Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395

Background

The TCPA (1991) prohibits certain calls made using an “automatic telephone dialing system” (autodialer), defined in 47 U.S.C. §227(a)(1) as equipment that can “store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator,” and dial such numbers.
Facebook offers optional “login notification” texts when an attempt is made to access an account from an unrecognized device; users must provide and verify a phone number to receive them.
Noah Duguid (respondent) received repeated login-notification texts tied to his phone number despite never having a Facebook account; he sued Facebook as a putative class action under the TCPA.
District court dismissed Duguid’s complaint for failing to allege use of a random or sequential number generator; the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding equipment that automatically dials stored numbers can be an autodialer even if it does not use such a generator.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed: the phrase “using a random or sequential number generator” modifies both “store” and “produce,” so an autodialer must either store or produce numbers by using such a generator; Facebook’s system did not, and thus is not an autodialer under §227(a)(1)(A).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the clause “using a random or sequential number generator” modifies both “store” and “produce” or only “produce”	The clause modifies only “produce”; “generator” is tied to producing numbers, not storing them	The clause modifies both verbs; the modifier applies to the whole antecedent clause	The Court held the clause modifies both “store” and “produce”; an autodialer must store or produce numbers using a random/sequential generator
Whether Facebook’s login-notification system is an autodialer under the TCPA	Duguid: system automatically stored and dialed numbers, so it qualifies as an autodialer	Facebook: system sends targeted texts to specific stored numbers and does not use a random/sequential number generator, so it is not an autodialer	Court held Facebook’s system is not an autodialer because it does not store/produce numbers using a random/sequential generator
Proper interpretive canons: series-qualifier vs. last-antecedent/distributive canons	Duguid invoked last-antecedent/distributive canons and purposive reading to limit modifier to “produce”	Facebook relied on series-qualifier canon and punctuation/context to show modifier applies to both verbs	The Court applied the series-qualifier canon and punctuation/context to apply the modifier to both verbs and rejected alternate canon arguments as inapplicable here
Whether TCPA should be read broadly to cover modern automated systems that don’t use random/sequential generators	Duguid: the TCPA’s goal of curbing intrusive automated calls supports a broader reading to capture modern automated systems	Facebook: statutory text limits autodialers to devices using random/sequential generators; broader change is for Congress	The Court declined to expand the statutory definition on policy grounds and said Congress must update the statute if it wishes broader coverage

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336 (discussion of series-qualifier canon)
Porto Rico Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Mor, 253 U.S. 345 (series-qualifier precedent)
Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434 (use of interpretive canons)
United States Nat. Bank of Or. v. Indep. Ins. Agents of Am., Inc., 508 U.S. 439 (consideration of punctuation and statutory text)
Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20 (rule of the last antecedent explained)
Lockhart v. United States, 577 U.S. 347 (contextual application of antecedent rule)
Jama v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 543 U.S. 335 (declining last-antecedent rule where list is integrated)
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153 (assumption that TCPA covers texts)
BFP v. Resolution Trust Corp., 511 U.S. 531 (no superfluity principle cited to support textual reading)