Source: https://consumerfsblog.com/2018/09/9th-cir-adopts-broad-definition-of-atds-under-tcpa-reverses-trial-courts-ruling/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 01:03:52+00:00

Document:
Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit vacated the trial court’s order dismissing the plaintiff’s putative class action asserting violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.
A copy of the opinion in Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC is available at: Link to Opinion.
The defendant subsequently moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Specifically, the trial court held the system sending the text messages at issue was not an ATDS as it did not have the present or potential capacity “to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator.” The plaintiff timely appealed. The Ninth Circuit vacated the submission of the plaintiff’s appeal pending a decision in ACA Int’l v. FCC, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
As you may recall, the D.C. Circuit in ACA Int’l v. FCC vacated the FCC’s interpretation of the types of devices that qualified as an ATDS leaving only the statutory definition Congress created in 1991 that defined an ATDS as “equipment which has the capacity—(A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1).
The chief issue on appeal here was whether the text message sending device (the “system”), qualified as an ATDS for TCPA purposes. The system is a web-based marketing platform designed to send promotional text messages to a list of stored telephone numbers. The system stores phone numbers when: (1) an individual manually enters the phone numbers into the system; (2) a customer responds to a text message, which automatically provides the customer’s phone number in the system; or (3) a customer provides his or her phone number by completing a consent form on the system’s website.
The Ninth Circuit further noted that when Congress amended certain TCPA sections after the FCC’s 2015 Order, it did not amend the TCPA’s definition of an ATDS. This is even though the FCC’s prior orders defined an ATDS “to include devices that could dial numbers from a stored list.” The Court concluded that Congress’ decision to forgo amending the statutory definition of an ATDS meant Congress “tacitly approved” the FCC defining an ATDS to include devices with the ability to dial numbers from a stored list. See Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 580 (1978).
Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit held that § 227(a)(1)’s definition of an ATDS includes equipment with the capacity to: (1) store numbers to be called; or (2) produce numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator—and to dial such numbers.
Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit reversed the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and remanded the matter for further proceedings.
Join Maurice Wutscher’s Donald Maurice and attorney for the plaintiff in Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC, Abbas Kazerounian of Kazerouni Law Group APC, in a webinar explaining the ruling. Offered by the American Bar Association’s Consumer Financial Services Committee, the webinar will be held on Oct. 10, at 11 a.m. PT / 2 p.m. ET. To join the webinar, click here.

References: § 227
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 227
 v. 
 § 227
 v.