Here is your up-to-date ATDS scorecard as of December 19, 2018

Cases Holding that the 2003 and 2008 Predictive Dialer Rulings Were Overturned by ACA Int’l and Dialers Are Not an ATDS Unless Random or Sequential Number Generation Occurs

• 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);
• 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);
•  Wash. v. Six Continents Hotels, Case No. 2:16-CV-03719-ODW-JEM, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145639 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018)(ACA Int’l overturned all previous FCC ATDS formulations, wherever they may lurk);
• Wilfredo Gonzalez v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, Case No: 5:18-cv-340-Oc-30PRL, Doc. No. 11, (M.D. Fla. Sept. 5, 2018)–found here Gonzalez v Ocwen Loan Servicing-(ACA Int’l overturned predictive dialer rulings but adopting low pleadings standard for ATDS allegations);
• Fleming v. Associated Credit Servs., No. 16-3382 (KM) (MAH), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163120 (D.N.J. Sep. 21, 2018) (ACA Int’l invalidated all prior FCC ATDS rulings.  An ATDS is a device that 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);
• Gary v. Trueblue, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-10544, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175021 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 11, 2018)(granting Defendant’s summary judgment motion on grounds that platform used to send messages could not dial randomly or sequentially);
• Stewart L. Roark v. Credit One Bank, N.A., No. CV 16-173 (PAM/ECW), 2018 WL 5921652 (D. Minn. Nov. 13, 2018)(granting Defendant’s summary judgment motion, declining to follow Ninth Circuit Marks decision, and finding that the Second Circuit King decision and Third Circuit Dominguez decision to be more persuasive).
• Johnson v. Yahoo!, Inc., No. 14-cv-02028 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 29, 2018)(granting reconsideration of prior ruling denying summary judgment, and granting summary judgment in favor of defendant on the basis that ACA Int’l international overturned prior FCC predictive dialer rulings, and statutory definition of ATDS unambiguously required random or sequential number generation capacity).
• Richardson v. Verde Energy United States, No. 15-6325, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212558, (E.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2018) (2003 and 2008 predictive dialer rulings overturned because they contain the same inconsistencies that led to the invalidation of 2015 order, and statutory definition of ATDS–per the Third Circuit’s opinion in Dominguez v. Yahoo!–requires random/sequential number generation).

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);
• 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) (report and recommendation adopted Ramos v. Hopele of Fort Lauderdale, LLC, 2018 WL 4568428 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 20, 2018));
• Glasser v. Hilton Grand Vacations Co., No. 8:16-cv-952-JDW-AAS, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162867 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 24, 2018) (ACA Int’l left intact earlier FCC rulings that the basic function of an autodialer is to dial numbers without human intervention, but 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”).
• Maes v. Charter (WD WI) Case No. 18-cv-00124 (W.D. Wisc. Oct. 30, 2018)(Disagreeing with Pinkus and holdinfg that 2003 Predictive Dialer ruling survived ACA Int’l)
• Wilson v. Quest Diagnostics Inc., No. 2:18-11960, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212023 (D.N.J. Dec. 10, 2018) (predictive dialer rulings survived ACA Int’l so a predictive dialer is still considered an ATDS).

Cases Holding that Dialers Meet the Statutory Definition of an ATDS So Long as they Dial from a List Of Numbers Without Regard to the Predictive Dialer Rulings:

• Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC, No. 14-56834, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 26883 (9th Cir. Sep. 20, 2018) (ACA Int’l invalidated all prior FCC ATDS rulings, but statutory definition of ATDS includes devices that stores telephone numbers to be called, whether or not those numbers have been generated by a random or sequential number generator).
• 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);
• Keifer v. Hosopo Corp., Case No. 3:18-cv-1353, 2018 U.S. Dist. Lexis 183468 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2018) (following Marks in holding that the statutory definition of ATDS does not require equipment to “create or develop the numbers dialed on its own.”)
• Adams v. Ocwen, Case No. 18-81028, Dkt # 23 (M.D. Fl. Oct. 29, 2018) (following Marks in holding that the statutory definition of ATDS includes a device that stores telephone numbers to be called, whether or not those numbers have been generated by a random or sequential number generator).

Cases Holding that a Dialer Is not an ATDS Even Under Marks

• Hatuey v. Ic Sys., No. 1:16-cv-12542-DPW, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193713 (D. Mass. Nov. 14, 2018)(HCI clicker-dial system is not an ATDS)

Other Important ATDS Cases Not Directly Addressing Predictive Dialer Rulings:

• Dominguez v. Yahoo, Inc, 894 F.3d 116 (3rd. Cir Jun. 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);