California’s shift to a connections-based USF contribution shouldn’t stop the U.S. District Court of Northern California from applying a stay while T-Mobile appeals to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, T-Mobile and subsidiaries said Friday (docket 3:23-cv-00483).The commission's state USF order took effect April 1. Courts can grant stays of preliminary injunction denials "even where the court continues to believe its prior ruling rejecting the movant’s arguments was correct,” T-Mobile said. Thursday, the CPUC opposed the carrier’s motion to stay the court’s March 31 order denying preliminary injunction (see 2304060048). The CPUC "ignores crucial issues of law and fact and concocts speculative and implausible theories of harm for the first time in this case,” T-Mobile wrote Friday. "At a minimum, an administrative stay is warranted to afford the Ninth Circuit sufficient time to consider a stay motion before additional, ongoing, and irreparable harms are inflicted upon Plaintiffs.” The CPUC claims reverting to a revenue-based method will cost the agency time and resources, but it fails to estimate how much, the carrier added.

U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman for Northern California in San Jose signed an order Thursday (docket 5:22-cv-08861) continuing until Dec. 7 from April 13 the initial case management conference in NetChoice’s lawsuit for a preliminary injunction to block California’s age-appropriate social media design law, AB-2273, from taking effect in July 2024. NetChoice and California Attorney General Rob Bonta asked in an April 3 joint stipulation that the conference be postponed until at least 30 days after the court issues a decision on NetChoice’s injunction motion and the opportunity for appeal was exhausted (see 2304040001). The judge opted to continue the conference to Dec. 7 rather than doing so indefinitely, but she will grant “further joint requests for continuance” as necessary, said her order.

The U.S. District Court for Northern California shouldn’t stay its March 31 order denying preliminary injunction to T-Mobile in a state USF case, the California Public Utilities Commission said in its opposition Thursday (docket 3:23-cv-00483). After the court declined to stop the CPUC’s change to a connections-based contribution method, the carrier asked the district court for a stay pending its appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (see 2304050009). T-Mobile and subsidiaries "present nothing new" in their motion to stay the court's March 31 order, said the CPUC. They “failed to show any flaw in the Court’s decision -- much less a basis for the extraordinary relief of a stay,” the agency said. "That they disagree with the Court’s conclusion is of no moment and does not amount to probable success or a substantial question on the merits.” T-Mobile hasn’t “come close” to showing “likely and actual irreparable harm during the pendency of appeal,” the CPUC added. But "reverting to the previous revenue-based surcharge would confuse consumers and the other telecommunications carriers that have been working to implement the new surcharge, and it would cost the Commission and those other carriers considerable time and resources.”

The Office of New York Attorney General Letitia James shut down two websites for impersonating the New York State Department of State (NYSDOS) and for significantly overcharging users for services provided by the genuine department, said the office Wednesday. The websites, created by Thomas Romano and his company, Steamin’ Weenie, misled consumers into believing they were the real thing by using the agency’s official seal and logo, it said. They let users file various business-related documents with federal, state and local entities for much higher prices than NYSDOS offered, it said. One of the websites charged $135 for a certified copy of a certificate of incorporation, which generally costs about $10 from NYSDOS, it said. The NYSDOS helps individuals file paperwork for their businesses, such as corporate registry documents, or start a limited liability company, said the office. “There were no disclosures on the websites that they were operated by a private third-party agreeing to file documents on behalf of their users,” it said. In addition to shutting down the websites, the office secured nearly $45,000 in penalties from the company and its owner Romano, it said.

T-Mobile’s opening brief in a California USF appeal is due by May 1, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Tuesday. The California Public Utilities Commission’s answering brief will be due May 30 or four weeks after after the opening brief arrives, and the carrier’s optional reply brief will be due three weeks after the CPUC responds, the court said. T-Mobile and subsidiaries are challenging the U.S. District Court of Northern California denying preliminary injunction against a CPUC order requiring a change to a connections-based contribution method (case 23-15490). The CPUC order took effect Saturday, but T-Mobile asked for a stay pending appeal in docket 3:23-cv-00483 at the lower court (see 2304040011).

NetChoice, which is seeking a preliminary injunction to block California’s age-appropriate social media design law, AB-2273, from taking effect in July 2024 (see 2303130003), agrees with California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) to postpone their April 13 initial case management conference until 30 days after there’s a final decision on NetChoice’s injunction motion, said their joint stipulation Monday (docket 5:22-cv-08861) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose. They agree it would be “inefficient” to hold the conference before the injunction motion is resolved and the parties “have exhausted all opportunity for appeal,” it said. A hearing on the motion is scheduled for July 27.

While T-Mobile appeals to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the U.S. District Court for Northern California should stay enforcement of the California Public Utilities Commission’s order to shift to a connections-based USF contribution method, T-Mobile and subsidiaries said Monday. T-Mobile gave notice of its appeal earlier that day (see 2304030056). The 9th Circuit assigned the appeal Tuesday to docket 23-15490. The district court should either stay enforcement of the CPUC rule pending appeal or issue an administrative stay pending a 9th Circuit decision on a forthcoming motion for stay pending appeal, T-Mobile said in case 3:23-cv-00483-LB. Since the USF order took effect Saturday, plaintiffs want a ruling by April 7, it said. "The balance of the equities supports grant of a stay. Plaintiffs made a strong, unrebutted showing of irreparable harm, and the CPUC made no contrary showing.” A stay won’t harm the CPUC, T-Mobile added. The carrier also filed a motion to shorten the briefing schedule for responding to its stay request. Defendants don’t object to a proposed schedule where the agency would respond by Thursday and T-Mobile could respond to the commission Friday, the carrier said. "Shortening Defendants’ time to respond to the motion will not impose any prejudice on the CPUC, which has been on notice of Plaintiffs’ intent to stay enforcement of the Connections-Based Rule since before the filing of Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion on February 1, 2023.” The court grants the motion to shorten time as proposed, it said in a text entry Tuesday. NARUC would likely file an amicus brief at the 9th Circuit supporting the CPUC, the state regulator association’s General Counsel Brad Ramsay told us. “It is patently obvious [that] a $1.11 fee doesn’t burden the federal fund nor is it inconsistent with the federal program,” he emailed. “Charging all competitors the same flat fee is the definition of ‘competitively neutral.’”

Comcast and Verizon said a constitutional exception allowed them to challenge Maryland’s digital ad tax in court before exhausting all administrative remedies. Responding Friday to the state’s brief last month at the Maryland Supreme Court (see 2303020067), the carriers also disagreed that the tax isn’t preempted by the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA). The state Supreme Court is reviewing a lower state court decision to strike down the digital ad tax as unconstitutional. No administrative remedies were available to the plaintiffs when the suit began because the Maryland comptroller hadn't yet made any tax assessments "and the earliest she could possibly do so is April 17, 2023, when first [digital ad tax] returns are due,” the companies said (case No. 32, September 2022 term). That would have been two years after the tax was enacted. “In the meantime, Plaintiffs stood to lose substantial rights every day the constitutionality … remained unresolved because they were forced to conduct their businesses without knowing whether the contracts they were entering in 2021 and 2022 and likely 2023 were subject to a legally enforceable tax and without knowing how or whether they could recover” the tax because of its ban on passing through costs to customers. “This case is a textbook example for why the constitutional exception was created,” Comcast and Verizon said. The tax law violates the supremacy clause because it singles out internet ads in violation of ITFA, they said. By applying only to companies outside Maryland, it discriminates against interstate commerce in violation of the commerce clause. And because the tax exempts certain types of content like news, "it makes explicit, content-based distinctions in violation of the First Amendment.”

U.S. District Judge Barbara Lynn for Northern Texas denied as moot Halstead Financial Services’ March 8 motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in a telephone solicitation lawsuit brought by Sage Telecom, said a Wednesday order (docket 3:23-cv-00463) in U.S. District Court for Northern Texas in Dallas. Sage filed a first amended complaint Tuesday listing screen shots of complaints from individuals reporting they were harassed by Halstead representatives over bills and services they didn’t have and “debt that they do not owe,” said the amended complaint. One of Sage’s customers received multiple calls a day, many with no response when the individual picked up the phone. The individual has no debt or unpaid bills and had a previous lawsuit due to someone with the same name. Another call recipient received daily calls from Halsted from different numbers with the same Caller ID, calling it “harassment for no reason.” One recipient was cited for “hospital visits that didn’t occur,” with a pitch to pay off the “bill” at a 50% discount. Halsted representatives made at least 454 telephone solicitations to Sage’s customers, the complaint alleges. The suit claims violation of the Texas Business & Commercial Code for “continuous and repetitive telephone solicitations” without obtaining a registration certificate from the secretary of state’s office.

A New Jersey Supreme Court opinion is coming Monday at 10 a.m. in an Altice cable prorating case, the court clerk’s office said in a Friday notice. The state is appealing a 2021 state Appellate Division decision that the federal Cable Act preempts the state prorating rule. At a January oral argument, New Jersey Supreme Court justices challenged Altice on its claim that a state requirement to prorate cable bills is impermissible rate regulation (see 2301170067).