October Term 2020 · Docket 19-511

Does a phone system storing numbers count as an automatic dialer?

Facebook argues the law targets only random number generators. Duguid argues the law covers any stored number system.

Official caption
Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Clement argued the statute requires a random or sequential number generator.

    Ellis argued the grammar links the generator to both storing and producing numbers.

    Garner argued the congressional purpose favors a broad interpretation of the law.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests the scope of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Facebook seeks a narrow reading of the dialer definition. Duguid seeks a broad reading that covers stored numbers.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 8, 2020.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Facebook wants the Court to limit the dialer definition to random generators.

Duguid wants the Court to include stored numbers in the dialer definition.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Facebook argues the statute requires a random or sequential number generator.

Duguid argues the grammar links the generator to both storing and producing.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Kagan asked if a knife counts as a firearm in a hypothetical.

Justice Thomas asked why a text message counts as a call under the law.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome defines which phone systems face liability for unwanted calls. It shapes privacy protections for consumers nationwide. It determines the scope of federal regulation on technology.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON