No. 20-209

Ali Gadelhak v. AT&T Services, Inc.

Lower Court: Seventh Circuit
Docketed: 2020-08-21
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Relisted (2) Experienced Counsel
Tags: automatic-telephone-dialing-system circuit-split consent database-telemarketing smartphone statutory-interpretation telemarketing telephone-consumer-protection-act
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri ClassAction
Latest Conference: 2021-04-16 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the definition of an 'automatic telephone dialing system' (ATDS) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) encompasses only systems that autodial telephone numbers generated using a random or sequential number generator, or whether those restrictions also apply to systems that autodial telephone numbers stored in a list

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTION PRESENTED The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”), Pub. L. No. 102243, 105 Stat. 2394, prohibits use of an “automatic telephone dialing system” (‘ATDS”) to initiate voice calls and text messages to certain phone numbers, including numbers assigned to cellular telephone service, without the prior express consent of the called party. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A). Petitioner sued Respondent for violating this provision after Respondent’s computer program sent him automated text messages asking him, in a language he did not understand, to participate in a survey. The district court entered judgment for the Respondent on the grounds that the dialing system used to send the messages does not qualify as an ATDS, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The TCPA defines ATDS as “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.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1). The question presented is whether this definition encompasses only systems that autodial telephone numbers generated using a random or sequential number generator, or whether those restrictions also apply to systems that autodial telephone numbers stored in a list, like the system used by Respondent in this case. The Court recently granted a petition for a writ of certiorari to consider the same question in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, No. 19-511, 2020 U.S. Lexis 3559 (July 9, 2020).

Docket Entries

2021-04-19
Petition DENIED. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2021-04-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/16/2021.
2020-11-04
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/20/2020.
2020-10-21
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including November 2, 2020.
2020-10-21
Brief of respondent AT&T SERVICES, INC in opposition filed.
2020-10-20
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 21, 2020 to November 2, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-09-18
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including October 21, 2020.
2020-09-16
Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 21, 2020 to October 21, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-08-17
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 21, 2020)

Attorneys

Ali Gadelhak
Keith James KeoghKeogh Law, LTD, Petitioner
Keith James KeoghKeogh Law, LTD, Petitioner
AT&T SERVICES, INC
Andrew John PincusMayer Brown LLP, Respondent
Andrew John PincusMayer Brown LLP, Respondent