In Lord v. Kisling, Nestico & Redick, LLC, 2018 WL 3391941, at *3 (N.D.Ohio, 2018), Judge Nugent found that a TCPA Plaintiff did not plead sufficient facts demonstrating that an ATDS was used under the standard set forth by the D.C. Circuit’s decision in ACA International. 

For the telephone system KNR allegedly uses to constitute a violation of the TCPA, Plaintiffs’ claim must allege plausible facts that KNR’s system has the ability to store or produce telephone numbers using a random or sequential number generator. 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1). Here, Plaintiffs’ do not allege any facts that KNR uses a system that has the ability to store or produce telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator. Instead, Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that KNR’s equipment can “be modified or programmed to generate and dial random or sequential numbers.” (ECF #15). Even if these allegations are taken as true they do not plausibly allege the use of an ATDS. In addition, after ACA Int’l, the fact that KNR’s system maybe capable of sending bulk or mass messages without human intervention is irrelevant. Plaintiffs’ remaining allegations are not facts and are simply conclusions that are insufficient to state a claim. See Norman v. Sito Mobile Sols., No. CV 17–2215, 2017 WL 1330199, *3 (D.N.J. Apr. 6, 2017) (“Plaintiffs must do more than simply parrot the statutory language… a plaintiff must at least describe, in laymen’s terms, the facts about the calls or circumstances surrounding the calls that make it plausible that they were made using an [ATDS].” As such Plaintiffs’ complaint only parrots the statutory language and fails to state a claim for violation of the TCPA.