In Glasser v. Hilton Grand Vacations Company, LLC, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that to qualify as an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”), a telecommunications system must generate random or sequential numbers and then dial them without human intervention. In Glasser, the Eleventh Circuit reviewed two lower court decisions, which both raised the question of what technology qualifies as an ATDS at the summary judgment stage.  In both cases, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants used an ATDS to contact them.  The defendants admitted that they called the plaintiffs and used sophisticated telephone software to do so but contested that their systems qualified as an ATDS.   Using tools of statutory interpretation and combing through the legislative history of the TCPA, the Eleventh Circuit reasoned that when drafting the ATDS prohibition “Congress wanted the statute to eradicate machines that dialed randomly or sequentially generated numbers.” Additionally, the Eleventh Circuit observed that ACA International wiped the slate clean with respect to the FCC’s 2003 order which ruled that equipment that dialed numbers from a list qualifies as an ATDS.  The Eleventh Circuit reasoned that “in the age of smartphones, it’s hard to think of a phone that does not have the capacity to automatically dial telephone numbers stored in a list, giving § 227 an ‘eye-popping sweep.”  The Eleventh Circuit also rejected the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of the ATDS definition from Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC and suggested that the Marks court engaged in “surgery” to formulate the ATDS definition because it had to rearrange statutory terms in order to do so.  The majority reached this conclusion over the partial-dissent authored by Judge Martin, which urged her colleagues to adopt an interpretation of an ATDS similar to Marks.  Separately, the Eleventh Circuit also held that summary judgment in defendant Hilton’s favor should be affirmed because of the level of human intervention required to operate the text platform at issue. Resultantly, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the one district court’s decision that granted summary judgment for defendant and reversed the portion of the other district court’s decision that granted summary judgment for plaintiff on the ATDS claim.    . Glasser v. Hilton Grand Vacations Co., LLC, No. 18-14499, 2020 WL 415811 (11th Cir. Jan. 27, 2020)