Score is Now 3-2 in Favor of Marks: 6th Circuit Adopts 9th Circuit Definition of ATDS

Editor's note: This article is provided through a partnership between insideARM and Squire Patton Boggs LLP, which provides a steady stream of timely, insightful and entertaining takes on of the ever-evolving, never-a-dull-moment Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Squire Patton Boggs LLP—and all insideARM articles—are protected by copyright. All rights are reserved.

The score is now 3-2 in favor of the Marks ATDS definition. Yesterday, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a predictive dialer system is an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) because the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s (TCPA) ATDS definition includes all dialers that call from a list, not just those that call using a random or sequential number generator. The case is Allan v. Pa. Higher Ed. Assist. Agency. Case No. 19-2043 (6th Cir. 2020)  and it can be found here

For the uninitiated, the TCPA’s ATDS definition includes: “equipment which has the capacity – (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.”

View this content by subscribing

Please register to unlock this content

I already have an account. Log in