Finally, Some Good TCPA News for Telemarketers . . . ?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

TelecommunicationsAs many of our readers are aware, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) regulates unsolicited telemarketing calls, texts and faxes utilizing autodialers or pre-recorded messages, and has been the basis for several high profile class action lawsuits.  Despite the multi-million dollar settlements resulting from TCPA violations, there may finally be some good news for telemarketers.

What is an Autodialer under the TCPA?

As previously described on this blog, the Federal Communication Commission (“FCC”) and courts across the country have taken a very broad stance on the definition of an autodialer, namely any device that has the capacity to produce, store and call telephone numbers using a random or sequential number generator.  Based on the huge settlements and penalties being levied against telemarketers under the TCPA, we have advised our clients to broadly construe the definition of autodialer to avoid unwanted litigation and regulatory action.  For instance, if you are utilizing any type of call center software as part of your telemarketing operations, you may be using an autodialer within the FCC’s definition.  However, it seems that there may now be a trend to rein-in the expansive definition of autodialer.

Recent Court Cases Limit Definition of Autodialer

While it is still a best practice to broadly construe the definition of “autodialer” under the TCPA, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama and the Superior Court of California have taken consistent views to limit the definition of autodialer under the TCPA.

In the Alabama case, the court ruled that “to meet the TCPA definition of an “automatic telephone dialing system,” a system must have a present capacity, at the time the calls were being made, to store or produce and call numbers from a number generator.”  The court made clear that while a telephone dialing system may be modified to make autodialed calls, only the present state of the dialing system should be considered under the TCPA.  Soon after the Alabama ruling was handed down, a California State court followed suit, ruling that in order to fall within the TCPA definition of an autodialer, “the use of a number generator is required.”  Because the plaintiff failed to present any evidence that the defendant was using automated dialing technology at the time of the alleged TCPA violation, the TCPA claim was dismissed.

Thus, the Alabama federal court and California State court agree that merely having the capacity to produce, store and call telephone numbers is not enough under the TCPA.  Instead, in order to prevail under the TCPA, a plaintiff must show that, at the time of the alleged violation, the telemarketer’s equipment had the present capacity to use a random or sequential number generator.

Both of these cases are sure to be hotly contested in the coming months and should be of interest to anyone engaging in telemarketing campaigns.  If you are interested in learning more about this topic or need to review your telemarketing practices, please e-mail us at info@kleinmoynihan.com, or call us at (212) 246-0900.

The material contained herein is provided for informational purposes only and is not legal advice, nor is it a substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney. Each situation is unique, and you should not act or rely on any information contained herein without seeking the advice of an experienced attorney.

Attorney Advertising

David O. Klein

David O. Klein

David Klein is one of the most recognized attorneys in the telemarketing, technology, Internet marketing, sweepstakes and telecommunications fields. Skilled at counseling clients on a broad range of technology-related matters, David Klein has substantial experience in negotiating and drafting complex licensing, marketing and Internet agreements.

Schedule a Call
In The Know

Trending Topics

New York Sweepstakes Law blog- Klein Moynihan Turco

New York Sweepstakes Law: Are You Compliant?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In general, a lottery exists when entrants pay for the chance to win a prize. States alone reserve the right to administer lotteries. Businesses can eliminate one element of what would otherwise be an illegal lottery, in order to transform it into a legal promotional game. If the requirement to

TCPA surveys

An Ad or not an Ad: NY Weighs in on TCPA Surveys

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Another day, another court decision that refines constitutes a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) unsolicited fax advertisement. A Manhattan-based federal court recently issued a decision that removes faxed invitations to participate in a survey from the TCPA definition of advertisement. In drawing this distinction for TCPA surveys, the Court held

NY sports gambling law- Klein Moynihan Turco

Agreement Reached to Enact NY Sports Gambling Law

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

This week, Governor Andrew Cuomo and the New York State Legislature agreed to a budget deal that will bring mobile sports betting to the State through a unique NY sports gambling law.  Upon the Governor’s signature, NY sports gambling is primed to become the nation’s largest market. However, New York

UK and US Social Media Influencer Laws

UK and US Social Media Influencer Laws

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In September of 2020, the United Kingdom’s (“UK”) Committee of Advertising Practice (“CAP”) reviewed the Instagram accounts of 122 UK-based social media influencers to determine whether content was being properly flagged as advertising in accordance with applicable social media influencer laws. This past March, the UK Advertising Standards Authority (“ASA”)

Running a Telemarketing Business?

Get a Free Compliance Review From an Experienced TCPA Lawyer.

Share on facebook
Share on google
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin