Statements (59)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:legal_case
|
| gptkbp:appeals_to |
No further appeals filed
|
| gptkbp:argued_on |
February 24, 2021
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_analysis_details |
Detailed analysis of the ruling
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_arguments_details |
Details of the arguments presented
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_arguments_significance |
Significance of the legal arguments presented
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_debate_details |
Details of the legal debate surrounding the case
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_debate_significance |
Significance of the legal debate surrounding the case
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_implications_details |
Details of the implications for future cases
|
| gptkbp:case_number |
20-15291
|
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
Closed
Facebook's practices upheld Influenced how companies use automated messaging Court found Facebook's system did not qualify as ATDS |
| gptkbp:case_significance |
Details of the significance of the ruling
Important for digital marketing practices Overview of the significance of the ruling Significance for tech companies Significance of the legal outcome |
| gptkbp:case_types |
Interpretation of ATDS
|
| gptkbp:consequences |
Implications for future TCPA cases
|
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
April 1, 2021
Published opinion |
| gptkbp:docket_number |
19-17361
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Facebook v. Duguid
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Influenced future TCPA litigation
|
| gptkbp:involved_parties |
gptkb:Facebook,_Inc.
Matthew Duguid |
| gptkbp:judged_by |
Judgment affirmed
|
| gptkbp:judges |
gptkb:Judge_William_A._Fletcher
gptkb:Judge_Sandra_S._Ikuta gptkb:Judge_Paul_J._Watford |
| gptkbp:legal_context |
TCPA regulations
Context of consumer protection laws Contextual details of the case Significance of the legal context |
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
Details of the TCPA framework
Framework of TCPA enforcement Significance of the legal framework |
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
gptkb:Telephone_Consumer_Protection_Act
Arguments regarding consumer consent Debate over automated calls Definition of 'capacity' in TCPA |
| gptkbp:legal_outcome |
Details of the court's reasoning
Legal victory for Facebook |
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
Analysis of automated systems
Duguid represented by Joseph A. B. Mc Carthy Facebook represented by Perkins Coie LLP |
| gptkbp:legislation |
gptkb:Telephone_Consumer_Protection_Act_of_1991
|
| gptkbp:material |
Duguid alleged Facebook violated TCPA
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
Court ruled in favor of Facebook
|
| gptkbp:precedent |
Set precedent for future cases
Definition of an automatic telephone dialing system Previous rulings on TCPA |
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:Facebook,_Inc._v._Duguid
|
| gptkbp:significance |
Clarified the definition of ATDS
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:United_States_v._Telegram
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
6
|