Predictive Dialers and the TCPA After Facebook v. Duguid
The 2021 Supreme Court decision in Facebook v. Duguid narrowed the TCPA's definition of an autodialer, and a lot of callers took that as a green light for predictive dialers. The reality is more nuanced — Duguid changed one part of the risk without removing the rest.
What Duguid actually changed
Duguid held that to qualify as an automatic telephone dialing system under the TCPA, equipment must use a random or sequential number generator. Dialers that call from a stored, targeted list — which most predictive dialers do — may fall outside that specific definition. We covered the decision in what counts as an autodialer after Duguid.
Why predictive dialers still carry risk
- The autodialer definition is only one part of the TCPA. The Do Not Call rules, consent requirements, and revocation rules all apply regardless of what dialer you use.
- Calls using a prerecorded or artificial voice have their own consent requirements, independent of the autodialer question.
- State mini-TCPA laws often define autodialers more broadly than Duguid, so a dialer that's safe federally may not be under state law.
- Calling a registered or reassigned number is a violation whether you dialed it by hand or by machine.
The takeaway
Duguid narrowed one avenue of liability; it didn't make predictive dialing consequence-free. The DNC scrub, the consent record, and the opt-out list matter exactly as much as they did before. Don't let a narrowed autodialer definition become an excuse to skip the basics.
Scrub your dialer's lists free — 500 numbers, full report.
General information, not legal advice. State autodialer law varies.