![]() Vilardo affirmed in part and modified in part a report and recommendation granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment.įirst, the court granted defendant’s motion on the automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) claim on procedural grounds. Report and Recommendation on Motion for Summary Judgment Adopted in Part and Modified in Part Gentner v. ![]() Key takeaway: While Facebook gives the current standard for finding whether a system is an ATDS with respect to the use of a random and sequential number generator, some courts may elect to examine factors considered determinative pre- Facebook and may follow pre- Facebook authority. Courts also continue to reject 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. While the results remain mixed, defendants have generally continued to fare well under the new ATDS standard. ![]() 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. As part of Manatt’s continuing monthly coverage of the aftermath of Facebook v. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |