Holding that it was permissible for the FCC to interpret the autodialer ban as applying to devices that use a random or sequential number generator or devices that do not—just not both
995 F. Supp. 2d 1189 (W.D. Wash. 2014) Cited 27 times 5 Legal Analyses
Finding human intervention to send texts was "essential" to system's ability to dial and transmit the messages and as such system in question was not an ATDS
326 F. Supp. 3d 578 (M.D. Tenn. 2018) Cited 18 times 7 Legal Analyses
Noting that with "[t]his essential fact being undisputed, the pending motions debate whether Ally's predictive dialer qualifies as an ATDS within the meaning of § 227."
46 F. Supp. 3d 813 (N.D. Ill. 2014) Cited 22 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding system in question was an ATDS where the only human intervention identified prior to sending the text was the "collection of numbers for [the system's] database of numbers"