This will do absolutely nothing. Since the Supreme Court gutted the TCPA there is zero downside for companies to violate it.
In our case, someone's sister invited him to join their account. The text message was initiated by the sister but our system sent the SMS via our backend. We were sued because we allegedly sent an unsolicited text message and were considered an autodialer under TCPA guidelines.
We were able to win the suit, but it cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The law needed a tune up, and if the court decision stopped this type of troll suit some good came of it.
I am not defending robocallers. I hope they die. I just highlight that sometimes these laws do need to be tightened up to stop abuse the other way.
June 24, 2021 - https://www.natlawreview.com/article/ripple-effects-supreme-...
> If you work in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) space, you are certainly aware of the landmark unanimous decision by the United States Supreme Court in Facebook v Duguid, in which the Court narrowed the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) to equipment that has the capacity to either store or produce numbers using a random or sequential number generator.
> ...
> On June 10, 2021, the District Court for the District of South Carolina held that the Aspect predictive dialer did not qualify as an ATDS because the evidence proved that the system could neither randomly nor sequentially store or produce numbers to be dialed
---
So, if you're working from a list of numbers, it's not an ATDS. It is only an ATDS if you're dialing random numbers or sequential numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook,_Inc._v._Duguid
> The Supreme Court's ruling was seen to be favorable to the telemarketing industry, since the decision narrowed the definition of an automatic dialing system of which are regulated under the TCPA. As few actual automated dialers in use at the time of the decision incorporate the random or sequential number generator, telemarketers would be able to use other automatic dialing systems that do not meet this definition to engage in their business, according to the National Consumer Law Center. The National Consumer Law Center as well as Consumer Reports expressed concern that there would be a significant increase in unwanted telemarketing calls due to this decision.
> Senator Ed Markey, one of the authors of the TCPA, along with Representative Anna Eshoo, called the ruling "disastrous", as the Congressional intent of the TCPA was "to ban dialing from a database", and announced the same day of the decision that they would be looking to introduce amended legislation to address the Court's decision.
> (1) The term “automatic telephone dialing system” means equipment which has the capacity— (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.
> (1) The term “automatic telephone dialing system” means equipment which has the capacity— (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.
It's part of a coordinated plan to "drown the federal government in a bathtub": the courts read legislation as narrowly as possible while congress is unable to legislate.
Here are some of the cases they brag about: https://edelson.com/inside-the-firm/905-2/
(1) The term “automatic telephone dialing system” means equipment which has the capacity—
(A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and
(B) to dial such numbers.
In the current legislative session [1], just counting the first page of Senate (I think you're referring to the Senate) votes listed because I'm lazy, out of the 100 votes, I see only 10 that failed. And of those passing, I didn't actually count, but a very large proportion are passing with less than 60 yeas.
Although we see a lot of political crap going on, the Congress still manages to do a lot of business.
[1] https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_...
Legislation passing with less than 60 votes still had to pass the 60 vote threshold. Some senators vote for debate but against the bill.
Note also how many are just confirmations of Senate-approved roles.
Further, for your criticism of my methodology to hold water, it would be necessary to see the total number of votes decreasing over time. That's not what the record shows. Using the same resource, I looked at each of the last few years, and then took a few steps back in 4-year steps thinking that maybe there's something corresponding to the point in the presidential election cycle. Either way, I don't see it going down at all. Quite the opposite.
2021....528
2020....292 (not hard to explain the drop in this year, I think)
2019....428
2018....274
...
2014....366
...
2010....299
...
2006....279
Yes, I very specifically mentioned that; that means some Senators voted for cloture, but not for the bill. Not unusual. It still needed 60 Senators to get to a vote, but only 50 to pass that vote.
> The number of votes per year is clearly growing.
Votes per year isn't the whole story. More votes on smaller-scope, less meaningful legislation isn't an improvement. You're not going to get any program like Obamacare, Social Security, the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, etc. through this sort of Senate. Obama couldn't even get a SCOTUS nominee past McConnell.
And regardless of whether you like this or not, this was not the use case the law was implemented for, which is to stop robocallers.
I thought this post explained it reasonably well: https://www.manatt.com/insights/newsletters/tcpa-connect/the...