Well here’s a first.
Given the uncertainty of the federal–and now state–autodialer landscape, many careful callers will include consent disclosures referencing autodialers in their privacy policies nd in various disclosures. The use of these disclosures is simply prudent practice–designed to protect callers in the you-never-know-what-is-coming-next world of the TCPA.
They are certainly not an “admission” and regulated technology meeting any specific statutory definition is actually being used, and no court has ever so found.
Here is the court’s reasoning:
By Defendant’s own admission, therefore, the company uses automated dialing equipment as part of its business.
Just because a policy says a caller may do something doesn’t mean they are doing something. And as just explained folks include these disclosures to be safe, not to imply–much less “admit”–that they are using technology governed by law.
Again, these sorts of disclosures are common fair–used by smart businesses to avoid assertions they did not obtain consumer consent. Courts should really avoid using these sorts of disclosures against companies–it disincentives the very transparent consumer consent that courts should be encouraging.
I don’t like this one bit and I hope the district court rejects this potion of the ruling. We will keep an eye on this.