北京邮电大学学报(社会科学版) ›› 2021, Vol. 23 ›› Issue (2): 22-26.doi: 10.19722/j.cnki.1008-7729.2020.0330

• 互联网治理与法律 • 上一篇    下一篇

论电信法审判中司法解释的工具性——以Gadelhak v.AT & T Services,Inc.案为例

娄耀雄(1969—),男,河北石家庄人,博士,教授   

  1. 北京邮电大学 人文学院,北京100876
  • 收稿日期:2020-11-06 出版日期:2021-04-30 发布日期:2021-05-20
  • 通讯作者: 娄耀雄(1969—),男,河北石家庄人,博士,教授
  • 作者简介:娄耀雄(1969—),男,河北石家庄人,博士,教授

Instrumentality of Judicial Interpretation in the Trial of Telecommunication Case#br# —Taking the Case of Gadelhak v.AT&T Services, Inc. as an Example#br#

  1. School of Humanities, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing 100876, China
  • Received:2020-11-06 Online:2021-04-30 Published:2021-05-20

摘要: 电信技术越发达,用户隐私越容易受到侵犯。从精准定位到数据泄露,从定向广告到用户画像,电信技术将人“透明化”。因此,保护用户隐私权、保护用户安定生活的权利,成为电信法立法者坚持的原则。然而,这种坚持被不断升级的电信技术打破。在立法对技术望尘莫及时,法官用司法解释弥补法律的短板。美国第七巡回上诉法院于2020年2月19日判决Gadelhak v.AT&T Services, Inc.案,就消费者起诉AT&T电话自动拨号系统侵扰案作出判决,对《电话消费者保护法(TCPA)》作了司法解释:为豁免智能手机的自动拨号和自动发送短信功能,法官不得不豁免同样使用存储号码自动发送短信的被告。以“立法者原意”之名的司法解释故意曲解了立法者原意,这彰显了司法解释的工具性。

关键词: 电信法, 司法解释, 电话侵扰, 隐私权 

Abstract: The more developed the telecommunication technology, the easier it is to invade users privacy. From precise positioning to data leakage, from targeted advertising to user portraits, telecommunication technology makes people transparent. Therefore, the protection of users privacy, including the right to live a stable life without being disturbed, has always been the principle of telecommunication law legislators. However, this principle is often broken by the upgrading of telecommunication technologies. When legislation cant catch up with technologies, judges use judicial interpretation to make up for the weakness of law. Gadelhak v.AT&T Services, Inc. was ruled by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on February 19, 2020, in which consumers sued the defendants automatic dialing system for intrusion, and judges made a judicial interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In order to exempt smart phones from automatic dialing and automatic sending of short messages, judges had to exempt the defendant who also used stored numbers to send messages automatically. The judicial interpretation in the name of “legislators original intention” deliberately distorted the original intention of the legislator, which shows the instrumental nature of judicial interpretation.

Key words: telecommunication law, judicial interpretation, telephone intrusion, privacy

中图分类号: