The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ('the Court of Appeals') issued, on 19 February 2020, its decision ('the Decision') in Gadelhak v. AT&T Services, Inc. in relation to the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system ('ATDS') under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ('TCPA') and consumer rights to take action in relation to ATDS. In particular, the Decision notes that the TCPA defines ATDS as equipment with the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, as well as the capacity to dial those numbers. Moreover, the question before the Court of Appeals related to whether this definition can be understood to modify one or both of the verbs 'store' and 'produce' in requiring that an ATDS would have the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator. In addition, the Decision outlines that using a random or sequential number generator does modify both verbs 'store' and 'produce.'

In this respect, the Decision concludes that the defendant's calling tool neither stores nor produces numbers using a random or sequential number generator, but dials numbers stored in a customer database, and, therefore, cannot be deemed an ATDS as defined by TCPA.

You can read the Decision here.

UPDATE (13 March 2020)

EPIC issues amicus brief to Court of Appeals on ADTS under TCPA

The Electronic Privacy Information Center ('EPIC'), along with other consumer groups, issued, on 11 March 2020, an amicus brief ('the Amicus Brief') to the Court of Appeals in relation to the Decision. In particular, the Amicus Brief notes that, among other things, a rehearing is necessary in order to give effect to the terms 'store' and 'produce' of an ATDS under the TCPA.

You can read the press release here and the Amicus Brief here.