Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.

 Skip to Content

Ninth Circuit Dials Back Robocall Exemption for Government Debt
June 26, 2019
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) has long banned certain people from spamming your cellphone with “robocalls” placed through automated dialers. But this ban did not extend to all types of robocalls. If the call was placed to collect government-backed debts, then the TCPA allowed the use of an automated dialer. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). That is, until courts began questioning the constitutionality of the exemption.

The Ninth Circuit recently ruled that this debt-collection exemption violates the First Amendment. The court held that the exemption favors speech about government-backed debts over other types of speech. As such, it amounts to a content-based restriction on free speech subject to strict scrutiny.

On appeal, the federal government argued the exemption protected a compelling government interest in personal and residential privacy.

But the Ninth Circuit labeled this argument as a “head-scratcher.” It noted “robocalls [placed] to collect government debt are just as invasive of privacy rights as robocalls placed for other purposes.” In fact, the court held the exemption impedes the TCPA’s statutory purpose of protecting privacy.

The court did not ax the entire statute, though. Instead, it severed the debt-collection exemption from the rest of the TCPA. The exemption, passed in 2015, “did not suddenly and silently become so integral to the TCPA that the statute could not function without it,” the court said.

The Ninth Circuit is now the second federal court of appeals to strike the debt-collection exemption as unconstitutional. The Fourth Circuit has also ruled that the exemption violates the First Amendment.

Read the full opinion: Duguid v. Facebook Inc., No. 17-15320 (9th Cir. June 13, 2019).

This article was written by Carlton Fields Summer Associate Cara Mannion.

 
Related Practices
Appellate & Trial Support Telephone Consumer Protection Act
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.