A blind consumer’s claims against internet streaming service Brown Sugar fails under two California laws, the state's Second District Court of Appeal ruled Friday. In an unpublished opinion in case B310487, the court affirmed a trial court’s April 2021 judgment. California’s automatic renewal law contains no private right of action, the court said. Also, consumer Luis Licea’s first amended complaint didn’t allege causation needed to establish standing under California’s unfair competition law, it said. Justice Frances Rothschild wrote the opinion. Justices Victoria Chaney and Gregory Weingart concurred.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) sent letters to businesses with mobile apps that may violate the California Consumer Privacy Act, the AG office said Friday. The investigative sweep includes popular apps in the retail, travel and food service industries that allegedly fail to allow opt-out requests or allow consumers to stop sale of their data, it said. “I urge the tech industry to innovate for good -- including developing and adopting user-enabled global privacy controls for mobile operating systems that allow consumers to stop apps from selling their data,” said Bonta.

New York state and ISP associations must file supplemental briefs on whether the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction over the lower court’s final judgment that the parties negotiated, the court ordered Friday. In the challenge of New York’s Affordable Broadband Act (ABA), the state told the court last week that the stipulated final decision was appealable (see 2301200029). Judges grilled New York on the question at a hearing earlier this month (see 2301120041). To clear an appeals path, the New York attorney general in July 2021 reached agreement with ISP plaintiffs that the state reserved appeal rights but would not to enforce its law (see 2107230044). They agreed the court’s holdings on preemption in a June 11 preliminary injunction order resolved legal issues and should be used as a final judgment. In Monday’s order, judges asked if the state’s agreement to be “permanently enjoined from enforcing” the ABA was “an ‘intentional relinquishment’ of Defendant-Appellant’s claim to be free from such an injunction?” It asked if any “defect in appellate standing” was cured by the stipulated judgment saying the state reserved all rights to appeal. Also, the court wonders if the stipulated judgment lacked “finality … insofar as Plaintiffs-Appellees voluntarily dismissed their claim” without prejudice. Briefs will be due Jan. 30, the court said.

A district court's decision barring New York from enforcing the 2021 Affordable Broadband Act is an appealable final decision because that stipulated final judgment wasn't the result of a settlement among the parties, the state Office of the Attorney General told the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Friday in docket 21-1975. Its letter expanded on issues brought up in oral argument earlier this month (see 2301120041). The parties "remain adverse" despite the stipulated final judgment, and defendant-appellant New York Attorney General Letitia James "remains aggrieved by the final judgment," it said. Even if the stipulated final judgment were "somehow akin" to a consent judgment, the state still has the right to appeal the declaratory judgment and permanent injunction, it said. Counsel for the plaintiff-appellees didn't comment.

Sage Telecom’s “conclusory and speculative allegations” are insufficient to state a claim under code 302.101 of the Texas Telephone Solicitation Act, said defendant Mercantile Adjustment Bureau Wednesday, supporting its motion to dismiss the amended complaint (2301050058) filed this month in U.S. District Court for Northern Texas in Dallas. In its three-point argument, Mercantile said Sage’s amended complaint fails to establish that the defendant made a telephone solicitation from a location in Texas to a “purchaser” in the state, said the memorandum (docket 3:22-cv-2737), saying in the context of debt collection, a consumer already has purchased an item. The amended complaint doesn’t allege the defendant placed a single phone call to plaintiff, stating instead that a party filing suit under the TTSA doesn’t need to be the recipient of solicitations, the defendant said. It argued the TTSA doesn’t permit the plaintiff, as a telecom service provider, to bring an action on behalf of its customers. Third, said MAB, the amended complaint failed to allege Sage suffered actual damages as a result of the alleged TTSA violation.

The 2022 Democratic challenger to a Georgia utility commissioner voluntarily dismissed her motion for injunctive relief against the incumbent. Patty Durand sued Georgia Public Service Commissioner Tim Echols (R) last year at the U.S. District Court for Northern Georgia for blocking her on social media (case 1:22-cv-4548). But Echols has now unblocked Durand on Twitter and Facebook and “has committed to not delete any comments … based on the viewpoint(s) expressed,” Durand’s lawyers said Monday. “Other matters, including but not limited to any outstanding claims regarding injunctive relief, remain pending before this Court.” Judge Victoria Calvert had planned a hearing on Durand’s motion Wednesday. Durand and Echols never got to face off for votes because the Supreme Court canceled November's Georgia PSC election. That decision closely followed a state court ruling that Georgia improperly tried to stop Durand from challenging Echols (see 2208220052).

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey (R) released further documentation Monday he said shows collusion between Biden administration officials and Big Tech to censor social media content (see 2301090030). He said the White House asked Twitter to "censor" Robert Kennedy Jr., a critic of the White House’s COVID-19 strategy. White House Digital Director Robert Flaherty targeted Facebook officials over perceived COVID-19 misinformation, suggested content for removal and offered guidance for content ranking, said Bailey. The AGs' depositions continue, he said. Bailey noted they have deposed former White House Chief Medical Adviser Anthony Fauci, FBI Special Agent Elvis Chan, Eric Waldo of the Surgeon General’s Office, Carol Crawford of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Daniel Kimmage of the State Department.

Emails between Facebook and White House officials over Fox News programming about COVID-19 show the coercive and collusive nature of the Biden administration’s role in censoring information on social media, Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry (R) said Monday (see 2301060041). Landry and Missouri AG Andrew Bailey (R) sued the administration, claiming federal officials colluded with Big Tech to censor social media information (docket 3:22-cv-01213). Landry released several court-ordered discovery documents containing April and March email chains between Facebook representatives and White House officials. White House officials asked the platform why a viral video of Fox News host Tucker Carlson about the COVID-19 vaccine didn’t violate platform policies and wasn’t removed. Facebook “dutifully reported” to the White House that the video “received 50% demotion pending a 7-day fact checking period.” Facebook continued to demote the video even though “no fact checking actually occurred,” said Landry. The documents include emails from Rob Flaherty, White House director-digital strategy, who told the company his questions aren’t “rhetorical.” Flaherty wrote the company: “Not for nothing but the last time we did this dance, it ended in an insurrection.” The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the deposition of Flaherty and several other Biden administration officials in the case before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The White House didn’t comment.

The Kentucky 911 Services Board may amend its answer in a court fight against CTIA at U.S. District Court of Eastern Texas, Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove said in an order released Thursday (case 3:20-cv-00043-GFVT-EBA). The Kentucky defendants asked to remove a defense claiming the plaintiffs failed to name indispensable parties and to add a defense saying one or more laws relied upon in the complaint are invalid and unconstitutional, the judge said. CTIA didn’t object to the amendment, the judge said. “There is little reason to suspect that granting the amendment will prejudice” CTIA, he said. “Defendants claim that the amendment will raise new legal issues, rather than factual issues, that will not require further discovery and can be disposed of via a dispositive motion.” Also, “there is no reason to suspect undue delay or dilatory motive as discovery will not be completed until March 22, 2023.” The amended answer was filed Thursday. The court last month set trial for Jan. 30, 2024 (see 2212220014).

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals deferred consideration, pending submission of the briefs, of the Dec. 27 motion by plaintiff-appellants U.S. Chamber of Commerce, NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association to schedule oral argument in their Maryland digital ad tax appeal during the May sitting, said a clerk’s order Friday (docket 22-2275). The court also denied their motion to accelerate the case proceeding, a day after counsel for Maryland Comptroller Peter Franchot (D) opposed the motion to the extent it seeks to shorten the time for filing the state’s brief. The associations are seeking an injunction enjoining Maryland from enforcing a charge against the annual gross revenue derived from digital advertising in the state at a rate determined by companies’ global annual gross revenue and from prohibiting payers from passing the charge onto customers.