Second Circuit Issues Remand In LaBoom Disco ATDS Ruling

For a case about text messages from a Queens nightclub, Duran v. La Boom Disco, Inc. has had a surprisingly long afterlife.
The Second Circuit’s 2020 opinion helped blow open the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Then the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in Facebook v. Duguid slammed that door shut.
Years later, in July 2025, the Second Circuit finally issued a brief but eyebrow-raising remand order that has TCPA watchers
and compliance teams asking: what exactly is this court trying to say?

In this article, we’ll walk through how we got from a disco’s promotional texts to a Supreme Court showdown and then to the
Second Circuit’s oddly worded remand. We’ll also dig into what this means in practice for businesses that text customers,
plaintiffs’ lawyers hunting for TCPA cases, and anyone trying to keep their marketing tools out of legal trouble.

1. Background: How LaBoom Disco Ended Up at the Center of the ATDS Debate

1.1 The TCPA and why “ATDS” matters

The TCPA is a federal statute passed in 1991 to rein in telemarketing abuse, particularly automated calls and later text messages.
Among other things, it prohibits using an “automatic telephone dialing system” to call or text cell phones without the recipient’s
prior express consent, with statutory damages of $500 to $1,500 per call or text. That’s how a few hundred nightclub promos can
suddenly look like a serious class action problem.

The catch is that Congress defined an ATDS using early-’90s technology: a system with the capacity “to store or produce telephone
numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and to dial such numbers.” For years, lower courts and the FCC
wrestled with a simple but very expensive question: does this include modern systems that text from a stored list of customer numbers,
or only old-school dialers that generate numbers at random or in sequence?

1.2 The LaBoom Disco facts in a nutshell

In Duran v. La Boom Disco, Inc., the plaintiff alleged he received hundreds of unsolicited nightclub promotional texts over
roughly a year and a half. The messages were sent using mass-texting platforms, and the plaintiff argued those platforms qualified
as ATDSs under the TCPA. The district court sided with the nightclub, holding the systems were not ATDSs because they did not
generate numbers randomly or sequentially.

On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed. In April 2020, it adopted a broad view of ATDS, joining the Ninth Circuit’s then-influential
Marks decision and holding that a device could be an ATDS if it could store numbers and dial them automatically from a list,
even if it never generated those numbers randomly or sequentially. That decision deepened a growing circuit split and made New York
and other Second Circuit states attractive venues for TCPA plaintiffs.

1.3 Circuit chaos before the Supreme Court stepped in

Before the Supreme Court took up Facebook v. Duguid, the federal circuits were all over the map. Some, like the Second and
Ninth Circuits, held that dialing from a stored list could be enough to qualify as an ATDS. Others, including the Third, Seventh,
and Eleventh Circuits, required a much tighter fit with the statutory text: the device had to actually use a random or sequential
number generator to store or produce numbers. That split is what set the stage for the Supreme Court’s intervention.

2. Facebook v. Duguid: The Supreme Court Narrows the ATDS Definition

2.1 What the Supreme Court actually held

In 2021, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the broad “stored list” approach. In Facebook v. Duguid, the Court held that
to qualify as an ATDS, the device must have the capacity either to store or to produce telephone numbers
using a random or sequential number generator and then dial those numbers. In other words, the random/sequential number generator
language modifies both “store” and “produce,” not just one of them.

This was a big win for businesses using modern texting and calling platforms that rely on stored customer lists. So long as their
equipment is not generating the phone numbers randomly or sequentially, they generally fall outside the ATDS prohibition (although
they still need to watch out for other TCPA provisions, like prerecorded messages and do-not-call rules).

2.2 What that meant for LaBoom Disco and similar cases

Because the Second Circuit’s 2020 La Boom Disco decision relied on a now-rejected interpretation of ATDS, it could not stand
in its original form. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the Second Circuit to reconsider in light of
Facebook. In practical terms, that meant the Second Circuit had to walk back its broad reading and give guidance consistent
with the Supreme Court’s narrower approach.

Many expected this cleanup to happen relatively quickly, but for LaBoom, it didn’t. Years went by as courts across the country reshaped
their TCPA case law around Facebook, while the LaBoom appeal quietly sat in the background. That’s part of why the 2025 remand
order caught the TCPA community’s attention: it finally closed the loop, but in a very brief and interesting way.

3. The Second Circuit’s 2025 Remand Order: Short, Sharp, and Oddly Worded

3.1 What the remand order actually says

The Second Circuit’s July 2025 order is only a few paragraphs long, but it does three important things:

1. It acknowledges that the court’s 2020 decision in Duran v. La Boom Disco, Inc. was vacated by the Supreme Court in 2021
   after Facebook v. Duguid.
2. It describes how the panel understood its earlier LaBoom holding: that a device qualified as an ATDS if it could either store numbers
   (regardless of how) or produce numbers using a random or sequential number generator.
3. It then paraphrases Facebook’s rule: to be an ATDS, a device must have the capacity either to store a telephone number using a random
   or sequential number generator or to produce a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator, and it remands the case
   for further proceedings consistent with Facebook.

On paper, that’s a straightforward alignment with the Supreme Court’s interpretation. In practice, the wording and timing raised
more than a few eyebrows.

3.2 Why commentators call it “oddly worded”

TCPA commentators have pointed out that the Second Circuit’s restatement of Facebook is a bit unusual. The order emphasizes
that an ATDS must be able to store numbers “using a random or sequential number generator,” which some readers view as narrower than
what many district courts have taken from the Supreme Court’s opinion.

In addition, the remand is laser-focused on Facebook and does not mention the Second Circuit’s own later rulings that
applied the narrower ATDS understanding, such as cases dealing with text platforms and predictive dialers after 2021. That silence
has prompted speculation: is the panel trying to quietly harmonize LaBoom with those later cases, or is it leaving room for future
panels to refine the doctrine?

3.3 What the remand actually does procedurally

Despite the commentary, the practical effect of the remand is straightforward: the district court’s earlier judgment is vacated,
and the case goes back to the trial court to apply Facebook’s ATDS standard. That court must now determine whether the
texting platforms used by LaBoom Disco have the capacity to store or produce numbers using a random or sequential number
generator. If they do not, there’s a strong argument that they are not ATDSs, even if they can automatically text from a stored list.

In other words, the remand lines up LaBoom with the post-Facebook landscape, even if it does so in a somewhat quirky way.

4. How LaBoom Fits into the Evolving Second Circuit TCPA Landscape

4.1 From broad ATDS to narrow ATDS

Taken together, the story looks like this: in 2020, the Second Circuit adopted a broad ATDS definition that aligned with the Ninth Circuit and
put stored-list dialers squarely in the TCPA danger zone. After Facebook, that view was no longer viable. The Supreme Court’s decision
effectively rewrote the rules of the game, and the Second Circuit, like other courts, had to adjust.

In later TCPA cases, the Second Circuit and district courts within the circuit began applying the narrow, generator-centric definition from
Facebook. The 2025 LaBoom remand is essentially the final administrative step: formally vacating the old, incompatible precedent and
sending the case back with instructions consistent with the new rule.

4.2 Tension with other Second Circuit decisions

One reason the Troutman commentary and other analyses pay so much attention to the wording of the remand is that it appears to sidestep
earlier Second Circuit discussions in other TCPA cases. Some panels have emphasized that simply dialing from a stored customer list is not
enough after Facebook, while others have wrestled with how broadly or narrowly to read the Supreme Court’s references to “capacity.”

The LaBoom remand’s tight focus on Facebook, without explicitly reconciling those cases, may be intentional. It leaves doctrinal
flexibility while signaling that the old 2020 LaBoom reasoning should no longer be treated as good law. For practitioners, the safe conclusion
is that any argument relying on LaBoom’s pre-Facebook broad ATDS interpretation is now on very thin ice.

5. Practical Implications for Businesses and Plaintiffs

5.1 What this means for businesses and marketing teams

For businesses that rely on text and call campaignsrestaurants, gyms, financial institutions, healthcare providers, and yes, nightclubsthe
LaBoom remand is another confirmation that Facebook’s narrow ATDS definition is the controlling rule in the Second Circuit. Most
contemporary campaign tools that send messages from a fixed database of customer numbers, without randomly or sequentially generating them,
are unlikely to be treated as ATDSs.

However, that doesn’t mean “anything goes.” Companies still need to:

• Maintain clear consent records, especially for marketing messages to cell phones.
• Respect do-not-call lists and revocation of consent.
• Avoid prerecorded or artificial-voice calls without appropriate consent.
• Watch state-law mini-TCPAs and telemarketing statutes, which can be stricter than federal law.

The LaBoom saga is a reminder that a single word in a statutehere, “using”can change the risk profile of an entire marketing strategy.
Compliance teams should treat ATDS risk as largely narrowed but not eliminated, especially when dealing with legacy systems or vendors
whose technology isn’t fully transparent.

5.2 What this means for plaintiffs and TCPA litigation

For plaintiffs’ lawyers, the LaBoom remand is another sign that the old “stored list equals ATDS” playbook has mostly expired. To pursue
TCPA cases on an ATDS theory, they now need allegationsand ideally discoverysuggesting that the challenged system actually uses a random
or sequential number generator to store or produce phone numbers.

That doesn’t make TCPA cases disappear. Plaintiffs can still focus on:

• Calls or texts made with prerecorded or artificial voices;
• Violations of do-not-call rules or internal DNC policies;
• Telemarketing without required consent or disclosures; and
• State-law claims that may define covered technology differently.

But the days of large nationwide classes built solely on the theory that every text sent by a mass-text platform in the Second Circuit
was an ATDS violation are, post-Facebook and post-remand, largely over.

5.3 Compliance checklist after the LaBoom remand

Companies operating in or reaching consumers in the Second Circuit should consider:

1. Mapping your technology: Understand whether your dialing or texting platform can generate numbers randomly or sequentially,
   or whether it only works from uploaded or manually entered lists.
2. Reviewing vendor contracts: Ensure third-party platforms describe their dialing logic clearly and allocate TCPA risk appropriately.
3. Refreshing consent flows: Confirm that sign-up pages, online forms, and in-person sign-ins clearly capture TCPA-style consent
   for marketing texts and calls.
4. Documenting opt-outs: Make “STOP” and similar keywords easy to use, and track revocations across systems.
5. Monitoring case law: Keep an eye on future Second Circuit decisions that may clarify how district courts should apply Facebook
   in borderline scenarios.

6. Real-World Experiences and Lessons After the LaBoom Remand

6.1 How in-house counsel are reading the remand

In-house lawyers at consumer-facing companies tend to view the LaBoom remand as confirmation, not revolution. Many had already updated
their risk assessments after Facebook, assuming that mere stored-list texting was unlikely to qualify as ATDS use if the system
didn’t generate phone numbers randomly or sequentially. The remand simply brings the Second Circuit’s paperwork in line with what everyone
has been treating as reality.

That said, the “odd” wording still matters in the conference room. When technology teams ask, “Are we really safe if we auto-text our
loyalty program members?”, legal teams now have another citation showing that the Second Circuit is marching in step with the Supreme Court’s
narrow ATDS definition. That makes it easier to green-light well-designed, consent-based text campaignswhile still insisting on strong
controls and documentation.

6.2 Vendor negotiations: from panic to precision

Before Facebook, negotiations with texting and dialer vendors sometimes sounded like a TCPA horror movie: reference to LaBoom’s
broad ATDS definition could send both sides scrambling to adjust indemnity clauses and compliance warranties. If a platform could send
messages from a stored list with one click, plaintiffs could plausibly argue it was an ATDS in the Second Circuit, pushing risk and
pricing upward.

After Facebook and the LaBoom remand, those conversations are more focused. Buyers now ask detailed questions about how numbers
are added to the system, whether any random or sequential number generation is used at all, and how the platform handles opt-outs and consent.
Vendors who can confidently say, “We never generate numbers randomly or sequentially, and here’s the architecture diagram to prove it,” tend
to have an easier time getting deals done. Those who can’t explain their underlying logic get more scrutinyor lose the contract entirely.

6.3 Litigation strategy on both sides

In the courtroom, the LaBoom remand has become another data point in the evolution of TCPA litigation:

• Defense counsel now routinely move to dismiss ATDS claims where the complaint describes only stored-list texting with no
  allegation of random or sequential number generation. LaBoom’s vacated 2020 opinion no longer offers plaintiffs friendly binding precedent
  in the Second Circuit, and the 2025 remand underscores that the only valid standard is the one set by Facebook.
• Plaintiffs’ lawyers are adapting by pleading more detailed technical allegationssometimes based on marketing materials or
  user manualsto argue that the challenged systems might use random or sequential processes in the background. But without concrete facts,
  those claims are increasingly vulnerable at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

As a result, litigants on both sides are taking discovery on system architecture more seriously. Depositions now drill into whether a platform
really “generates” numbers or simply organizes existing customer data. That focus dovetails with the Supreme Court’s narrower reading and the
Second Circuit’s remand, making the technology story just as important as the consent story in TCPA cases.

6.4 Compliance culture: fewer panic emails, more long-term planning

Finally, from a broader compliance perspective, the LaBoom remand contributes to a sense that the wildest days of ATDS uncertainty are behind us.
Companies that once froze all outbound texting while waiting for appellate clarification are now more comfortable investing in long-term
communication strategiesso long as they are built on robust consent, clear opt-outs, and tools that don’t flirt with random or sequential
dialing.

In that sense, the Second Circuit’s short, slightly quirky remand does something very practical: it aligns the circuit’s official record with
the post-Facebook status quo. The disco may be dimming its class-action spotlight, but the lessons from LaBoomabout technology, consent, and
statutory wordingwill keep echoing across TCPA compliance programs for years.

7. Conclusion

The Second Circuit’s remand in the LaBoom Disco ATDS ruling is not a blockbuster opinionbut it is an important mile marker. It closes out
a chapter in which the Second Circuit briefly stood among the broadest interpreters of ATDS and then, after the Supreme Court’s intervention
in Facebook v. Duguid, returns the case to the trial court with a much narrower standard.

For businesses, the message is cautiously comforting: if your platforms do not generate numbers randomly or sequentially and you respect
consent rules, your TCPA risk under the ATDS provision is significantly reduced. For plaintiffs, the remand signals that success will depend
on detailed technical allegations and alternative theories of liability, not just stored-list texting. And for everyone else, it’s a reminder
that sometimes a short, oddly worded order can say a lot about where the law has beenand where it’s going next.