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. 

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 –Uptd March 28, 2022

  • 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).

Other Resources

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