For years, “ATDS claims” were the backbone of TCPA litigation. If a company used automated dialing technology to call or text a cell phone without consent, it faced statutory damages of $500–$1,500 per call.
Then came Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid (2021).
Many practitioners now refer to it as the effective death of broad ATDS-based TCPA claims.
Here’s what happened — and what remains.
What Is an ATDS?
The TCPA defines an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS) as equipment that has the capacity:
“to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and to dial such numbers.”
For years, courts split on how to interpret that definition.
Some courts held:
- If a system could automatically dial from a stored list, that was enough.
Other courts required:
- Use of a random or sequential number generator.
The broader interpretation fueled massive TCPA litigation.
The Litigation Boom (Pre-2021)
Before 2021:
- Predictive dialers
- SMS marketing platforms
- Customer notification systems
- Debt collection dialers
were routinely targeted in ATDS lawsuits.
The theory was simple:
If it dials automatically, it qualifies.
This expansive view drove:
- Class actions
- Large settlements
- Significant compliance costs
Facebook v. Duguid (2021)
The Supreme Court resolved the circuit split in a unanimous decision.
The Court held:
To qualify as an ATDS, the equipment must use a random or sequential number generator to either:
- Generate numbers, or
- Store numbers generated in that way.
Simply dialing from a stored customer list does not qualify.
Why This Was a Turning Point
Modern dialing systems almost never generate numbers randomly.
Instead, they:
- Call existing customer databases
- Text curated marketing lists
- Send alerts to registered users
Under Duguid, most of those systems do not meet the statutory definition of ATDS.
The result:
- Numerous pending cases were dismissed.
- Plaintiffs amended complaints to drop ATDS claims.
- Class certification became more difficult.
- Defense summary judgment motions surged.
For many traditional autodialer theories, the door effectively closed.
Why Courts Call It the “Death” of ATDS Claims
The reason is practical, not rhetorical.
Very few businesses today:
- Randomly generate phone numbers, or
- Use sequential number generators in the way the statute describes.
That type of dialing was common in the late 1980s and early 1990s — the era in which Congress drafted the TCPA.
Technology moved forward. The statutory language did not.
Duguid applied strict textualism. The statute says “random or sequential number generator.” The Court enforced exactly that.
What Claims Survive?
The TCPA is not dead — but it shifted.
Claims that remain viable include:
1. Prerecorded Voice Claims
Calls using artificial or prerecorded voices to cell phones without consent still violate the TCPA — even without an ATDS.
2. Residential Robocalls
Prerecorded telemarketing calls to residential landlines remain restricted.
3. Do-Not-Call Violations
Failure to honor opt-out requests or maintain internal DNC procedures remains actionable.
4. State Law Telemarketing Claims
Several states have broader statutes that do not rely on the ATDS definition.
The Broader Legal Trend
The narrowing of ATDS claims reflects a larger judicial movement:
- Strict textual interpretation
- Reluctance to expand statutory language beyond its terms
- Reduced judicial deference to regulatory expansion
Combined with decisions like Spokeo, TransUnion, and the end of Chevron deference, the Supreme Court has signaled that statutory consumer protection laws will be applied narrowly according to text.
Practical Impact for Consumers and Practitioners
The key questions now are:
- Was a prerecorded voice used?
- Was there prior express consent?
- Were opt-out rights honored?
- Does state law provide broader remedies?
ATDS claims based solely on dialing from stored lists are largely gone in federal court.
Litigation strategy has shifted from “automatic dialing” to consent, prerecorded messages, and do-not-call violations.
The Bottom Line
The Supreme Court did not repeal the TCPA.
But by strictly interpreting the ATDS definition, it dramatically reduced one of the most powerful tools in TCPA litigation.
For many traditional autodialer cases, Facebook v. Duguid marked the end of an era.
The focus now is precision:
Understanding the exact technology used, the consent provided, and the specific statutory provision at issue.
Consumer law continues to evolve — and TCPA litigation is no exception.
