Facebook Inc. v. Duguid
In a unanimous decision based on statutory interpretation of the TCPA, the Supreme Court ruled that auto dialers are defined by their function to either store or produce telephone numbers from a random or sequential number generator.
141 S. Ct. 1163 · No. 19-511 · 2020 term · Roberts Court
Decided Apr 1, 2021 · argued Dec 8, 2020
Economic activity · Federal and some few state regulations of public utilities regulation: telephone or telegraph company
Majority opinion: Sonia Sotomayor
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Reversed and remanded. Facebook Inc. won.
What this ruling means
Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Facebook Inc. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the definition and function of auto dialers under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) to send unsolicited text messages. In a unanimous decision based on statutory interpretation of the TCPA, the Supreme Court ruled that auto dialers are defined by their function to either store or produce telephone numbers from a random or sequential number generator.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2020 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
Sonia SotomayorWrote the majority opinion
Samuel AlitoWrote a concurrence
Stephen BreyerJoined the majority
Elena KaganJoined the majority
John RobertsJoined the majority
Brett KavanaughJoined the majority
Amy BarrettJoined the majority
Neil GorsuchJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Facebook Inc.Computer business or manufacturer, hardware or software
- Respondent
- DuguidInjured person or legal entity, nonphysically and non-employment related
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
- Why it was taken
- Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227
- Kind of law
- Infrequently litigated statutes
- Decided by
- Statutory construction
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Apr 1, 2021DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: reversed and remanded. Facebook Inc. won.
- Dec 8, 2020ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit: reversed and remanded.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the California Northern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
10 other argued cases since 1946 on federal and some few state regulations of public utilities regulation: telephone or telegraph company, newest first.
- Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T146 S. Ct. 1418Jun 4, 2026 · 146 S. Ct. 1418Economic activity8–18–1 band
- Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers' Research145 S. Ct. 2482Jun 27, 2025 · 145 S. Ct. 2482Economic activity6–36–3 band
- T Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, Georgia.574 U.S. 293Jan 14, 2015 · 574 U.S. 293Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Talk America, Petitioner v. Michigan Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T Michigan564 U.S. 50Jun 9, 2011 · 564 U.S. 50Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
- Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc.550 U.S. 45Apr 17, 2007 · 550 U.S. 45Economic activity7–27–2 band
- Mathias v. Worldcom Techs.535 U.S. 682May 20, 2002 · 535 U.S. 682Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
- Verizon Communications Inc., et al. v. Federal Communications Commission, et al.535 U.S. 467May 13, 2002 · 535 U.S. 467Economic activity6–27–2 band
- AT&T Corporation, et al. v. Iowa Utilities Board et al.525 U.S. 366Jan 25, 1999 · 525 U.S. 366Economic activity7–18–1 band
- McI Telecommunications Corporation v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company512 U.S. 218Jun 17, 1994 · 512 U.S. 218Economic activity5–36–3 band
- Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia et al.464 U.S. 30Nov 1, 1983 · 464 U.S. 30Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.