State v. Euzebe

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that human intervention sufficiently “negate[d] the EZ-texting program” as an auto-dialer
• concluding that the EZ Texting program used by defendant \was not an ATDS\ because \no text message would have been sent\ if defendant \had not ultimately pressed 'send' to authorize the EZ-Texting platform to send the text message\
• “The Court finds that Snyder’s testimony is insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact .. . that the EZ-program texting system is not an automatic telephone dialing system under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.”
• \[T]he CEO of ... the company that owns the EZ-texting program[ ] confirms that the program can only be used to send messages to specific identified numbers that have been inputted into the system by the customer ... [and] does not have the ability to ... generate phone numbers.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).