number bears the responsibility for any violation of the Commission’s rules. Calls placed by a third party collector on behalf of that creditor are treated as if the creditor itself placed the call.” Id. at 565, ¶ 10. The 2008 ruling also affirmed that a predictive dialer constitutes an automatic telephone dialing system and is subject to the TCPA’s restrictions on the use of autodialers. Id. at 566, ¶ 12. Under the Administrative Orders Review Act, otherwise known as the Hobbs Act, the Court of Appeals is vested with exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of all final orders of the FCC. 28 U.S.C. § 2342(1). This Court is therefore bound by the FCC’s orders, which are final and controlling. See CE Design, Ltd. v. Prism Business Media, Inc., 606 F.3d 443, 446 (7th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). DISCUSSION I. Honda’s and FCS’s Motions to
holding that proof of racketeering was not a separate prerequisite to criminal liability under the hobbs act holding that impossibility is not a defense to attempts or conspiracy under the hobbs act holding that the fccs orders relating to the tcpa are binding under the hobbs act holding the meaning of commerce element in a different federal statute the hobbs act to be a question of law holding two elements are essential for a hobbs act prosecution robbery and an effect on commerce