PLAUSIBLE: First ATDS Ruling of 2025 Goes Poorly For Defendant– But Troutman Amin Helps Them Win (Even Though They Aren’t a Client)

The battle over the contours of the TCPA’s ATDS definition continues unabated nearly 4 years after the Supreme Court handed down its critical ruling in Facebook v. Duguid.

In that case SCOTUS decided a device must use a random or sequential number generator to produce OR store telephone numbers to be dialed.

In the ensuing years many courts have simply dropped the “or store” component and required a showing a system randomly produces telephone numbers to be an ATDS.

That isn’t right, but I’m not complaining.

Other courts, however, hew more closely to the design of the Facebook decision–leaving open the ultimate question of how one “stores” phone numbers using an ROSNG.

That issue is a bit beyond the topic of this post–although I commonly address that issue on stage at my various performances across the nation.

Today’s post merely highlights the fact that ATDS cases continue to get past the pleadings stage– and Troutman Amin, LLP continues to win novel issues that other law firms can use to their advantage later.

In Taylor v. Offerspedia, LLC  2024 WL 5098223 (S.D. Tx. Dec. 12, 2024) the court denied a motion to dismiss an ATDS claim finding the allegations of the complaint were sufficient to state a claim.

The allegations of the complaint established that Plaintiff “heard either a lengthy pause or delay and/or a pre-recorded voice before anyone came on the line, indicating to her that the call was made using an… ATDS.”

Further, “[i]n certain cases involving calls or text messages, Plaintiff was prompted to take an action or press a button to “unsubscribe” or be taken off calling lists.” The Court found “[t]hese features also indicate that the call or text message was made using an ATDS.”

What?

Maybe a “click and pause” allegation suffices for ATDS usage in the phone call context–maybe– but the mere fact a “stop” functionality exists on a text string certainly does not suggest an ATDS was used. That’s a requirement of all 10DLC and shortcode messages!

So the ruling in Taylor essentially suggests that any bulk text transmission was sent via an ATDS–at least for purposes of the pleadings stage in a TCPA class action. That’s terrible.

There is a piece of good news here, however– and it was brought to you by Troutman Amin, LLP.

The court tossed out the Texas registration claim against the defendant finding that registration claim does not apply to text messages. In doing so the Court cited to Pepper v. GVG Capital LLC, No. H-22-2912, 2023 WL 205297, at *5 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 17, 2023)–which was, of course, the Dame’s big victory:

ANOTHER INCREDIBLE TCPA WIN!: Troutman Firm Victories Stack Up as Court Holds Lead Generator Did Not Violate TCPA or Texas Law With Home Purchase Offer Texts

Always fun when the firm can earn a win that helps other TCPA defendants across the country.

Also have you caught the first big webinar of 2025 yet? Its up NOW on our YouTube channel and it is fantastic with tons of common questions about the TCPA answered:

be sure to subscribe!

Chat soon!