The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA Ninth Circuit’s decision in Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster. The case concerns how courts treat text messages, consent, and autodialers.
Background of the Case
The case began when Lori Satterfield received a text message advertising a Stephen King novel published by Simon & Schuster. She had previously signed up for a promotional program with Nextones, a company offering downloadable ringtones, and agreed to receive promotional messages from “Nextones or its affiliates.”
However, the marketing text she received did not come from Nextones or a corporate affiliate; it came from Simon & Schuster, a separate company that had contracted a marketing vendor to distribute promotional messages. Satterfield sued under the TCPA, claiming:
- She did not consent to receive texts from Simon & Schuster.
- The message was sent using an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS).
Key Legal Questions
The Ninth Circuit focused on three major issues:
- Do text messages count as “calls” under the TCPA? This was an important issue, as the original statute addressed voice calls, not SMS.
- Did Satterfield give valid consent? Her consent was limited to communications from Nextones and its “affiliates.”
- Was an autodialer used? The court evaluated whether the dialing equipment had the capacity to function as an ATDS.
The Ninth Circuit’s Ruling
- Text Messages Are “Calls” Under the TCPA The Court held that SMS text messages fall within the statutory meaning of a “call,” making them fully subject to TCPA protections. This was a foundational ruling that shaped all future SMS-based TCPA litigation.
- Satterfield Did Not Consent to Simon & Schuster’s Text The court found that Satterfield consented only to messages from Nextones. Crucially, the court ruled that “affiliate” implies a corporate relationship, which did not exist between Nextones and Simon & Schuster. Therefore, Simon & Schuster lacked the required prior express consent.
- The Dialing System Could Be an Autodialer The Ninth Circuit ruled that the system used could qualify as an ATDS because it potentially had the capacity to store and dial numbers automatically. Note: While this broad interpretation was common at the time, the Supreme Court has since narrowed the definition of an ATDS in Facebook v. Duguid (2021).
Why This Case Matters
- Established SMS Jurisdiction: It was a major ruling that confirmed that text messages fall under the TCPA, opening the door to modern SMS litigation.
- Defined “Affiliate”: It highlighted that businesses cannot rely on vague language or assume consent extends to unrelated third parties.
- Influenced Compliance: Following Satterfield, companies tightened opt-in language and clarified vendor relationships.
Key Takeaways
- Text messages are legally distinct “calls” under the TCPA.
- Consent must be clear, specific, and tied to the actual sender.
- Businesses are responsible for their third-party marketing vendors.
Need Help With a TCPA Case? Contact Attorney David Head
If you believe your rights under the TCPA have been violated, Attorney David Head can help. David has experience with the TCPA, consumer protection matters, and telecommunications law.
Contact Information:
📞 801-691-7511
If you are a consumer seeking justice, David Head provides skilled, strategic, and results-oriented representation.