The U.S. Supreme Court should review an elections case against the Georgia Public Service Commission because the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals diverged from other circuits and since the case could have far-reaching effects, petitioners said in a reply brief Tuesday. The group of Black voters seek SCOTUS review of the 11th Circuit finding that elections must remain statewide for the Georgia PSC’s five members, who represent five separate districts. Georgia called the case, involving Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a “splitless dispute” in a May 28 brief (see 2405290009). However, petitioners argued Tuesday that the 11th is the only circuit that has required challengers of an election method to offer a satisfactory alternative that doesn't alter the state's chosen government model. "By putting remedy first, and restricting the plaintiffs from proposing any remedies that change 'the state’s chosen model of government,' ... the panel rejected the plaintiffs’ claims notwithstanding the district court’s detailed findings of compactness, cohesion, racial polarization, and lack of minority representation on the PSC.” The 8th Circuit didn't apply such a restriction on what alternative could be proposed in a similar 2006 case, Bone Shirt v. Hazeltine, said the voter group. Also, the petitioners disagreed with Georgia’s argument that the 11th Circuit decision’s impact was limited to the Georgia PSC. "Any Section 2 challenge to at-large elections at any level, so long as they have some arguable basis in state law (as almost all do), can now be defeated at the outset simply because” a plaintiff’s proposed remedy “would necessarily alter the State’s chosen electoral model,” they said. “Failing to intervene now to reverse the decision … risks an ‘avalanche’ of States retreating to at-large election schemes at all levels of government that would dodge the oversight Congress intended when it drafted and enacted Section 2."

A special unit in the Texas attorney general’s office will enforce privacy laws, AG Ken Paxton (R) said Tuesday. Housed within the Consumer Protection Division, the team will enforce the state’s comprehensive privacy law that takes effect July 1, plus other state and federal data protection laws, the AG office said. “Any entity abusing or exploiting Texans’ sensitive data will be met with the full force of the law,” Paxton said. “Companies that collect and sell data in an unauthorized manner, harm consumers financially, or use artificial intelligence irresponsibly present risks to our citizens that we take very seriously.”

A California court delayed a hearing related to the timing of state privacy rules by nearly five months. The California Superior Court of Sacramento received briefs last month on whether to set a deadline for the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) to make rules on cybersecurity audits, risk assessments and automated decision-making technology (see 2405230034). The California Superior Court of Sacramento postponed a June 21 hearing on the question until Nov. 15 due to “a request of the parties,” said court minutes posted Monday in case 34-2023-80004106-CU-WM-GDS.

U.S. District Judge Steven McAuliffe for New Hampshire designated U.S. Magistrate Judge Talesha Saint-Marc to consider the League of Women Voters’ request for a preliminary injunction to block three defendants from repeating their illegal AI-generated robocalls before the November election (see 2404290016), said McAuliffe’s text-only order Wednesday (docket 1:24-cv-00073). McAuliffe authorized Saint-Marc to conduct a hearing on the request, if necessary, and to file her proposed findings and recommendations with the court, said the order. The league alleges that defendants Steve Kramer, broadband provider Lingo Telecom and robocall broadcaster Life Corp. sent thousands of robocalls two days before the Jan. 23 New Hampshire primary to people they thought were likely Democratic voters, featuring deepfake simulations of President Joe Biden's voice (see 2403150034). The injunction would also bar the defendants from distributing spoofed phone calls, text messages or any other form of spoofed communication. It would also block them from distributing phone calls, text messages or other mass communications that don’t comply with all applicable state and federal laws “or that are made for an unlawful purpose.” Lingo and Life oppose the injunction and have attempted to pin the blame for January’s robocalls on Kramer, a political operative who hasn’t yet answered the original complaint or the motion for injunctive relief.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Anthony Porcelli for Middle Florida in Tampa granted Ruby Gamez's renewed motion to compel class discovery from defendant Redbox, said Porcelli’s signed order Friday (docket 8:23-cv-01497). Redbox opposed the production of class discovery pending the resolution of its motions to compel Gamez’s claims to arbitration and to stay discovery. But the court “finds it reasonable and in the best interest of the case for class discovery to go forward at this time,” said Porcelli’s order. The production of class discovery must occur by July 31, said the order. Gamez alleges that Redbox engaged in Florida Telephone Solicitation Act wrongdoing by phoning consumers to promote its goods and services “without having secured prior express written consent,” as the FTSA requires (see 2307060003).

ISP groups got two more weeks to seek rehearing or rehearing en banc of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision to uphold New York state’s Affordable Broadband Act (case 21-1975). The appeals court Friday granted an unopposed motion by the New York State Telecommunications Association and other industry groups to extend the deadline until June 7. The petition had been due Friday under a previous extension. However, the industry groups sought additional time Wednesday because they said they might reach an agreement with New York state to resolve the case (see 2405220073). On April 26, the 2nd Circuit decided that federal law didn’t preempt the 2021 New York law requiring $15 monthly plans providing 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload speeds for qualifying low-income households (see 2404260051).

A state court needn’t set a deadline for the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) to make rules on cybersecurity audits, risk assessments and automated decision-making technology, with enforcement “still distant,” the agency said Wednesday. The California Superior Court of Sacramento asked May 3 if it should set a “date certain” for those rules after the California Chamber of Commerce’s lawsuit against the agency returned to the court. The court scheduled a June 21 hearing on the question. In February, California’s 3rd District Court of Appeal reversed the court’s June decision that granted a CalChamber petition and stayed any CPPA rules for 12 months after they become final. CalChamber petitioned for review at the California Supreme Court (see 2402210031), but that court declined to take the case on April 24. As a result, the only remaining issue for the Superior Court to decide is whether to set a deadline for the upcoming CPPA rules. In its Wednesday brief, the privacy agency said it started drafting remaining rules at issue in the case and will finalize them "once it has determined that it has received sufficient feedback from stakeholders and obtained necessary approval from state control agencies. In the meantime, it will not enforce the law in the specific areas still subject to regulation. Petitioner is entitled to nothing more.” It would be “improper” for the court to set a deadline because the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) “rulemaking process involves a substantial exercise of judgment and discretion over the timeline of the process itself,” the agency said in case 34-2023-80004106-CU-WM-GDS. “Petitioner's interests are already protected by enforcement delays and the APA-mandated procedures for stakeholder input.” The agency already took more feedback than the APA requires in a pre-rulemaking phase and will soon seek more input when it opens a formal rulemaking process, added the agency. In another brief, CalChamber pointed out that the agency was supposed to adopt final rules by July 1, 2022. “Petitioner continues to be concerned about the Agency’s timeline for fulfilling its statutory obligations with respect to the three outstanding rulemakings.” Given the coming rules’ significance, CalChamber "remains invested in ensuring the Agency does not attempt to adopt the regulations on a timeline that does not allow sufficient time for stakeholder review and participation, public comments, and meaningful consideration of public input,” said the business group. That said, CalChamber noted that only the agency "can fully address the anticipated timing for the adoption of the outstanding regulations.”

The 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court granted the parties’ joint motion to stay Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s (R) appeal to reverse the preliminary injunction that bars him from enforcing a statewide TikTok ban (see [Ref:2405220003), a clerk’s order said Wednesday (docket 24-34). The stay will remain until the D.C. Circuit resolves the TikTok/ByteDance petition challenging the constitutionality of the federal TikTok law, “or until further order of this court,” said the order. The parties must notify the court by filing a status report and joint motion for further relief within 30 days of a D.C. Circuit decision, it said.

ISP groups and New York state might soon reach agreement and avoid an appeal of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision to uphold New York state’s Affordable Broadband Act (case 21-1975). The 2nd Circuit previously granted an extension to file for rehearing or rehearing en banc until Friday (see 2405010005). In an unopposed motion on Wednesday, the industry groups asked for a two-week extension until June 7. The plaintiffs and state “are discussing and anticipate reaching within the next two weeks an agreed-to stipulation regarding the New York law at issue … that would obviate the need for Plaintiffs-Appellees to file a rehearing petition before this Court,” the ISP groups wrote. “Following diligent and repeated discussions, the parties reached tentative agreement on the outline of this agreed-to stipulation -- by which Plaintiffs-Appellees would agree to forgo filing a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc in exchange for certain agreements from Defendant-Appellant.” The plaintiffs said the “parties expect to reach final agreement as to that agreed-to stipulation before June 7, 2024, but not before” this Friday when the rehearing petition is currently due.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court is considering for an upcoming oral argument calendar in San Francisco Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s (R) appeal to reverse the preliminary injunction that blocks him from enforcing Montana’s statewide TikTok ban (see 2401030007), said a text-only docket notice Thursday (docket 24-34). The 9th Circuit is eyeing sitting dates in September or October, said the notice. U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy for Montana in Missoula granted the joint motion of the parties in the consolidated case that challenges the state's statewide TikTok ban to stay their proceedings pending the "final adjudication" of TikTok’s constitutional challenge to the federal TikTok ban in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (see 2405160031). Molloy said Wednesday that the stay will be lifted if the 9th Circuit reverses his preliminary injunction order.