By Christine M. Reilly (Los Angeles) , Alexandra N. Krasovec (Los
Angeles), John W. McGuinness (Los Angeles), A. Paul Heeringa
(Chicago), Cody A. DeCamp (Los Angeles), Madelaine A. Newcomb
(Chicago) and Tina P. Lapsia (Washington, DC)

As part of Manatt's continuing monthly coverage of the aftermath of
Facebook v. Duguid and how district courts are applying it to
determine whether a calling system meets the Supreme Court's newly
clarified definition of an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS)
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), we report on some
notable decisions since our last roundup. While the results remain
somewhat mixed, a growing number of federal courts (if not a majority)
are adopting Facebook and holding that use of a random or sequential
number generator is a necessary prerequisite to an ATDS finding. At
the district court level, defendants have generally continued to fare
well under the new ATDS standard both at the pleadings and the summary
judgment stage. These courts are also increasing rejecting what some
have called the "Footnote 7" argument—referring to footnote 7 in the
Facebook decision, where the Supreme Court suggested in dicta that
randomly or sequentially selecting numbers from a predetermined list
might qualify as an ATDS—with judges focusing on the generation, not
the selection, of numbers.

https://www.mondaq.com/article/news/1290104?q=1803232&n=722&tp=2&tlk=9&lk=24

--
(Please remove QRM for direct replies)