#TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT TORRENT#

2 The decision overrules prior Ninth Circuit authority allowing TCPA claims over dialing systems that merely have the capacity to 'store' numbers and dial them automatically, without the capacity to generate numbers sequentially or randomly.

Duguid, 1 the Supreme Court ruled that the TCPA's prohibition against sending unsolicited telephone and text messages from automatic dialing systems only applies to those systems with the capacity to use a 'random or sequential number generator' to store or produce telephone numbers to be dialed.

#TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT TORRENT#

Supreme Court decision should bring needed clarity and relief for businesses following a torrent of class action litigation under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ('TCPA'). Further, CUNA has been an active participant in TCPA-related litigation, filing amicus briefs in the Circuit Courts and the Supreme Court of the United States.A recent U.S.

CUNA regularly meets with and files comment with the FCC to ensure that the perspective of small businesses like credit unions are heard and considered in the rulemaking process. The TCPA is broken, and CUNA continues to work all possible avenues to reform it. Until the TCPA regulations include a usable definition for an ATDS, reasonable protections for legitimate callers dialing numbers provided to them by their customers, and recognition that calls related to established business relationships are not the same as robocalls from strangers, the TCPA is simply not workable. The FCC was never meant to prohibit desired calls form credit unions to their members, nonetheless, many credit unions have determined that the efficiencies of making certain calls or using certain technologies is not worth the potential liability and noncompliance risk posed by the TCPA’s burdensome restrictions. While this clarity is a victory for credit unions, the FCC has not followed up these decisions with workable requirements, leaving credit unions guessing about what policies and procedures would be compliant. Over the past several years, litigation has clarified that some of the FCC’s requirements in its 2015 Order is vague, ambiguous, or unconstitutional, including its definition of an ATDS. This has created a confusing framework of ever-changing rules, often found only in orders, which sometimes assume callers having information about the identity of the person picking up the phone than is possible. Unfortunately, Congress has not amended the TCPA as technology has evolved, and the FCC has attempted to fill in the gaps by expanding the TCPA’s scope and requirements through Orders and Opinions. The law is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and telecommunications when using an automated telephone dialing system (ATDS) or an artificial or prerecorded voice to contact consumers. The Telephone Consumer Protect Act (TCPA) was enacted in 1991 before cell phones were commonly used.

Telephone consumer protection act