Duguid v. Facebook, Inc., No. 17-15320 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff alleged that Facebook used automated telephone dialing systems (ATDS) to alert users, as a security precaution, when their account was accessed from an unrecognized device or browser. However, plaintiff was not a Facebook customer and his repeated attempts to terminate the alerts were unsuccessful.
The panel held that plaintiff's allegations under the Act were sufficient to withstand Facebook's motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In this case, the messages plaintiff received were automated, unsolicited, and unwanted.
As to the constitutional issue, the panel joined the Fourth Circuit and held that a 2015 amendment to the Act, excepting calls "made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States," was content-based and incompatible with the First Amendment. The panel severed the newly appended "debt-collection exception" as an unconstitutional restriction on speech. Therefore, the panel remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim of an action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The panel held that the plaintiff adequately alleged that defendant Facebook, Inc., placed calls using an automated telephone dialing system, defined as “equipment which has the capacity—(1) to store numbers to be called or (2) to produce numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator—and to dial such numbers automatically.” Joining the Fourth Circuit, the panel held that a 2015 amendment to the Act, excepting calls “made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States,” was content-based and incompatible with the First Amendment. The panel severed from the Act this “debt-
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on May 7, 2021.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.