On April 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the question whether the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s (TCPA) definition of “autodialer”
encompasses equipment that can “store” and dial telephone numbers, even if the device does not “us[e] a random or
On March 16, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its decision on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) omnibus order of 2015, relating to challenges to four of the FCC’s determinations relating to cell phones. The appellate court upheld the FCC’s determinations that consumers can revoke consent to receive marketing calls by “any reasonable means” that clearly expresses the desire to receive no further messages from the caller, and an exception for certain “emergency” healthcare-related calls. On the other hand, the court set aside the FCC’s decision regarding the definition of an “automatic telephone dialing system” (ATDS), and how callers can deal with reassigned numbers where the previous owner had consented to receive marketing calls.
On August 4, 2016, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a declaratory ruling clarifying the scope of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s (TCPA) consent requirements to send robocalls and automated text messages to wireless phone numbers. The ruling was in response to Blackboard, Inc.’s request that the FCC declare “all automated informational messages sent by an educational organization” as within the scope of the TCPA’s “emergency purpose” exception. While the FCC granted Blackboard’s request in part, it also expanded its ruling to address automated messages provided by utilities.
On July 10, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a 105 page omnibus declaratory ruling and order (“Order”) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) that, among other things, permits banks and other financial institutions to call consumers on their wireless telephones using autodialer equipment and pre-recorded messages (“robocalls”) and also send texts without prior written consent in certain limited circumstances. The Order was effective upon its release.