...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Banking & Financial Services Policy Report >The Ninth Circuit Finally Marks the Definition of an Autodialer: Is Marks v. Crunch A Turning Point In TCPA Litigation?
【24h】

The Ninth Circuit Finally Marks the Definition of an Autodialer: Is Marks v. Crunch A Turning Point In TCPA Litigation?

机译：第九巡回法院最终标记了自动拨号程序的定义：Marks v。Crunch是TCPA诉讼的转折点吗？

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The seemingly endless fight over the statutory definition of an automatic telephone dialing system (commonly referred to as an “ATDS” or “autodi-aler’’）is as old as the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) itself. Especially, the issue of whether a so-called “prcdictive dialer” constitutes an autodialer under the TCPA. The Ninth Circuit’s recent monumental decision in Marks v. Crunch San Diego LLC, however, may (at least for now) have put to rest the fight over the definition of an autodialer. Marks is arguably the most important TCPA case since the passage ot the law in 1991, with the Ninth Circuit finally providing clarity as to whether the statutory definition of an autodialer includes predictive dialers. In an opinion by Ninth Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta, the court ruled that the statutory definition of an autodialer did include a device that stores telephone numbers to be called whether or not those numbers have been generated by a “random or sequential number generator” (in other words, a predictive dialer is an autodialer under the TCPA).
机译：关于自动电话拨号系统（通常称为“ ATDS”或“自动拨号器”）的法定定义的看似无休止的斗争早于《电话消费者保护法》（TCPA）本身。第九巡回法院在Marks v。Crunch San Diego LLC公司最近的重大裁决中可能（至少目前如此）搁置了争端的定义。 Marks可以说是自1991年法律通过以来最重要的TCPA案件，第九巡回法院最终澄清了自动拨号器的法定定义是否包括预测拨号器。第九巡回法院法官Sandra Ikuta认为，法院裁定，自动拨号器的法定定义确实包括一种存储要呼叫的电话号码的设备，而无论这些电话号码是由“随机或顺序号生成器”生成的（在用她的话来说，预测拨号器是TCPA下的自动拨号器）。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号