Avoid ‘Syntax’ Analysis of TCPA That Needs ‘No Such Analysis,’ 3rd Circuit Is Urged
There’s no such thing as a random or sequential telephone number generator, so how then can the district court hold that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act “requires the use of non-existent technology?” So posed plaintiff-appellant Andrew Perrong’s reply brief Friday…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
at the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking reversal of the district court’s dismissal of his TCPA complaint and the reinstatement of his lawsuit against the Democratic Committee of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, and its sister organization, Montco Victory. The defendants’ position on the “straightforward definition” of an automatic telephone dialing system is wrong, said Perrong’s reply. The 3rd Circuit should decline the defendants’ “invitation to delve into syntax analysis and apply the law as written and as alleged,” it said. The case involves calls that were placed using a random or sequential number generator to store telephone numbers, and subsequently produce those telephone numbers from storage to be called by the dialing application, it said. The defendants don’t address that U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania “created a new piece of technology,” it said. Its holding “ignores the plain language” of the TCPA, it said. “Technology that randomly or sequentially generates telephone numbers has never existed nor has ever been used in any of the robocalls Americans find so detestable,” said Perrong’s reply. The 3rd Circuit “must refrain from being trapped into a syntax and grammatical analysis of a statute that needs no such analysis,” it said. The TCPA “requires the simple allegation” that a random or sequential number generator was used to place the call, it said. The terms “random number generator” and “sequential number generator” have precise, commonly accepted meanings within the technical community, it said. In interpreting the TCPA, the 3rd Circuit “must begin and end with this precise technical meaning,” it said.