
First Comes Confusion: ACA v. FCC left us with little to no definition of an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS). In effect, the 2nd Circuit’s decision was a time machine that threw us back to the late 90’s – a time when debt collectors were exempt by rule from the TCPA and life was good. For many, the decision felt like a win, but the Monday morning quarterbacks quickly realized the only thing ACA v. FCC really accomplished was to create even more confusion and ambiguity in the law. By casting aside the FCC’s 2003, 2008, 2012 and 2015 orders interpreting the definition of an ATDS, ACA v. FCC basically left consumers and businesses alike wondering if they would even know an ATDS if they saw one.
Along Came Crunch: On November 7, 2018, in the closely-followed case Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC, No. 14-56834 (9th Cir.), the 9th Circuit became the third appellate court to address the in the wake of ACA v. FCC. Departing from the 2nd and 3rd Circuits, the Mark’s Court adopted yet another definition of ATDS. Rather than interpreting the statutory definition of ATDS as a device that can store or produce random or sequential numbers and to dial such numbers [as did the 2nd and 3rd Circuits]; the Mark’s court held any device which can store and dial numbers to a consumer’s mobile number is an ATDS.
Mark’s basically skipped over the words in the statutory definition pertaining to random or sequential number generators and ruled equipment that stores and dials telephone numbers from a list, regardless of whether those numbers were randomly or sequentially generated, is an ATDS, thus classifying the common smart phone an ATDS. It’s terribly disappointing the 2nd Circuit did not take the time to define the word “store” as used in the statute. None the less, Crunch San Diego appealed. The 9th Circuit denied its petition and sent Crunch on its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Author’s Explanation: Huge conflict among courts of appeals and courts of last resort or some court somewhere came up with some goofball interpretation of the law.
Author’s Explanation: Conflict of legal decisions interpreting a federal issue among courts of last resort.
Author’s Explanation: A court of last resort or court of appeals has interpreted a federal issue which conflicts with the Supreme Court’s previous or relevant decisions.
Does an ATDS have to possess the capacity to generate random or sequential numbers and to dial such numbers?
What is the definition of store? Is storage limited to RAM memory, the load of a pool, or the retention of a call record in the device after call launch?
If the consumer you intend to call must grant consent or must the consumer you actually call grant TCPA style consent?
For an interesting blog on this topic, click here.
In the meantime, behave conservatively, document consent and revocation, audit to your processes, update your policies and procedures and diagram your call and data flows through your autodialer and your manual contact system. Remember if you do use a manual contact system, make sure it does not store numbers in RAM memory or use or save lists of numbers. Finally, if you need assistance with any aspect of your consumer contact processes or procedures please reach out to me – Happy to consult and happy to help.
Happy Thanksgiving to you my friends.
Learn more about how Ontario Systems can help you navigate your compliance challenges.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.