Automated text messages
Facebook v. Duguid
In brief
The Supreme Court said an autodialer must have the capacity to store or produce phone numbers using a random or sequential number generator, overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded).
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 9-0 · April 1, 2021 · Opinion by Justice Sotomayor
- What it’s about
- The case asked whether Facebook’s login-alert text messaging system counts as an automatic telephone dialing system under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, after Facebook sent unwanted security texts to Noah Duguid.
- Who it affects
- The Court’s rule means storing and automatically dialing phone numbers alone does not make a device an autodialer; it must have the capacity to store or produce them using a random or sequential number generator.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court ultimately held that a device is an autodialer only if it uses a random or sequential number generator to store or produce phone numbers.
The case tested how the Telephone Consumer Protection Act applies to modern security-alert text systems.
Question presented
Whether the definition of ATDS in the TCPA encompasses any device that can "store" and "automatically dial" telephone numbers, even if the device does not "us[e] a random or sequential number generator."?
What the Court decided
Holding
To qualify as an “automatic telephone dialing system” under the TCPA, a device must have the capacity either to store a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator, or to produce a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator. 926 F. 3d 1146, reversed and remanded.
- Result
- Reversed
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Wrote an opinion
- Majority · 8joined the Court's opinion
- Concurring · 1agreed with the result, wrote separately
- Alitowrote separately
What's next
The Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court (remanded) for further proceedings under the number-generator rule. The lower court must apply that rule to Duguid’s claim.
Why it matters
The lower court must apply that rule to Duguid’s claim.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Show 5 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: status, opinion_date
Opinion added: opinion
Brief added: Petition
Brief added: Questions Presented
More questions
- What was Facebook v. Duguid about?
- It asked whether Facebook’s login-alert text system was an autodialer under the TCPA after Facebook sent Noah Duguid unwanted security texts.
- How did Facebook v. Duguid define an autodialer?
- A device must have the capacity to store or produce phone numbers using a random or sequential number generator. Storing and automatically dialing numbers alone is not enough.
- What did the Supreme Court do in Facebook v. Duguid?
- It overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded).
- What happens next in Facebook v. Duguid?
- The lower court must apply the Supreme Court’s number-generator rule to Duguid’s claim and continue the proceedings.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.