240 F. Supp. 3d 1021
N.D. Cal.2017Background
- Facebook allegedly sent unsolicited promotional text messages (via an SMS short code) encouraging status updates to a phone number now assigned to plaintiff Christine Holt, who never used Facebook or gave consent.
- Holt alleges she and other new owners of recycled numbers received similar boilerplate messages and that Facebook provided no in-text opt-out mechanism.
- She sued under the TCPA (47 U.S.C. § 227) and California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), seeking to represent two classes: (1) recipients who gave no prior express consent; (2) recipients who asked Facebook to stop but continued to get texts.
- Facebook moved to dismiss, arguing (a) plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege use of an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS), (b) the TCPA is an unconstitutional content-based restriction, and (c) Holt lacks UCL standing.
- The court denied dismissal of the TCPA claim (finding plausible allegations that Facebook used an ATDS) and granted dismissal of the UCL claim for lack of sufficiently pleaded economic injury, with leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff plausibly alleges use of an ATDS under the TCPA | Holt: messages were boilerplate, sent en masse via Facebook short code; recipients of recycled numbers show systemwide use | Facebook: message content and context show targeted, account-specific messaging, not an autodialer | Held: Plausibly alleged ATDS — content, context (no relationship), similar complaints, and short code support inference of ATDS; TCPA claim survives dismissal |
| Whether the TCPA is facially unconstitutional as a content-based restriction | Holt: TCPA protects privacy and is constitutional (supported by gov’t) | Facebook: several TCPA exceptions are content-based; strict scrutiny should invalidate statute | Held: Court adopts Brickman reasoning — TCPA is subject to strict scrutiny but survives it as narrowly tailored to compelling privacy interest; facial challenge fails |
| Whether the TCPA is unconstitutional as-applied to Facebook’s status-update texts | Facebook: the statute cannot constitutionally be applied to non-commercial, status-update messages | Plaintiff: (implicit) TCPA applies to automated texts regardless of commercial content | Held: Facebook did not meaningfully brief an as-applied challenge distinct from its facial attack; as-applied challenge fails at motion-to-dismiss stage |
| Whether Holt has UCL standing (economic injury) | Holt: texts diminished battery life and utility of phones/phone plans, supporting UCL injury | Facebook: alleged battery/plan impact is de minimis and insufficient for UCL standing | Held: UCL standing not plausibly pleaded — allegations too conclusory and unquantified; UCL claim dismissed with leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state plausible claim to relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 569 F.3d 946 (text messages are "calls" under TCPA; ATDS definition focuses on capacity)
- Meyer v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 707 F.3d 1036 (elements of a TCPA claim)
- Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (content-based speech and strict scrutiny analysis)
- Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Grp., LLC, 847 F.3d 1037 (TCPA violation sufficient for Article III standing but UCL requires economic injury)