Colby Beal v. Outfield Brew House
29f4th391
| 8th Cir. | 2022Background
- Two bars used a marketing platform called Txt Live to send promotional SMS to customers and prospects.
- Employees manually entered phone numbers into Txt Live; the software cannot generate phone numbers.
- To send messages, employees apply filters, choose how many recipients, and hit "send." Txt Live shuffles stored contacts via a numerically-based randomizer and selects the top entries for delivery.
- Plaintiffs received unsolicited promotional texts and sued under the TCPA, alleging Txt Live is an automated telephone dialing system (ATDS/Autodialer) under 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1).
- The district court granted summary judgment for the establishments, holding Txt Live is not an Autodialer; this appeal addresses that legal question.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, focusing on whether "produce" in § 227(a)(1) encompasses selecting from a preexisting list.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Txt Live is an ATDS under 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1) | Txt Live "produces" numbers by randomly selecting recipients from a stored list, so it uses a random or sequential number generator and qualifies as an ATDS | Txt Live only stores and dials numbers manually entered; it does not generate phone numbers, so it falls outside the ATDS definition | Txt Live is not an ATDS. "Produce" requires generation of numbers; randomizing/selecting from a preexisting list is insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 141 S. Ct. 1163 (2021) (Supreme Court narrowed ATDS definition; "using a random or sequential number generator" limits both "store" and "produce")
- United States v. I.L., 614 F.3d 817 (8th Cir. 2010) (use of ordinary meaning in statutory interpretation)
- LaCurtis v. Express Med. Transporters, Inc., 856 F.3d 571 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of review for summary judgment: de novo)
- U.S. Nat'l Bank of Or. v. Indep. Ins. Agents of Am., Inc., 508 U.S. 439 (1993) (statutory construction must consider full text and context)
- United Sav. Ass'n of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Assocs., Ltd., 484 U.S. 365 (1988) (context clarifies statutory meaning)
- Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 560 U.S. 242 (2010) (assumption that ordinary meaning reflects legislative purpose)
- Gadelhak v. AT&T Servs., 950 F.3d 458 (7th Cir. 2020) (contrasting circuit decision interpreting "produce" more broadly)