Press Enter to Search

Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) litigation is hot. Fueled by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision last March in ACA International v. FCC, callers of all types are being sued and cases before all courts are being appealed faster than we can spell certiorari. Why? Because the stakes are high.


First Comes Confusion: ACA v. FCC left us with little to no definition of an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS). In effect, the 2nd Circuit’s decision was a time machine that threw us back to the late 90’s – a time when debt collectors were exempt by rule from the TCPA and life was good. For many, the decision felt like a win, but the Monday morning quarterbacks quickly realized the only thing ACA v. FCC really accomplished was to create even more confusion and ambiguity in the law. By casting aside the FCC’s 2003, 2008, 2012 and 2015 orders interpreting the definition of an ATDS, ACA v. FCC basically left consumers and businesses alike wondering if they would even know an ATDS if they saw one.


Along Came Crunch: On November 7, 2018, in the closely-followed case Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC, No. 14-56834 (9th Cir.), the 9th Circuit became the third appellate court to address the in the wake of ACA v. FCC.  Departing from the 2nd and 3rd Circuits, the Mark’s Court adopted yet another definition of ATDS. Rather than interpreting the statutory definition of ATDS as a device that can store or produce random or sequential numbers and to dial such numbers [as did the 2nd and 3rd Circuits]; the Mark’s court held any device which can store and dial numbers to a consumer’s mobile number is an ATDS.

Mark’s basically skipped over the words in the statutory definition pertaining to random or sequential number generators and ruled equipment that stores and dials telephone numbers from a list, regardless of whether those numbers were randomly or sequentially generated, is an ATDS, thus classifying the common smart phone an ATDS. It’s terribly disappointing the 2nd Circuit did not take the time to define the word “store” as used in the statute. None the less, Crunch San Diego appealed. The 9th Circuit denied its petition and sent Crunch on its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.


Supreme Court Review: Review by the Supreme Court is not automatic. The Supreme Court only accepts cases for review in limited situations – Specifically, Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on Writ of Certiorari, provides,

Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court’s discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers:

(a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power;

Author’s Explanation: Huge conflict among courts of appeals and courts of last resort or some court somewhere came up with some goofball interpretation of the law.

(b) a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals;

Author’s Explanation: Conflict of legal decisions interpreting a federal issue among courts of last resort.

(c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.

Author’s Explanation: A court of last resort or court of appeals has interpreted a federal issue which conflicts with the Supreme Court’s previous or relevant decisions.


My Prediction: Due to the conflict in opinion among Circuit Courts of Appeals interpreting the definition of an ATDS, applying the requirements of Rule 10, I believe the U.S. Supreme Court may very well grant the defendant’s, Crunch San Diego’s, petition for certiorari. Should such a review occur, we will hopefully receive the long-awaited answers to questions such as:

  • Does an ATDS have to possess the capacity to generate random or sequential numbers and to dial such numbers?
  • What is the definition of store? Is storage limited to RAM memory, the load of a pool, or the retention of a call record in the device after call launch?
  • If the consumer you intend to call must grant consent or must the consumer you actually call grant TCPA style consent?

For an interesting blog on this topic, click here.

In the meantime, behave conservatively, document consent and revocation, audit to your processes, update your policies and procedures and diagram your call and data flows through your autodialer and your manual contact system. Remember if you do use a manual contact system, make sure it does not store numbers in RAM memory or use or save lists of numbers. Finally, if you need assistance with any aspect of your consumer contact processes or procedures please reach out to me – Happy to consult and happy to help.

Happy Thanksgiving to you my friends.


Learn more about how Ontario Systems can help you navigate your compliance challenges.

Disclaimer: Ontario Systems is a technology company and provides this blog article solely for general informational and marketing purposes. You should not rely on the content of this material for any other purpose or as specific guidance for your company. Ontario Systems’ advice, services, tools and products described herein do not guarantee compliance with any law or industry standard. You are ultimately responsible for your own company’s actions and compliance efforts. Because everyone’s situation is different, you must consult your own attorneys, accountants, and/or other advisors to obtain specific advice on your company’s compliance, legal, tax, regulatory and/or other business needs. Despite Ontario Systems’ efforts to provide current and up-to-date information, you need to recognize that the information contained herein may become outdated quickly and may contain errors and/or other inaccuracies.

© 2018 Ontario Systems, LLC. All rights reserved. Information contained in this document is subject to change. Reproduction of this publication is not permitted without the express permission of Ontario Systems, LLC.

Posted by Rozanne Andersen

Rozanne Andersen serves as Ontario Systems’ Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer. She is a licensed attorney and 30+ year veteran and advocate of the banking, credit, and collection industries. She presently leads Ontario Systems’ compliance software design initiatives, directs the company’s corporate CFPB compliance efforts, functions as a thought leader for the industry, and leads the company’s product development initiatives to support compliance with consumer financial laws and regulations. In 2020, Rozanne received an international Compliance Officer of the Year award from Women in Compliance. As former general counsel, director of government affairs, and CEO of ACA, Rozanne is thrilled to combine her legal and government affairs work with her new legal specialty, compliance technology innovation. Rozanne can be reached at
All Posts