ACA Int'l v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n

Citation885 F.3d 687
Decision Date16 March 2018
Docket Number15-1313,15-1244,15-1441,15-1290,15-1314,15-1306,No. 15-1211,15-1440,C/w 15-1218,15-1311,15-1304,15-1211
Parties ACA INTERNATIONAL, et al., Petitioners v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, et al., Intervenors
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)

Shay Dvoretzky argued the cause for petitioners ACA International, et al. With him on the joint briefs were Helgi C. Walker, Monica S. Desai, Amy L. Brown, Jonathan Jacob Nadler, Christopher J. Wright, Jennifer P. Bagg, Elizabeth Austin Bonner, Robert A. Long, Yaron Dori, Brian Melendez, Tonia Ouellette Klausner, Keith E. Eggleton, Kate Comerford Todd, Steven P. Lehotsky, and Warren Postman. Lindsay S. See entered an appearance.

Charles R. Messer, pro se, was on the brief for amicus curiae Charles R. Messer in support of ACA International's petition.

Paul Werner argued the cause for petitioner Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp. With him on the briefs was Brian Weimer.

Thomas C. Mugavero, Steven A. Augustino, Jonathan E. Paikin, Jonathan G. Cedarbaum, Blaine C. Kimrey, and Bryan K. Clark were on the joint briefs for intervenors MRS BPO LLC, et al. in support of petitioners.

Don L. Bell, II was on the brief for amicus curiae The National Association of Chain Drug Stores, Inc. in support of petitioner Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp.

H. Russell Frisby, Jr., Harvey L. Reiter, Aryeh Fishman, Michael Murray, and Jay Morrison were on the brief for amici curiae American Gas Association, et al. in support of petitioners.

Charles H. Kennedy was on the brief for amici curiae The American Bankers Association, Credit Union National Association and The Independent Community Bankers of America in support of petitioners.

Andrew B. Clubok, Susan E. Engel, and Devin S. Anderson were on the brief for amicus curiae The Internet Association in support of petitioners.

Joseph R. Palmore and Seth W. Lloyd were on the brief for amici curiae Retail Litigation Center, Inc., National Retail Federation, and National Restaurant Association in support of petitioners.

Bryan N. Tramont and Russell P. Hanser were on the brief for amicus curiae CTIA-The Wireless Association in support of petitioners.

Eric J. Troutman was on the brief for amici curiae American Financial Services Association, Consumer Mortgage Coalition, and Mortgage Bankers Association in support of petitioners. Jan T. Chilton and Kerry W. Frarnich entered appearances.

Amy M. Gallegos was on the brief for amicus curiae Communication Innovators in support of petitioners.

Scott M. Noveck, Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were William J. Baer, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Kristen C. Limarzi, Steven J. Mintz, Attorneys, Jonathan B. Sallet, General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, David M. Gossett, Deputy General Counsel, and Jacob M. Lewis, Associate General Counsel.

Craig L. Briskin and Julie Nepveu were on the brief for amici curiae National Consumer Law Center, et al. in support of the Federal Communications Commission 2015 Omnibus Declaratory Ruling and Order.

Marc Rotenberg and Alan Butler were on the brief for amici curiae Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and Six Consumer Privacy Organizations in support of respondents.

Before: Srinivasan and Pillard, Circuit Judges, and Edwards, Senior Circuit Judge.

Srinivasan, Circuit Judge:

Unwanted robocalls are an all-too-familiar phenomenon. For years, consumers have complained to the Federal Communications Commission about automated telemarketing calls and text messages that they did not seek and cannot seem to stop.

Congress sought to address consumers' concerns with undesired robocalls in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. The TCPA generally prohibits the use of certain kinds of automated dialing equipment to call wireless telephone numbers absent advance consent. The Act vests the Commission with authority to implement those restrictions.

In this case, a number of regulated entities seek review of a 2015 order in which the Commission sought to clarify various aspects of the TCPA's general bar against using automated dialing devices to make uninvited calls. The challenges encompass four issues addressed by the agency's order: (i) which sorts of automated dialing equipment are subject to the TCPA's restrictions on unconsented calls; (ii) when a caller obtains a party's consent, does a call nonetheless violate the Act if, unbeknownst to the caller, the consenting party's wireless number has been reassigned to a different person who has not given consent; (iii) how may a consenting party revoke her consent; and (iv) did the Commission too narrowly fashion an exemption from the TCPA's consent requirement for certain healthcare-related calls.

We uphold the Commission's approach to revocation of consent, under which a party may revoke her consent through any reasonable means clearly expressing a desire to receive no further messages from the caller. We also sustain the scope of the agency's exemption for time-sensitive healthcare calls.

We set aside, however, the Commission's effort to clarify the types of calling equipment that fall within the TCPA's restrictions. The Commission's understanding would appear to subject ordinary calls from any conventional smartphone to the Act's coverage, an unreasonably expansive interpretation of the statute. We also vacate the agency's approach to calls made to a phone number previously assigned to a person who had given consent but since reassigned to another (nonconsenting) person. The Commission concluded that calls in that situation violate the TCPA, apart from a one-call safe harbor, regardless of whether the caller has any awareness of the reassignment. We determine that the agency's one-call safe harbor, at least as defended in the order, is arbitrary and capricious.

We therefore grant the petitions for review in part and deny them in part.

I.

The federal government's efforts to combat unwanted robocalls have spanned nearly three decades, involving two federal agencies and a number of congressional enactments. In the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act of 1994, 15 U.S.C. § 6101 et seq. , Congress empowered the Federal Trade Commission to regulate the telemarketing industry. The FTC's measures include a general bar against calling any telephone number on the "do-not-call registry" without consent or an established business relationship. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B) ; see 15 U.S.C. § 6151(a). This case does not concern the FTC's initiatives.

This case instead concerns the Federal Communications Commission's efforts to combat unwanted robocalls pursuant to its authority under the TCPA. Some of the Commission's restrictions on telemarketing calls mirror measures established by the FTC. Compare 16 C.F.R. §§ 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B), 310.4(c), with 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c). But the agencies' initiatives also differ in various respects. Of relevance here, only the TCPA specifically restricts the use of an "automatic telephone dialing system" to make calls. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A). Petitioners challenge the Commission's interpretation and implementation of various TCPA provisions pertaining to automated dialing equipment.

A.

Congress enacted the TCPA in 1991 based on findings that the "use of the telephone to market goods and services to the home and other businesses" had become "pervasive due to the increased use of cost-effective telemarketing techniques." 47 U.S.C. § 227 note, Pub. L. No. 102-243, § 2(1), 105 Stat. 2394, 2394. "Many consumers," Congress determined, "are outraged over the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance calls to their homes from telemarketers." Id. § 2(6)-(7).

The TCPA restricts calls both "to any residential telephone line" and to "any telephone number assigned to a ... cellular telephone service." 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), (B). This case solely concerns the latter restrictions on telephone calls to wireless numbers.

Congress, in that regard, made it "unlawful ... to make any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any automatic telephone dialing system ... to any telephone number assigned to a ... cellular telephone service," "unless such call is made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States." Id . § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). The statute defines an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS, or autodialer) 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." Id. § 227(a)(1).

In short, the TCPA generally makes it unlawful to call a cell phone using an ATDS. And an ATDS is equipment with the "capacity" to perform each of two enumerated functions: (i) storing or producing telephone numbers "using a random or sequential number generator" and (ii) dialing those numbers. The general prohibition on autodialer calls to wireless numbers is subject to three exceptions. The central exception for purposes of this case is for calls made with "prior express consent." There are also exceptions for emergency calls and calls made to collect government debts.

The TCPA vests the Commission with responsibility to promulgate regulations implementing the Act's requirements. Id. § 227(b)(2). The Act also grants the Commission specific authority to fashion exemptions from the general prohibition on autodialer calls to wireless numbers, where the calls are "not charged to the called party." Id. § 227(b)(2)(C). As Congress explained, the FCC "should have the flexibility to design different rules for those types of automated or prerecorded calls that it finds are not considered a nuisance or invasion of privacy." Id. § 227 note, Pub. L. No. 102-243, § 2(13), 105 Stat. 2394, 2395.

Since the TCPA's enactment, the FCC has issued...

To continue reading

Request your trial
215 cases
  • Am. Fed'n of Labor & Cong. of Indus. Organizations v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., Civ. No. 20-cv-0675 (KBJ)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 7 Junio 2020
    ...this Court is "without any substantial doubt that the agency would have adopted the severed portion on its own." ACA Int'l v. F.C.C. , 885 F.3d 687, 708 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted). As repeatedly referenced above, the 2019 Election Rule contains an express severa......
  • Kiakombua v. Wolf, No. 19-cv-1872 (KBJ)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 31 Octubre 2020
    ...and thereby facilitate the agency's own decisionmaking processes concerning the necessary revisions. See, e.g. , ACA Int'l v. F.C.C. , 885 F.3d 687, 708 (D.C. Cir. 2018).3. Plaintiffs Are Entitled To New Credible Fear Determinations Lastly, this Court has determined that vacatur of the Less......
  • Panzarella v. Navient Solutions, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 14 Junio 2022
    ...Prot. Act of 1991 , 30 FCC Rcd. 7961, 7977-78 (2015). In a portion of the ruling left intact by the D.C. Circuit, see ACA Int'l v. FCC , 885 F.3d 687, 695 (D.C. Cir. 2018), the FCC determined that such "a combination of equipment" could constitute an ATDS as long as this "voluntary combinat......
  • Sharp v. Ally Fin., Inc., 6:15-CV-06520 EAW
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • 10 Septiembre 2018
    ...be contacted as part of a bargained-for exchange to unilaterally revoke that consent." Reyes , 861 F.3d at 56 ; cf. ACA Int'l v. F.C.C. , 885 F.3d 687, 710 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (upholding that part of a Federal Communications Commission ruling "under which a party may revoke her consent through......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • BREAKING UP VIA ROBOCALL: WILL THE SUPREME COURT'S CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY DISMANTLE PROTECTIONS UNDER THE TCPA?
    • United States
    • The Journal of High Technology Law Vol. 22 No. 1, January 2022
    • 1 Enero 2022
    ...(37) See Marks, 904 F.3d at 1045-46 (analyzing the wording and results of the FCC's 2015 order). (38) See generally ACA Int'l. v. FCC., 885 F.3d 687, 692 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (summarizing that the D.C. Circuit set aside parts of the FCC's 2015 (39) See id. at 696 (juxtaposing a cellphone to an ......
  • UNPLANNED OBSOLESCENCE: INTERPRETING THE AUTOMATIC TELEPHONE DIALING SYSTEM AFTER THE SMARTPHONE EPOCH.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 119 No. 1, October 2020
    • 1 Octubre 2020
    ...Protection Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-243, 105 Stat. 2394 (codified as amended at 47 U.S.C. [section] 227); see also ACA Int'l v. FCC, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. (13.) 47 U.S.C. [section] 227(b)(3). (14.) See Creative Montessori Learning Ctrs. v. Ashford Gear LLC, 662 F.3d 913, 915-16 (7th C......
  • Dominguez v. Yahoo, Inc.
    • United States
    • Federal Communications Law Journal Vol. 71 No. 3, September 2019
    • 1 Septiembre 2019
    ...service fit within the statutory definition of an ATDS. (1.) 894 F.3d 116 (3d Cir. 2018). (2.) Id. at 121. (3.) ACA Int'l v. FCC, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. (4.) S. REP. NO. 102-178, at 1 (1990). (5.) 47 U.S.C. [section] 227(b)(2). (6.) See, e.g., In re Rules and Regulations Implementing the T......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT