PETITION DENIED: Supreme Court Won’t Hear ATDS Definition Fight Again–at Least Not Yet

2 Comments

Real quick, the Supreme Court just denied a cert request regarding the TCPA’s ATDS definition.

No, not that cert request, a different one that I didn’t even discuss before because it was so bad.

Interestingly, it did involve Meta weighing in and arguing that SCOTUS should NOT review the TCPA’s ATDS definition just two years after the same company asked SCOTUS to specifically review the ATDS definition… hahaha

You can check the docket and see the proceedings here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-6.html

The other cert request is still live as far as I know, however.

More to come.

Discover more from TCPAWorld

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Categories:

Published by Eric "Czar" Troutman

The Czar of TCPAWorld Eric Troutman is one of the country’s prominent class action defense lawyers and is nationally recognized in Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) litigation and compliance. He has served as lead defense counsel in more than 70 national TCPA class actions and has litigated nearly a thousand individual TCPA cases in his role as national strategic litigation counsel for major banks and finance companies. He also helps industry participants build TCPA-compliant processes, policies, and systems. Eric has built a national litigation practice based upon deep experience, rigorous analysis and extraordinary responsiveness. Eric and his team feel equally at home litigating multibillion dollar telecommunications class actions in federal court as they do developing and executing national litigation strategies for institutions facing an onslaught of individual TCPA matters. They thrive in each of these roles – delivering consistently excellent results – while never losing sight of the client experience. While many firms now tout TCPA expertise, Eric has been there from the beginning. He built one of the country’s first TCPA-only defense teams and began serving as national TCPA counsel for his clients nearly a decade ago. This perspective allows him to swiftly develop the right litigation strategies for dealing with recurring problems, without wasting time on tactics that are bound to fail. Eric’s rich historical perspective and encyclopedic knowledge of the TCPA landscape also make him an invaluable resource to institutional compliance teams struggling to comply with the shifting regulatory landscape. No task is too small – or too big. Indeed, Eric and his team have helped build TCPA-compliant systems and processes for some of the largest and most complex corporate entities in the country. He commonly works with in-house compliance counsel to build and implement enterprise and business-line specific TCPA solutions, performs TCPA audits and drafts and reviews proposed TCPA policies and procedures. He and his team also have the technical expertise necessary to assist call centers seeking to develop TCPA-resistant call path architecture or to modify existing telephony and software integration to better insulate from potential TCPA exposure. Eric has built a reputation for thought leadership. An avid blogger and speaker, he has been at the forefront of the industry’s effort to push for clarity and a return to sanity for the TCPA for years. He was selected to advocate for the financial services industry on important TCPA issues before the Federal Communications Commission and co-authored the nation’s only comprehensive practice guide on TCPA defense. In his spare time, Eric leads defense teams representing banks and other financial services companies in consumer finance litigation matters. He has experience representing clients in UCC, TILA, RESPA FCRA, CCRA, CLRA, FDCPA, RFDCPA and FCCPA claims, as well as in fraud and bank operations issues.

2 Comments

  2. I have to agree with one of the points Meta made in its response: “At a minimum, this Court should await a case where a plaintiff plausibly alleges the use of a ‘random or sequential number generator’ to contact people indiscriminately—not one where a plaintiff seeks to convert the TCPA into a weapon against a party with whom he willingly shared his information in the course of seeking its services.” Unfortunately, the Court already denied cert in Pascal v. Concentra, which was exactly that type of case involving an alleged spammer. It looks like Congress will need to fix the ATDS definition to address text spam and predictive dialer abuse, and I don’t hold out much hope for that in the near term – though it would be an easy political win before next year’s election.

    Reply

Leave a Reply