The plaintiff actually had a solid argument, both regarding the literal wording as well as the intent of the law, and it would be hard to fault a court for taki

The plaintiff actually had a solid argument, both regarding the literal wording as well as the intent of the law, and it would be hard to fault a court for taking their interpretation, which the 9th Circuit actually did. To my mind this is an example of the outcome being dictated by the consequences: by the time it reached SCOTUS it had become much more clear how disruptive a contrary ruling would be. The defendant Facebook's argument was just as reasonable, so of course it made sense to choose it. If this case had come 20+ years ago, the plaintiff very well may have won. SCOTUS Blog's oral argument analysis provides a good summary showing the reasonableness of the plaintiff's argument: https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/12/argument-analysis-justices-at-odds-over-federal-robocall-ban-in-the-face-of-technological-change/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/12/argument-analysis-justice... At the time it seemed like the justices were quite open to it. I think it's a funny case because one could easily imagine Gorsuch or Thomas pontificating in a lengthy dissent about how a Real(TM) textual interpretation demands ruling for the plaintiff. I mean, this case is basically a textualist coin toss, but a dissent will always go to the mat. Fortunately or unfortunately, we don't get to enjoy that this time.