345 F. Supp. 3d 1064
W.D. Wis.2018Background
- Plaintiff Mitchell Maes alleges Charter repeatedly called his cellphone using an autodialer after he told callers to stop; he heard a dead-air pause before representatives connected.
- Maes invokes the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), alleging calls were made using an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS) without his consent.
- Charter moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing Maes failed to plausibly plead use of an ATDS and that the FCC's prior ATDS rulings are no longer valid.
- Central legal dispute concerns which definition of ATDS controls: the statutory text (capacity to dial random/sequential numbers) versus FCC interpretations (2003/2008/2012 orders treating predictive dialers as ATDS), and the effect of ACA International (D.C. Cir. 2018) vacating the FCC's 2015 order.
- The court concluded the FCC's 2003 ruling (predictive dialers qualify as ATDS even if they do not generate random/sequential numbers) remains binding and that Maes plausibly pleaded an ATDS claim based on the dead-air/predictive-dialer allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the FCC's 2003 ruling that predictive dialers are ATDS still bind the court? | Maes: yes — courts are bound by FCC interpretation including 2003 order. | Charter: ACA International vacated the 2015 order and, implicitly, prior FCC rulings; thus 2003 rule no longer controls. | The court held the 2003 FCC ruling remains valid and binding; ACA International only invalidated the contradictory aspects of the 2015 order. |
| How to define "capacity" and the ATDS functions under § 227(a)(1)? | Maes: ATDS includes devices that can dial without human intervention (predictive dialers), even if they lack random/sequential generation. | Charter: statutory text requires capacity to generate random or sequential numbers. | The court applied the 2003 FCC interpretation: predictive dialers qualify as ATDS without random/sequential number capacity. |
| Did Maes plausibly allege Charter used an ATDS? | Maes: multiple calls after revocation of consent and dead air before connection indicate predictive dialer use. | Charter: Maes failed to plead facts showing equipment with ATDS capacity. | The court found Maes‟ allegations (dead air, repeated calls after request to stop) plausibly allege use of a predictive dialer/ATDS. |
| Should the court wait for FCC rulemaking or adopt a new statutory construction? | Maes: apply existing FCC precedent (2003 order) now. | Charter: FCC's request for comment and agency changes mean prior precedent is unsettled; court should not apply old rulings. | The court applied current law (2003 FCC ruling) and declined to defer to prospective FCC rulemaking; denied dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- ACA Int'l v. FCC, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (vacated the FCC's 2015 ATDS definition for being internally inconsistent)
- Marks v. Crunch San Diego, 904 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2018) (addressed validity of prior FCC rulings and construed ATDS under statutory language)
- Dominguez v. Yahoo, 894 F.3d 116 (3d Cir. 2018) (treated ACA International as vacating the 2015 order; ambiguous about prior orders)
- Pinkus v. Sirius XM Radio, 319 F. Supp. 3d 927 (N.D. Ill. 2018) (district court holding that ACA International undermined prior FCC ATDS rulings)
- Blow v. Bijora, Inc., 855 F.3d 793 (7th Cir. 2017) (discusses deference to FCC TCPA interpretations)