ACA Int'l v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n
885 F.3d 687
| D.C. Cir. | 2018Background
- The FCC issued a 2015 Declaratory Ruling clarifying aspects of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) governing use of “automatic telephone dialing systems” (ATDS) to call wireless numbers, prompting multiple petitions for review in the D.C. Circuit.
- Key contested topics: (1) what equipment qualifies as an ATDS (the meaning of “capacity” and required functions), (2) liability when a consenting party’s wireless number has been reassigned to a new subscriber, (3) how consent may be revoked, and (4) the scope of an FCC exemption for certain time-sensitive healthcare calls.
- The FCC took an expansive view of “capacity,” treating potential/software-activated functionalities (e.g., apps) as sufficient to make a device an ATDS and reaffirmed that predictive dialers are ATDSs.
- For reassigned numbers the FCC treated the “called party” as the current subscriber but created a one-call safe harbor allowing one liability-free call after reassignment when the caller lacks knowledge of reassignment.
- The FCC adopted a flexible revocation rule: a called party may revoke consent at any time and through any reasonable means that clearly expresses a desire not to receive further messages.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioners' Argument | Respondents' (FCC) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Scope of ATDS—what “capacity” means and which functions are required | "Capacity" should be measured by present, unmodified functionality; predictive-dialer rules do not mean ordinary smartphones are ATDSs | "Capacity" includes potential/software-enabled functionalities; predictive dialers and devices that can dial without human intervention qualify | Court: FCC interpretation unreasonable/overbroad; vacated FCC’s ATDS definition and functional tests (agency acted arbitrarily/capriciously) |
| 2. Reassigned numbers—who is the “called party” and when is caller liable | "Called party" should mean intended recipient (the prior consenting user); callers should not be strictly liable if unaware of reassignment | "Called party" is the current subscriber; but FCC granted a one-call safe harbor for callers lacking knowledge of reassignment | Court: FCC permissibly interpreted “called party” to be current subscriber but its one-call safe harbor is arbitrary and capricious; vacated FCC’s treatment of reassigned numbers |
| 3. Revocation of consent—may callers dictate revocation method | Callers may require specific, standardized revocation procedures for certainty | Revocation may occur "at any time and through any reasonable means"; callers cannot unilaterally restrict revocation | Court: Upheld FCC rule permitting revocation by any reasonable means and rejecting caller-imposed exclusive methods |
| 4. Healthcare-call exemption—scope and conflict with HIPAA | FCC’s narrower exemption (excluding billing/account communications) conflicts with HIPAA and is arbitrary | Exemption limited to time-sensitive treatment-related calls; HIPAA and TCPA address different harms and can coexist | Court: Upheld FCC exemption as reasonable and not precluded by HIPAA |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (agencies’ statutory interpretations reviewed under Chevron two-step)
- Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (statutory interpretation may be informed by congressional findings about the problem addressed)
- Soppet v. Enhanced Recovery Co., 679 F.3d 637 (7th Cir. analysis that "called party" can mean current subscriber)
- United States Postal Serv. v. Postal Regulatory Comm’n, 785 F.3d 740 (agency action arbitrary if it fails to articulate a comprehensible standard)
- Aid Ass’n for Lutherans v. United States Postal Serv., 321 F.3d 1166 (agency interpretation unreasonable when overly broad in regulatory reach)
- Goldstein v. SEC, 451 F.3d 873 (agency construction can fail Chevron step two if it exceeds delegated authority)