Emerging Trend: Another Federal Court Finds that Predictive Dialers Fall Outside the TCPA's Definition of an ATDS
2 min read
Aug 19, 2019
In 2018, the D.C. Court of Appeals issued ACA International, et al. v. FCC that set aside key determinations of the FCC's interpretations of what qualifies as an automated telephone dialer service (ATDS). The D.C. Circuit concluded that the focus of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act's (TCPA) definition of an ATDS should be on the device's "present capacity" to store and produce telephone numbers, as opposed to its "potential functionalities" or "future possibility." Since this decision, courts have remained split as to what qualifies as an ATDS, although there is a growing trend of courts concluding that a predictive dialer is not an ATDS unless it has the present capacity to store and produce phone numbers randomly and sequentially. On July 30, 2019, the Northern District of Texas joined that trend with its decision in Adams v. Safe Home Security Inc.
In Adams, the plaintiff pursued relief under the TCPA on allegations that Safe Home Security called her many times to collect on a past-due debt—even after she requested no contact—and that when she answered the calls, there was a pause for several seconds before a live representative spoke. While the Court ultimately held that the plaintiff's complaint sufficiently alleged the use of an ATDS, the Court rejected the FCC's guidance on grounds that ACA International v. FCC invalidated the 2003, 2008, and 2015 FCC Orders. Instead, the Court analyzed whether an ATDS applies to predictive dialers based on the plain language of the statute. The TCPA defines an ATDS as "equipment which has the capacity—(A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers."
Ultimately, the Court reviewed the statutory definition of an ATDS and found that "'using a random or sequential number generator' modifies both 'to store' and 'to produce.'" The Court also found that predictive dialers fall outside the definition of an ATDS. Courts' continuing refusal to follow FCC orders in reliance upon ACA International v. FCC in favor of review and analysis of the TCPA's plan statutory language is an encouraging trend.
Featured Insights

Healthcare Alert
Jul 24, 2026
Q&A: Right to Electronic Monitoring Extended to Illinois Assisted and Shared Living Facilities

Press Release
Jul 23, 2026
Insurance Partner Christophe Burusco Joins Hinshaw in Los Angeles

In The News
Jul 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Anticipates Epic Battle Between “Titans of the Antitrust Bar”

Press Release
Jul 15, 2026
Two Hinshaw Partners Recognized in Minnesota Monthly's 2026 Top Lawyers in Minnesota

Event
July 13-15, 2026
Hinshaw Proudly Sponsors 2026 Lavender Law Conference and Career Fair

Webinar
Jul 14, 2026
Scott Seaman Presents on Horizontal vs. Vertical Exhaustion of Insurance

Healthcare Alert
Jul 8, 2026
A New Era of Compliance Standards for California DSOs and MSOs After the Aspen Dental Settlement

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 7, 2026
What Insurers Need to Know About California’s FAIR Plan Assessment Recoupment Guidance

In The News
Jul 6, 2026
Francesco Palanda’s Practical Guide for Mitigating AI-Related Business Interruption Risk


