Brave Ventures, LLC v. Ambrester

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• granting summary judgment for defendant where calling system required defendant’s agent to press “accept” to initiate each call
• interpreting “capacity” under § 227 “to mean ‘is capable of,’ not ‘could 27 be capable of’ or ‘has the potential to be capable of.’ ”
• finding human intervention to send texts was \essential\ to system's ability to dial and transmit the messages and as such system in question was not an ATDS
• rejecting the suggestion that that Satterfield stood for the proposition that \a system that has to be reprogrammed or have new software installed in order to perform the functions of an ATDS\ would nonetheless be an ATDS under the statute
• in a case predating the 2015 Order, rejecting the argument that \a system that has to be reprogrammed or have new software installed in order to perform the functions of an ATDS [is] an ATDS\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).