ACA set aside the FCC’s treatment of reassigned

[sohanuzzaman56]

Credit One’s vendors used predictive dialing systems to call Roark. According to the ACA ruling, predictive dialing systems are not always considered autodialers under the TCPA. The question is whether the device can generate numbers to dial either randomly or sequentially. According to Credit One, none of its vendors use systems that are capable of randomly or sequentially generating numbers to dial. In fact, they alleged, the vendors worked to ensure their systems did not have the capability to randomly or sequentially generate phone numbers.

The TCPA prohibits the use of artificial or pre-recorded messages betting data user list to call a cell phone without express consent of the called party. The FCC defines “called party” as the current subscriber of the cell phone number and not the intended recipient of the call. However, the decision in numbers. The issue is the reasonableness of the caller’s reliance on the prior holder’s express consent.

Credit One had express consent from the actual Credit One customer to call and leave pre-recorded messages on the customer’s phone. The Minnesota Court held that Credit One had no reason to know that the phone number had been reassigned because Credit One received no notice from the customer, and Credit One’s caller ID still displayed the actual customer’s information when used. Hence, it was reasonable for Credit One to rely on the customer’s prior express consent to call his number.

The Minnesota Court held that Credit One’s predictive dialing systems did not violate the TCPA and that it was reasonable for Credit One to rely on the prior telephone number holder’s express consent to call and leave pre-recorded messages on the cell phone. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Credit One.