When President Trump announced he was nominating Judge Amy Coney Barrett to succeed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court last week, the future of many key issues was called into question. We won’t mention or write about them here because this blog is dedicated to all things cannabis, but there is one issue on which we’ve been warning our readers and, on which we kind of know exactly what Judge Barrett thinks.
Back in August, I wrote this post about Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid (“Duguid”) – a case currently before the Supreme Court on the issue of whether the definition of an ATDS “encompasses any device that can ‘store’ and ‘automatically dial’ telephone numbers, even if the device does not ‘us[e] a random or sequential number generator.’” As I noted there, the Circuits are currently split on this issue.
The Third, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits read the TCPA to apply only to devices with the capacity to generate random or sequential telephone numbers and dial those numbers. The Second and Ninth Circuits, conversely, have held that “the statutory definition of ATDS is not limited to devices with the capacity to call numbers produced by a ‘random or
Read More Here…