Answering the Call for Telephone Consumer Protection Act Reform: Effectuating Congressional Intent Within 47 U.S.C. § 227(B)(1)(A)

Justice Hubbard
{"title":"Answering the Call for Telephone Consumer Protection Act Reform: Effectuating Congressional Intent Within 47 U.S.C. § 227(B)(1)(A)","authors":"Justice Hubbard","doi":"10.36646/mjlr.56.3.answering","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Note analyzes the current state of the civil law surrounding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and highlights a glaring flaw within the current practice of assigning liability to telephonic solicitors utilizing an automatic telephone dialing system (autodialer): solicitors can be subjected to liability even though their actions are not what Congress intended to prevent. Congress enacted the TCPA in response to unique consumer privacy and public safety concerns. For example, the use of an autodialer created a substantial likelihood that autodialers would call emergency services and could “seize” their telephone lines and prevent those lines from being utilized to receive calls from those needing emergency services. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the judiciary, however, have developed differing interpretations of the TCPA, which created unintentional dangers for businesses properly utilizing telemarketing strategies. These dangers that were left unresolved by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid. This fragmented interpretation and application of federal law within various jurisdictions has left callers liable to substantial fines, so long as they use a device that merely has the capacity to act as an autodialer—even if the device did not actually use autodialer functionality. Such a broad interpretation places a heavy burden on companies using technology that does not create the kind of harm against which the TCPA was meant to protect. To effectuate Congressional intent, this Note proposes that the FCC should issue a new interpretation of the TCPA by declaratory ruling that will attach liability to defendants who make use of autodialer functionality, not those who’s devices merely have the capacity to do so. Alternatively, this Note proposes that either Congress amend the TCPA in a manner that better aligns with its goals, or the Supreme Court provide clarification to the lower courts as to how one acquires liability. This change will provide certainty and fairness to businesses, consumers, and the judiciary.","PeriodicalId":83420,"journal":{"name":"University of Michigan journal of law reform. University of Michigan. Law School","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Michigan journal of law reform. University of Michigan. Law School","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36646/mjlr.56.3.answering","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This Note analyzes the current state of the civil law surrounding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and highlights a glaring flaw within the current practice of assigning liability to telephonic solicitors utilizing an automatic telephone dialing system (autodialer): solicitors can be subjected to liability even though their actions are not what Congress intended to prevent. Congress enacted the TCPA in response to unique consumer privacy and public safety concerns. For example, the use of an autodialer created a substantial likelihood that autodialers would call emergency services and could “seize” their telephone lines and prevent those lines from being utilized to receive calls from those needing emergency services. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the judiciary, however, have developed differing interpretations of the TCPA, which created unintentional dangers for businesses properly utilizing telemarketing strategies. These dangers that were left unresolved by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid. This fragmented interpretation and application of federal law within various jurisdictions has left callers liable to substantial fines, so long as they use a device that merely has the capacity to act as an autodialer—even if the device did not actually use autodialer functionality. Such a broad interpretation places a heavy burden on companies using technology that does not create the kind of harm against which the TCPA was meant to protect. To effectuate Congressional intent, this Note proposes that the FCC should issue a new interpretation of the TCPA by declaratory ruling that will attach liability to defendants who make use of autodialer functionality, not those who’s devices merely have the capacity to do so. Alternatively, this Note proposes that either Congress amend the TCPA in a manner that better aligns with its goals, or the Supreme Court provide clarification to the lower courts as to how one acquires liability. This change will provide certainty and fairness to businesses, consumers, and the judiciary.
回应电话消费者保护法改革的呼声:在47 U.S.C.§227(B)(1)(A)中实现国会意图
本文分析了围绕《电话消费者保护法》(TCPA)的民法现状,并强调了目前将责任分配给使用自动电话拨号系统(自动拨号器)的电话律师的做法中的一个明显缺陷:即使律师的行为不是国会想要阻止的,他们也可能承担责任。国会颁布TCPA是对消费者隐私和公共安全问题的独特回应。例如,自动拨号器的使用极有可能造成自动拨号器呼叫紧急服务,并可能"霸占"其电话线,防止这些线路被用来接收需要紧急服务的人的电话。然而,联邦通信委员会(FCC)和司法部门对TCPA有不同的解释,这给企业正确利用电话营销策略带来了无意的危险。这些危险在最高法院对Facebook诉杜吉德案的裁决中没有得到解决。在不同的司法管辖范围内,这种对联邦法律的分散解释和应用,使得呼叫者只要使用仅仅具有自动拨号功能的设备——即使该设备实际上没有使用自动拨号功能——就可能面临巨额罚款。这种宽泛的解释给那些使用技术的公司带来了沉重的负担,而这些技术并不会造成TCPA旨在保护的那种伤害。为了实现国会的意图,本报告建议联邦通信委员会通过声明性裁决发布对TCPA的新解释,将责任附加给使用自动拨号功能的被告,而不是那些设备仅仅具有这样做的能力的被告。或者,本说明建议国会以更符合其目标的方式修改TCPA,或者最高法院就如何获得责任向下级法院提供澄清。这一变化将为企业、消费者和司法机构提供确定性和公平性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信