FCC Chairwoman Just Asked Congress to Expand the TCPA’s Autodialer Definition and its Worth Paying Attention to

Editor's note: This article is provided through a partnership between insideARM and  The Troutman Firm, which provides a steady stream of timely, insightful and entertaining takes on TCPAWorld.com of the ever-evolving, never-a-dull-moment Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Troutman Firm—and all insideARM articles—are protected by copyright. All rights are reserved

So you might recall a few months ago there was a new bill introduced to expand the TCPA’s ATDS definition. My sources told me it was going nowhere. I told you it was going nowhere. And it went nowhere.

Well now, FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel just leaned in and requested a pack of Senators to look into doing precisely what the new bill would have accomplished–expanding the ATDS definition anew:

Fix the definition of autodialer: Because robotexts are neither prerecorded nor artificial voice calls, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) only provides consumers protection from robotexts if they are sent from autodialers. Last year’s Supreme Court decision, Facebook v. Duguid, narrowed the definition of autodialer under the TCPA, resulting in the law only covering equipment that generates numbers randomly and sequentially. Consequently, equipment that simply uses lists to generate robotexts means that fewer robotexts may be subject to TCPA protections, and as a result, this decision may be responsible for the rise in robotexts over the past year.

View this content by subscribing

Please register to unlock this content

I already have an account. Log in