Protecting wireless industry profits isn’t a good reason to preempt a Kentucky 911 fee law, the state argued Friday. CTIA and the Kentucky 911 Service Board opposed each other’s July summary judgment motions (see 2307280073) in responses at the U.S. District Court for Eastern Kentucky.
Adam Bender
Adam Bender, Senior Editor, is the state and local telecommunications reporter for Communications Daily, where he also has covered Congress and the Federal Communications Commission. He has won awards for his Warren Communications News reporting from the Society of Professional Journalists, Specialized Information Publishers Association and the Society for Advancing Business Editing and Writing. Bender studied print journalism at American University and is the author of dystopian science-fiction novels. You can follow Bender at WatchAdam.blog and @WatchAdam on Twitter.
T-Mobile’s MetroPCS won judgment Friday against the California Public Utilities Commission in a dispute about USF surcharges (case 3:17-cv-05959-JD). "The Court concludes that the CPUC’s 2017 and 2018 resolutions are preempted as applied to MetroPCS because they would impose surcharges on revenues from services that are not subject to surcharge, in violation of federal law,” Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for Northern California wrote.
A federal court refused to toss a telecom company’s complaint that the Washington, D.C., government violated federal competitive bidding rules. Allied Telecom Group claimed in March 2022 that two D.C. agencies contracted with each other for telecom services in violation of U.S. competitive bidding rules implementing the 1996 Telecom Act. Denying D.C.’s motion to dismiss in an opinion Monday, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia disagreed with the city's arguments including that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and that Allied failed to state a preemption claim.
The Maryland Supreme Court couldn't allow Comcast and Verizon to circumvent state legislative intent to resolve tax disputes through the administrative remedy process, Chief Justice Matthew Fader said Wednesday on the ISPs' challenge to the state's digital ad tax. The state’s high court released an opinion explaining its May 9 decision to overturn a Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County ruling that the tax is unconstitutional. The companies should have challenged the tax in the Maryland Tax Court, an expert administrative agency, before seeking judicial review, Fader said.
Industry breathed a sigh of relief after a California state court delayed enforcement of California Privacy Rights Act regulations Friday. The California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber) said the ruling by the California Superior Court in Sacramento righted an unfair situation for businesses. “Significant portions” of CPRA remain enforceable, despite the court’s ruling, said California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) Executive Director Ashkan Soltani.
A California state court signaled it would delay enforcement of California Privacy Right Act (CPRA) regulations. The CPRA had required the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) to start enforcing regulations implementing the sequel to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) by Saturday. Connecticut and Colorado’s comprehensive privacy laws took effect that day, joining California and Virginia laws. The Delaware Senate passed a privacy bill Thursday.
California’s shift to connections-based USF contribution is no shining example of cooperative federalism, T-Mobile told the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. “It is an unlawful attempt by the CPUC to override the FCC’s policy determination regarding the type of surcharge mechanism that best advances universal service.” Also, in a reply brief Tuesday (case 23-15490), the carrier disagreed with the California Public Utilities Commission that stopping the CPUC order would disrupt nearly every state's USF rules.
Two weeks before California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) enforcement, the California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber) pressed a state court to grant its March 30 petition to delay the date until one year after the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) adopts final rules. “The sole reason for the near nine-month delay in issuing final regulations is the Agency’s conduct,” CalChamber wrote Thursday at California Superior Court in Sacramento (case 2023-80004106-CV).
A California court should decline businesses’ “invitation to thwart the will of the voters by significantly delaying enforcement” of the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), said the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA). The agency opposed a California Chamber of Commerce lawsuit at the California Superior Court in Sacramento (case 2023-80004106-CV). The 12-month grace period sought by CalChamber "would be a windfall to businesses, to the detriment of consumers,” the agency wrote Monday.
Section 230 protection is broad and bars a Californian user’s lawsuit against Twitter, the 1st District California Court of Appeals ruled Friday. The court affirmed a lower court dismissing Maria Rutenburg’s complaint about Twitter deleting former President Donald Trump’s account. Rutenberg claimed Twitter violated her state constitutional right to free speech when the platform moderated and deleted Trump’s account because it prevented her from accessing an “interactive space” for replying to the Republican’s tweets. Twitter demurred, arguing the lawsuit was barred by Section 230; the social platform isn’t a state actor; Rutenberg lacks standing because Twitter moderated Trump’s account, not hers; and Trump is no longer president. The trial court agreed, so the Twitter user appealed. Although Rutenberg denies it, she's “seeking to hold Twitter liable for ‘typical publisher conduct protected by section 230,’” wrote Judge Kathleen Banke. “It makes no difference that Rutenberg has styled her claim as one for violation of free speech rights under our state constitution.” The allegedly injurious conduct included “Twitter’s decisions regarding whether to edit content posted by an account holder or to ban it altogether,” she said. “Rutenberg’s allegations demonstrate that her state free speech claim is grounded on Twitter’s editorial actions with respect to Trump’s account, and not on Twitter’s origination and posting of independent ‘news’ content. That these editorial actions resulted in an alteration of the ‘physical interactive space,’ and specifically the elimination of this space, does not change the fact that her claims are rooted in” Twitter editorial decisions. “The label a plaintiff ascribes to a social media platform’s conduct is not determinative of whether section 230 bars the lawsuit.” Banke added, “There undoubtedly is tension between the dual purposes of section 230 -- to limit federal regulation and thereby encourage free speech … and to encourage the monitoring and control of content that a private social media platform deems offensive.” But she said that’s a matter for Congress.