Uncategorized

Back to School Special: Here’s That Updated TCPA ATDS Decision Scorecard You’ve Been Waiting For!

close up of apple on top of books

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

The seesaw battle over the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s (“TCPA’s”) heart and soul–the definition of automated telephone dialing system (“ATDS”)–has raged all summer long.  Now as the little ones head back to class its time for us all to study up on the current lay of the land.

For your reviewing pleasure, here is TCPAland.com’s updated ATDS decision cheat sheet:

Cases Holding that the 2003 and 2008 Predictive Dialer Rulings Were Overturned by ACA Int’l

  • Marshall v. CBE Group, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-02046-GMN, 2018 WL 1567852 (D. Nv. March 30, 2018)(FCC predictive dialer rulings overturned by ACA Int’l–MSJ to Defendant in click to dial case);
  • Herrick v. GoDaddy.com LLC, No. CV-16-00254-PHX-DJH, 2018 WL 2229131 (D. Ariz. May 14, 2018)(FCC’s rulings holding that predictive dialers are an ATDS are no longer binding following ACA Int’l–MSJ to Defendant in click to dial case);
  • Sessions v. Barclays Bank Delaware, Civ. Action No. 1:17-CV-01600-LMM, 2018 WL 3134439 (N.D. GA June 25, 2018)(ACA Int’l overruled FCC’s predictive dialer rulings–but issue of statutory functionality reserved at the pleadings stage);
  • Pinkus v. Sirius Xm Radio, 16 C 10858, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125043 (N.D. Ill. July 26, 2018)(2003 and 2008 orders were overturned and predictive dialers do not qualify as an ATDS even at the pleadings stage).
  • Gary v. TrueBlue, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-10544, 2018 WL 3647046 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 1, 2018)(2003 and 2008 orders were overturned and dialing from a list of numbers does not qualify as the use of an ATDS); and
  • Keyes v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, No. 17-cv-11492, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138445, at *15 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 16, 2018)(2003 and 2008 orders were overturned and Aspect predictive dialing system is not an ATDS at MSJ phase).

Cases Holding that the 2003 and 2008 Predictive Dialer Rulings Were Not Overturned by ACA Int’l for Purposes of “Human Intervention” Rule

  • Maddox v. CBE Grp., Inc., No.: 1:17-cv-1909-SCJ, 2018 WL 2327037 (N.D. Ga. May 22, 2018)(“human intervention” test from FCC’s 2003 predictive dialer rulings survived ACA Int’l but dialer not an ATDS at MSJ phase); and
  • Ramos v. Hopele of Fort Lauderdale, CASE NO. 17-62100-CIV-MORENO/SELTZER, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139947 (S.D. Fl. Aug. 16, 2018)(“human intervention” test from FCC’s 2003 predictive dialer rulings survived ACA Int’l but text dialer not an ATDS at MSJ phase).

Cases Holding that the 2003 and 2008 Predictive Dialer Rulings Were Not Overturned by ACA Int’l At All

  • Reyes v. BCA Fin. Servs., Inc,. No.: 1:16-cv-24077-JG, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80690 (S.D. Fla. May 14, 2018)(ACA Int’l did not expressly overruled FCC’s predictive dialer rulings so they remain binding);
  • Swaney v. Regions Bank, No.: 2:13-cv-00544-JHE, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184751 (N.D. Ala. May 22, 2018)(2003 FCC predictive dialer ruling remains binding);
  • McMillion v. Rash Curtis & Associates, No.: 16-cv-03396-YGR, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101700 (N.D. CA, June 18, 2018)(ACA Int’l did not disturb prior Ninth Circuit rulings on predictive dialers);
  • Ammons vs. Ally NO. 3:17–cv–00505, 2018 WL 3134619 (M.D. Tenn. June 27, 2018)(Predictive dialer rulings survived ACA Int’l);
  • O’Shea v. Am. Solar Sol., No. 3:14-cv-00894-L-RBB, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110402 (S.D. Cal. July 2, 2018)(following Swaney and holding that FCC’s predictive dialer rulings survived ACA Int’l);
  • Pieterson, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No.: 17-cv-02306-EDL (N.D. CA July 2, 2018)(Denying motion to stay noting that while “ACA Int’l vacated the 2015 Declaratory Ruling [ ], it did not clearly intend to disturb the FCC’s 2003 and 2008 Orders”);
  • Somogyi v. Freedom Mortg. Corp., No. 17-6546 (JBS/SJ) 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12697 (D.N.J. Aug 2, 2018) (predictive dialer rulings survived  ACA Int’l and dialing from a list is “random or sequential” dialing);
  • Sieleman v. Freedom Mortg. Corp., Civil Action No. 17-13110 (JBS/JS), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129698 (D.N.J. Aug. 2, 2018) (predictive dialer rulings survived ACA Int’l and dialing from a list is “random or sequential” dialing);
  • Abante Rooter and Plumbing, Inc. v. Alarm. Com, Case No. 15-cv-06314, 2018 WL 3707283 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2018)(“ ACA International invalidated only the 2015 FCC Order—the court discusses but does not rule on the validity of the 2003 FCC Order or the 2008 FCC Order”).

Other Important ATDS Cases Not Directly Addressing Predictive Dialer Rulings:

  • Dominguez v. Yahoo, Inc, No. 17-1243, 2018 U.S.App.Lexis 17350 (3rd. Cir June 26, 2018)(evidence of use of random or sequential number generator needed to sustain TCPA claim in text message case);
  • Lord v. Kisling, Case No. 1:17-CV-01739, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116288 (N.D. Oh. July 12, 2018)(failure to allege random or sequential number generation was fatal to TCPA claim in text message case);
  • Heard v. Nationstar Mortg. Llc, Case No.: 2:16-cv-00694-MHH, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143175 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 23, 2018)(Avaya predictive dialer met the statutory definition of an ATDS regardless of FCC rulings).

Happy studies and you’re welcome.

Categories: Uncategorized

2 replies »

Leave a Reply