6 ms·

This will do absolutely nothing. Since the Supreme Court gutted the TCPA there is zero downside for companies to violate it.

by nkw 4y ago

crhulls 4y ago
I'm not too familiar with what the Supreme Court did with TCPA, but as a developer, we were hit by patent-troll equivalents who leveraged the law to shake down companies. In our case, someone's sister invited him to join their account. The text message was initiated by the sister but our system sent the SMS via our backend. We were sued because we allegedly sent an unsolicited text message and were considered an autodialer under TCPA guidelines. We were able to win the suit, but it cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The law needed a tune up, and if the court decision stopped this type of troll suit some good came of it. I am not defending robocallers. I hope they die. I just highlight that sometimes these laws do need to be tightened up to stop abuse the other way.
- oneoff786 4y ago
  So you don’t know what the court did, but one time you had a bad experience with a law, so you’re gonna assume the court did a good thing?
  - vanattab 4y ago
    the case was unanimously decided.
    - oneoff786 4y ago
      That is irrelevant to the point
- shagie 4y ago
  > I'm not too familiar with what the Supreme Court did with TCPA ... June 24, 2021 - https://www.natlawreview.com/article/ripple-effects-supreme-court-s-tcpa-decision-still-developing-companies-using-auto https://www.natlawreview.com/article/ripple-effects-supreme-... > If you work in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) space, you are certainly aware of the landmark unanimous decision by the United States Supreme Court in Facebook v Duguid, in which the Court narrowed the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) to equipment that has the capacity to either store or produce numbers using a random or sequential number generator. > ... > On June 10, 2021, the District Court for the District of South Carolina held that the Aspect predictive dialer did not qualify as an ATDS because the evidence proved that the system could neither randomly nor sequentially store or produce numbers to be dialed --- So, if you're working from a list of numbers, it's not an ATDS. It is only an ATDS if you're dialing random numbers or sequential numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook,_Inc._v._Duguid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook,_Inc._v._Duguid > The Supreme Court's ruling was seen to be favorable to the telemarketing industry, since the decision narrowed the definition of an automatic dialing system of which are regulated under the TCPA. As few actual automated dialers in use at the time of the decision incorporate the random or sequential number generator, telemarketers would be able to use other automatic dialing systems that do not meet this definition to engage in their business, according to the National Consumer Law Center. The National Consumer Law Center as well as Consumer Reports expressed concern that there would be a significant increase in unwanted telemarketing calls due to this decision. > Senator Ed Markey, one of the authors of the TCPA, along with Representative Anna Eshoo, called the ruling "disastrous", as the Congressional intent of the TCPA was "to ban dialing from a database", and announced the same day of the decision that they would be looking to introduce amended legislation to address the Court's decision.
  - CWuestefeld 4y ago
    As described here, it seems like Congress has every opportunity to clarify the definition of ATDS. Surely they deserve as much blame as the Court, then.
    - shagie 4y ago
      The specific part of the law is: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227 > (1) The term “automatic telephone dialing system” means 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.
    - guelo 4y ago
      Congress has been purposefully broken by Republican's new requirement that all legislation must receive supermajority approval in the senate. It's part of a coordinated plan to "drown the federal government in a bathtub": the courts read legislation as narrowly as possible while congress is unable to legislate.
      - shagie 4y ago
        I'm not sure a wider reading of the TCPA is possible for the definition of an automatic dialing system. Is there any other way the courts could read the definition provided in https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227 ?
        crhulls 4y ago
        Look up Edelson, they are the troll firm that sued us. They have had significant success taking much wider interpretations of the law. Just like patent trolls they also assume most people will just settle - we did not but it was a gamble. Here are some of the cases they brag about: https://edelson.com/inside-the-firm/905-2/ https://edelson.com/inside-the-firm/905-2/
        CWuestefeld 4y ago
- ikiris 4y ago
  If you allow people to send unsolicited invite sms… what did you expect? You should have lost
  - crhulls 4y ago
    The intent of the TCPA was absolutely not to disallow text messages being sent for app invites. We did not spam any contacts. A user invited their sister to join them on their account by manually selecting them from their contact list. We just sent the text message via Twilio vs having the user send it themselves. And regardless of whether you like this or not, this was not the use case the law was implemented for, which is to stop robocallers.
- ntoskrnl 4y ago
  What would the damages have been had you lost? I'm being called by a persistent "insurance" salesman that I'd love to take to the cleaners
  - crhulls 4y ago
    I think it is one of those things that would theoretically have been billions of dollars (hundreds of millions of invites have gone out and the statutory damages were on a per infraction basis), but practically speaking something very similar to a patent troll, so maybe in the $5-10m range? I'm just guessing. We are a later stage company.
    - ntoskrnl 4y ago
      I didn't know the damages were statutory - I guess I should look that up myself. In your case, was it a class action suit? If not, I wonder how they had standing to sue on behalf of thousands/millions of other users.
yojo 4y ago
I wasn't up on this, so looked it up. Apparently they narrowed the definition of what "counts as an autodialer" to effectively open a large exemption for devices that you or I would consider an autodialer. As long as the autodialer doesn't store numbers sequentially or generate them randomly it is exempt. e.g. if you have a list of non-sequential phone numbers, you can autodial to your heart's content. I thought this post explained it reasonably well: https://www.manatt.com/insights/newsletters/tcpa-connect/the-supreme-courts-landmark-decision-in-facebook https://www.manatt.com/insights/newsletters/tcpa-connect/the...
- CWuestefeld 4y ago
  Is there anything preventing Congress from clarifying the definition? Assuming not, don't they deserve as much of the blame for the mess as folks here are heaping on the Court?
  - cwkoss 4y ago
    gross incompetence
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      Coupled with the assumption that such a stupid ruling will just be repeated on a new pretext.
guelo 4y ago
This court is on an unstoppable extremist rampage. After another decade of their activism the country will be unrecognizable

This will do absolutely nothing. Since the Supreme Court gutted the TCPA there is zero downside for companies to violate it.

by nkw 4y ago

This will do absolutely nothing. Since the Supreme Court gutted the TCPA there is zero downside for companies to violate it.

crhulls 4y ago

I'm not too familiar with what the Supreme Court did with TCPA, but as a developer, we were hit by patent-troll equivalents who leveraged the law to shake down companies. In our case, someone's sister invited him to join their account. The text message was initiated by the sister but our system sent the SMS via our backend. We were sued because we allegedly sent an unsolicited text message and were considered an autodialer under TCPA guidelines. We were able to win the suit, but it cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The law needed a tune up, and if the court decision stopped this type of troll suit some good came of it. I am not defending robocallers. I hope they die. I just highlight that sometimes these laws do need to be tightened up to stop abuse the other way.

oneoff786 4y ago
So you don’t know what the court did, but one time you had a bad experience with a law, so you’re gonna assume the court did a good thing?
- vanattab 4y ago
  the case was unanimously decided.
  - oneoff786 4y ago
    That is irrelevant to the point
shagie 4y ago
> I'm not too familiar with what the Supreme Court did with TCPA ... June 24, 2021 - https://www.natlawreview.com/article/ripple-effects-supreme-court-s-tcpa-decision-still-developing-companies-using-auto https://www.natlawreview.com/article/ripple-effects-supreme-... > If you work in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) space, you are certainly aware of the landmark unanimous decision by the United States Supreme Court in Facebook v Duguid, in which the Court narrowed the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) to equipment that has the capacity to either store or produce numbers using a random or sequential number generator. > ... > On June 10, 2021, the District Court for the District of South Carolina held that the Aspect predictive dialer did not qualify as an ATDS because the evidence proved that the system could neither randomly nor sequentially store or produce numbers to be dialed --- So, if you're working from a list of numbers, it's not an ATDS. It is only an ATDS if you're dialing random numbers or sequential numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook,_Inc._v._Duguid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook,_Inc._v._Duguid > The Supreme Court's ruling was seen to be favorable to the telemarketing industry, since the decision narrowed the definition of an automatic dialing system of which are regulated under the TCPA. As few actual automated dialers in use at the time of the decision incorporate the random or sequential number generator, telemarketers would be able to use other automatic dialing systems that do not meet this definition to engage in their business, according to the National Consumer Law Center. The National Consumer Law Center as well as Consumer Reports expressed concern that there would be a significant increase in unwanted telemarketing calls due to this decision. > Senator Ed Markey, one of the authors of the TCPA, along with Representative Anna Eshoo, called the ruling "disastrous", as the Congressional intent of the TCPA was "to ban dialing from a database", and announced the same day of the decision that they would be looking to introduce amended legislation to address the Court's decision.
- CWuestefeld 4y ago
  As described here, it seems like Congress has every opportunity to clarify the definition of ATDS. Surely they deserve as much blame as the Court, then.
  - shagie 4y ago
    The specific part of the law is: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227 > (1) The term “automatic telephone dialing system” means 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.
  - guelo 4y ago
    Congress has been purposefully broken by Republican's new requirement that all legislation must receive supermajority approval in the senate. It's part of a coordinated plan to "drown the federal government in a bathtub": the courts read legislation as narrowly as possible while congress is unable to legislate.
    - shagie 4y ago
      I'm not sure a wider reading of the TCPA is possible for the definition of an automatic dialing system. Is there any other way the courts could read the definition provided in https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227 ?
      - crhulls 4y ago
        Look up Edelson, they are the troll firm that sued us. They have had significant success taking much wider interpretations of the law. Just like patent trolls they also assume most people will just settle - we did not but it was a gamble. Here are some of the cases they brag about: https://edelson.com/inside-the-firm/905-2/ https://edelson.com/inside-the-firm/905-2/
      - CWuestefeld 4y ago
ikiris 4y ago
If you allow people to send unsolicited invite sms… what did you expect? You should have lost
- crhulls 4y ago
  The intent of the TCPA was absolutely not to disallow text messages being sent for app invites. We did not spam any contacts. A user invited their sister to join them on their account by manually selecting them from their contact list. We just sent the text message via Twilio vs having the user send it themselves. And regardless of whether you like this or not, this was not the use case the law was implemented for, which is to stop robocallers.
ntoskrnl 4y ago
What would the damages have been had you lost? I'm being called by a persistent "insurance" salesman that I'd love to take to the cleaners
- crhulls 4y ago
  I think it is one of those things that would theoretically have been billions of dollars (hundreds of millions of invites have gone out and the statutory damages were on a per infraction basis), but practically speaking something very similar to a patent troll, so maybe in the $5-10m range? I'm just guessing. We are a later stage company.
  - ntoskrnl 4y ago
    I didn't know the damages were statutory - I guess I should look that up myself. In your case, was it a class action suit? If not, I wonder how they had standing to sue on behalf of thousands/millions of other users.

yojo 4y ago

I wasn't up on this, so looked it up. Apparently they narrowed the definition of what "counts as an autodialer" to effectively open a large exemption for devices that you or I would consider an autodialer. As long as the autodialer doesn't store numbers sequentially or generate them randomly it is exempt. e.g. if you have a list of non-sequential phone numbers, you can autodial to your heart's content. I thought this post explained it reasonably well: https://www.manatt.com/insights/newsletters/tcpa-connect/the-supreme-courts-landmark-decision-in-facebook https://www.manatt.com/insights/newsletters/tcpa-connect/the...

CWuestefeld 4y ago
Is there anything preventing Congress from clarifying the definition? Assuming not, don't they deserve as much of the blame for the mess as folks here are heaping on the Court?
- cwkoss 4y ago
  gross incompetence
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    Coupled with the assumption that such a stupid ruling will just be repeated on a new pretext.

guelo 4y ago

This court is on an unstoppable extremist rampage. After another decade of their activism the country will be unrecognizable