Glasser v. Hilton Grand Vacations: The Eleventh Circuit Says an Autodialer Has to Generate Random or Sequential Numbers

Judge Sutton of the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation, wrote the majority opinion.

Two Consumers, Two Systems

The court decided two consolidated appeals. A timeshare marketer called one consumer thirteen times about vacation opportunities. A student loan servicer called another consumer thirty-five times. Neither consented, and both alleged the callers used autodialers in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

The district courts split. One said the timeshare system wasn't an autodialer because it needed human intervention. The other said the loan servicer's system was an autodialer because it could automatically dial a stored list, and it also awarded treble damages for thirteen calls that used a prerecorded voice.

The Grammar Fight

The statute defines an autodialer as equipment with the capacity "to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers."

Does "using a random or sequential number generator" modify both "store" and "produce," or just "produce"? The majority said both. When two verbs share an object, a modifier after the object usually applies to both. The comma before "using" points the same way. And if storing and dialing were enough, the key phrase would rarely matter, since nearly every device can do both.

History and context helped too. Congress worried about random dialers tying up 911 lines and hospital rooms, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) read the statute this way until 2003. The court shared the D.C. Circuit's concern that a broader reading could sweep in every smartphone. Picture an automatic "I'm driving" text becoming a $500 violation.

The court rejected arguments that it was bound by older FCC orders, which the D.C. Circuit had set aside, and that Congress ratified the FCC's view in 2015. It also declined to follow the Ninth Circuit's contrary reading in Marks v. Crunch San Diego.

Human Intervention Sank the Timeshare Claim Anyway

The timeshare system lost for a second reason. A marketing team set criteria, the system pulled matching numbers, and employees saw each number with a "make call" button. No call went out until an employee pressed it. That's not "automatic," the court said, any more than telling a smartphone to dial a contact.

Prerecorded Calls Still Count

The loan servicer won reversal on the autodialer ruling, but the treble damages for thirteen prerecorded calls stood. Identical messages from the servicer's own number and matching call logs showed recordings. The servicer kept calling after the consumer revoked consent, which made the violation willful.

The majority stressed that callers dialing from lists have three options: get consent, connect a live human, or face liability.

The Dissent

Judge Martin dissented in part. She would have held that the loan servicer's system qualified based on its ability to store numbers, and she criticized the majority's reading of "store."

Why It Matters

• Number generation was the key. In the Eleventh Circuit, list dialing alone wasn't enough.
• Human clicks matter. A required employee action can defeat the "automatic" element.
• Prerecorded voice claims stand on their own. They don't depend on the autodialer definition.

Read the full Eleventh Circuit opinion.