FACEBOOK Ruling Resource Page

On April 1, 2021 the United States Supreme Court issued a critical ruling interpreting the TCPA’s ATDS definition.

Above is a redline of the ATDS definition following Facebook. 

On November 16, 2022 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling taking a different approach that appears to be inconsistent with Facebook, but which also dramatically limits the reach of the TCPA’s ATDS definition:

This is a fast moving area of law.

Below are key resources to help you understand and apply the decision.*

TCPAWorld Written Analysis

Video Format Webinars and Discussion

Technology Risk Levels Post-Facebook

ATDS Caselaw Since Facebook –Updated Sept. 19, 2023

  • Montanez v. Future Vision Brain Bank, Civil Action No. 20-cv-02959-CMA-MEH, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67091 (D. Col. April 7, 2021)(allowing ATDS allegations to survive the pleadings stage);
  • McEwen v. Nra of Am. & InfocisionNo. 2:20-cv-00153-LEN, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXISUnited (D. Me. April 14, 2021)(ruling ATDS must make “use” of R&SNG, not just have capacity to do so);
  • Camunas v. Nat’l Republican Senatorial Comm., CIVIL ACTION NO. 21-1005, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100125 (E.D. Pa.  May 26, 2021)(allegations system “calls phone numbers from a stored list using a random or sequential number generator to select those phone numbers” were insufficient to state a claim without more);
  • Barnett v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101171 (W.D.N.C. May 28, 2021)(Predictive dialer not an ATDS due to lack of evidence of r&sng);
  •  Timms v. Usaa Fed. Sav. Bank,  C/A No. 3:18-cv-01495-SAL, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108083 (D.S.C.  June 9, 2021)(Aspect predictive dialer not an ATDS. No evidence of R&SNG usage. fn7 limited to circumstances where R&SNG used to determine number sequence);
  •  Carl v. First Nat’l Bank of Omaha, Docket no. 2:19-cv-00504-GZS, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111889 (D Me.  June 15, 2021)(LiveVox dialing system may be an ATDS even post-Facebook due to FN 7);
  • Atkinson v. Pro Custom Solar Lcc, CIVIL NO. SA-21-CV-178-OLG, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112396 (W.D. Tex.  June 16, 2021)(ATDS allegations survive the pleadings stage where present use of R&SNG to determine dial sequence alleged);
  • Watts v. Emergency Twenty Four, No. 20-cv-1820, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115053 (N.D. Ill. June 21, 2021)(Motion to dismiss granted where allegations demonstrated calls at issue were triggered by alarms and not called as a result of an R&SNG);
  • Hufnus v DoNotPayCase No. 20-cv-08701, Doc. No. __ (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2021)(System that called from list of customers not an ATDS because list was not randomly dialed; FN7 only applies where random numbers are called);
  • Gross v. Gg Homes, Case No. 3:21-cv-00271-DMS-BGS, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127596 (S.D. Cal.  July 8, 2021)(Court holds Facebook irrelevant at pleadings stage; holds allegations of automatic template texts sufficient to state a claim); reconsidered Gross v. Gg Homes, Case No. 3:21-cv-00271-DMS-BGS, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198339 (S.D. Cal.  October 14, 2021)(Facebook is relevant at the pleadings stage after all and allegations of curated text messages do not state a claim because not random);
  • CallierEP-20-CV-00304-KC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126769 (W.D. Tex.  May 10, 2021)(allegations of a pause upon receipt of unsolicited calls sufficient to state ATDS claim post-Facebook);
  • Barry v. Ally Fin.Case No. 20-12378, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129573 (E.D. Mich.  July 13, 2021)(Motion to dismiss granted as to targeted collection calls. Facebook requires usage of R&SNG, not just capacity. FN7 only applies to lists of random numbers);
  • Miles v. Medicredit, Case No. 20-cv-01186, Doc. No. 53 (E.D. Mo. July 14, 2021)(Following Gross and holding that Facebook not pertinent at pleadings stage);
  • Libby v. Nat’l Republican Senatorial Comm., No. 5:21-CV-197-DAE, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140103 (W.D. Tex.  July 27, 2021)(Allegations of generic campaign texts sufficient to plead ATDS usage);
  • Jance v. Homerun Offer LLC, No. CV-20-00482-TUC-JGZ, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143145 (D. Ariz. July 29, 2021)(pause allegations coupled with lack of consent and general marketing content sufficient to allege ATDS usage at the pleadings stage);
  • Borden v. Efinancial, LLC, No. C19-1430JLR, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153086 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 13, 2021)(Motion to dismiss granted. FN7 only applies to lists of random numbers);
  • Garner v. Allstate Ins. Co.,  No. 20 C 4693, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163121 (N.D. Ill.  August 30, 2021)(allegations of predictive dialer usage consistent with ATDS pleading where marketing calls were made using spoofed numbers);
  • Grome v. Usaa Sav. Bank4:19-CV-3080, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164255 (D. Ne.  August 31, 2021)(Aspect not an ATDS as no present capacity to use an R&SNG to store or produce numbers. Capacity limited to present capacity);
  •  Franco v. Alorica Inc., No. 2:20-CV-05035-DOC-(KESx), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164438 (C.D. Cal. July 27, 2021)(Debt collection calls cannot trigger TCPA since calls not made at random);
  • Tehrani v. Joie De Vivre Hospitality, LLCCase No. 19-cv-08168-EMC2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165392 (N.D. Cal. August 31, 2021)(only the generation of phone numbers using an R&SNG triggers the TCPA);
  • Laguardia v. Designer Brands, Case No. 2:20-cv-2311, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170704 (S.D. Oh.  September 9, 2021)(ATDS must produce phone numbers using an R&SNG. Use of a number generator to create identification numbers respecting text message notifications does not trigger the TCPA);
  • Brickman v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-00751-WHO, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175700 (N.D. Cal.  September 15, 2021)(Even if the text sequence were determined using an R&SNG that is not enough—only the use of an R&SNG to generate phone numbers is sufficient to trigger TCPA);
  • Jovanovic v. Srp Invs. Llc, No. CV-21-00393-PHX-JJT, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175631 (D. Az.  September 14, 2021)Receipt of a personalized text message from a long code is inconsistent with ATDS usage);
  • Poonja,, Case No. 20-cv-4388, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186809 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2021)(Presence of “stop” instruction in generic text from shortcode sufficient to survive pleadings stage post Facebook);
  • Smith v. Direct Bldg. Supplies, CIVIL ACTION No. 20-3583, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193657 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 7, 2021)(click and pause allegations sufficient to allege ATDS claim against caller with whom plaintiff had no previous relationship);
  • Delgado v. Pro Custom Sollar Llc, CAUSE NO. 1:21-CV-251-LY, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224397 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 22, 2021)(Case holds allegations of predictive dialer usage to send cold call solicitation calls sufficient to state a claim under the TCPA);
  • Macdonald v. Brian Gubernick Pllc, No. CV-20-00138-PHX-SMB, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216788 (D. Az.  November 8, 2021)(Court accepts FN7 allegations at pleadings stage; Mojo power dialer potential ATDS);
  • Cole v. Sierra Pac. Mortg. Co., Case No. 18-cv-01692-JCS, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 239792 (N.D. Cal.  December 15, 2021)(Fn7 is just dicta. ATDS must generate random or sequential TELEPHONE numbers);
  • Pascal v. Concentra, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-02559-JCS2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 239583 (N.D. Cal.  December 14, 2021)(Textedly system not an ATDS at pleadings stage. After Facebook only random-generated phone numbers qualify);
  • Raphael Aus. V. Alorica, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 240677 (C.D. Dec. 16, 2021)(Motion to dismiss granted. Use of an RoSNG to populate a list triggers TCPA, use of RoSNG to determine dialing sequence does not);
  • McEwen v. Nra of Am. & InfocisionNo. 2:20-cv-00153-LEW, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 242273 (D. Me. December 20, 2021)(Proposed ATDS amendment not futile. Narrow read: use of RoSNG to determine dialing sequence triggers TCPA. Broad read: anytime algorithm determines order system is ATDS);
  • Garcia v. Case No. Pro Custom Solar Llc, 4:21-CV-00392, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4445 (E.D. Tex.  January 10, 2022)(Click and pause allegations sufficient to survive the pleadings stage even post-Facebook);
  • Lauren Cross., Case No. 1:20-cv-01047, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10676 (W.D. Ark.  January 20, 2022)(Only calls to randomly generated telephone numbers trigger the TCPA post-Facebook);
  • Barnett v. First Nat’l Bank of Omaha, Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-337-CHB, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37563 (W.D. Ky. March 3, 2022)(MSJ granted to defendant following Barry. Only randomly or sequentially generated phone numbers trigger ATDS post Facebook);
  • Landy v. Natural Power SourcesCivil Action No.: 3:21 -cv-00425-PGS-TJB, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46534 (D. N.J. Mar. 14, 2022)(Click and pause allegations sufficient to survive pleadings stage);
  • Niemczyk v. Pro Custom Solar LLC, Civil Action No.: 19-7846 (ES) (MAH), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54026 (D. N.J.  March 25, 2022)(Allegations of predictive dialer usage sufficient to establish ATDS usage at the pleadings stage);
  • Beal v. Outfield Brew HouseNo. 20-1961, No. 20-3581, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 7748 (8th Cir.  March 24, 2022)(Using a randomizer to determine dial sequence does not amount to “producing” numbers to be dialed. Court does not address “storage”);
  • Jessica DeMesa, v. Treasure Island, LLC, No. 2:18-cv-02007-JAD-NJK (D. Nv. 06/01/2022)(Motion to dismiss granted. AI text system not an ATDS because it does not generate telephone numbers to be dialed);
  • Mina v. Red Robin2022 WL 2105897 (D. Colo. June 10, 2022)(Motion to dismiss granted. System not an ATDS unless it randomly generates telephone numbers. FN7 limited to such systems);
  • Soliman v. Subway  2022 WL 2802347 (D. Conn. July 18, 2022)(System must randomly generate telephone numbers to qualify as ATDS);
  • Jiminez v. Credit One Bank, N.A., Nco Fin. Sys., No. 17 CV 2844-LTS-JLC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179434 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2022)(Following Panzarella and holding only systems that actually USE randomizer to place calls trigger TCPA);
  • Allison v. Wells Fargo2022 WL 10756885 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2022)(Motion to dismiss granted to Defendant. Implausible a debt collector would randomly generate phone numbers to collect debts);
  • Borden v. Efinancial, LLC, 2022 WL 16955661 (9th Cir. Nov. 16, 2022)(holding a system must generate random telephone numbers to be an ATDS);
  • Bank v. Digital Media Solutions, Inc. Case No. 22-cv-293, 2023 WL 1766210 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2023)(allegations of generic marketing messages sufficient to survive pleadings stage in ATDS suit);
  • Cupp v. First National Collection Bureau, Inc., No. C 22-08112 2023 WL 2311967 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2023)(allegations of high volume of debt collection text messages sufficient to survive pleadings stage);
  •  Scherrer v. FPT, 2023 WL 4660089 (D. Colo. July 20, 2023)(court holds using ROSNG to order numbers for dialing constitutes ATDS after Facebook);
  • Salaiz v. Beyond Finance, 2023 WL 6053742 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 18, 2023)(allegations of generalized call content and spoofed numbers sufficient to allege ATDS usage.)

Other Resources

*Not legal advice. Consult a lawyer before deploying any new consumer outreach strategy.