Per Curiam
Applying Civil Practice Law and Rules §901(b), district court dismissed Bank’s class action complaint under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Second Circuit vacated—and remanded—judgment. Based on the reasoning in Giovanniello v. ALM Media, it held—as Bank argued—that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs when a federal TCPA suit may proceed as a class action. The Supreme Court’s decision in Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs. “suggest[ed] that in enacting the TCPA, Congress merely enabled states to decide whether and how to spend their resources on TCPA enforcement” and emphasized that “Congress ha[s] a strong federal interest in uniform standards for TCPA claims in federal court.” In Giovanniello, the circuit recognized that the rationales in Bonime v. Avaya Inc.—which held that CPLR §901(b), not Rule 23, governed TCPA class suits—had been rejected. Bonime’s first rationale—that the Erie doctrine required application of state law class action procedures—was overturned by the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs. P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Also, Mims undermined Bonime’s second rationale, which relied on jurisdictional interpretations of TCPA §227(b)(3).