Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) sued six individuals and six companies in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Wednesday, alleging in his complaint (docket 23-cv-000047) they used illegal robocalls to identify sales leads so they could pitch purported car warranties to Ohio residents. Yost announced the complaint Thursday. The state cited defendants Pelican Investment Holdings, Dimension Service, Autoguard Advantage, National Administrative Service, Falcon Endeavors and MB Holdings and certain owners and officers for violating Ohio’s consumer protection laws. The companies committed unfair or deceptive practices by initiating phone solicitations, directly or as a result of a third party acting on their behalf, and “misrepresenting the nature” of the auto warranties being sold, in violation of the state’s Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA), alleged the complaint. The companies also acted as telephone solicitors without filing a copy of a surety bond with the state, violating Ohio’s Telephone Solicitation Sales Act (TSSA), said the complaint. The prerecorded messages failed to properly identify the calling party and falsely claimed the call was about extending the consumer’s auto warranty and was affiliated with the auto manufacturer, the complaint said. The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from doing business under their or any other name, fines not less than $1,000 or more than $25,000 for each violation of the TSSA and a penalty of up to $25,000 for each violation of the CSPA, plus expenses, fees and court costs.

Grubhub will pay $3.5 million to settle claims that it charged customers “hidden fees” and used “deceptive marketing” in violation of local consumer protection laws, Washington, D.C., Attorney General Karl Racine (D) announced in a settlement Friday. Grubhub listed menu items with prices higher than those on certain restaurants’ own menus, Racine’s office alleged in claims originally filed in March. Racine said the company deceived consumers about their ability to order online for free and deceptively advertised subscribers’ ability to get free delivery. The settlement requires several changes to Grubhub’s business practices: The company must prominently display all checkout fees for consumers, display line items for each fee and stop combining taxes and fees into one item at checkout. Nearly $3 million will go to affected customers and the district will receive an $800,000 civil penalty. The company didn’t comment.

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) is proposing legislation to toughen the state’s rules against robocalls, he said Wednesday. The Robocall Scam Protection Act (HB 105), sponsored by state legislator Rep. Mari Leavitt (D), would make it a violation of the Consumer Protection Act to robocall those on the do-not-call registry, spoof ID or “knowingly facilitate illegal robocalls if you are a voice service provider,” the release said. “Addressing the gap in protections to root out these scams is the least we can do to protect our fellow Washingtonians,” said Leavitt in the release, which compares the bill to similar laws passed in Florida and Oklahoma. The bill would preserve the use of automatic dialers by businesses to contact their existing customers, customers who consented, and customers with whom they have an established business relationship, “as long as the sales message itself is delivered by a live person,” the release said. The bill would also allow for civil litigation against telecom providers, with damages of up to $1,000 per violation, the release said. The state legislature “must give Washingtonians stronger and clearer legal protections against the daily bombardment of illegal robocalls -- and provide additional tools to my office to hold bad actors accountable,” said Ferguson in the release.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce moved Tuesday to accelerate by a week the briefing schedule in its challenge of Maryland’s digital ad tax, citing the “federal constitutional rights at stake and the harms that will follow from further delay.” The motion (docket 22-2275) calls for the opening brief and appendix to be pushed up to Jan. 17, from Jan. 24, and the answering brief to Feb. 16 from Feb. 23, with the reply brief due March 6. The change in briefing schedule would be sufficient to ensure that briefing is complete at least four weeks in advance of a May oral argument, avoiding further delay “and the attendant damage to appellants’ members’ rights,” the motion said. The state does not consent to the relief requested. The Chamber is appealing the U.S. District Court of Maryland's March decision dismissing businesses' challenge of the tax and the district court's Dec. 2 dismissal of their challenge to the tax's pass-through ban. The pass-through provision is having a “serious chilling effect on what appellants’ members tell their clients on invoices and account statements,” said the motion. Companies have made estimated payments under the ad tax and many will “continue to do so until the legal status of the law is finally resolved,” it said, “yet they remain barred from identifying any corresponding price increases as line-items or separate fees on their customer communications.”

A state appeals court upheld a 2021 California Public Utilities Commission decision to adopt imputation of net positive retail broadband internet access service revenue of 10 small LECs and their ISP affiliates when calculating California High Cost Fund A (CHCF-A) support. The CPUC adopted the order April 15, 2021, and denied the LECs’ rehearing request Aug. 19 that year. The telcos sought court review of the two decisions in September 2021. In a Dec. 20 unpublished opinion, the 5th District California Court of Appeals rejected the 10 RLECs’ argument that broadband imputation isn't authorized by state law, exceeds the CPUC's authority, is preempted by federal law and is an unconstitutional taking. On the federal preemption issue, the CPUC is right that broadband imputation doesn't directly "impose economic or public utility type regulation on the ISP affiliates,” Justice Donald Franson wrote (case F083339). “It does not directly impose any requirement on their rates and practices, prohibit discrimination, impose tariffing requirements, impose accounting requirements, restrict entry or exist from the ISP business, impose interconnection obligation, or require unbundling or network access.” The CPUC "correctly found that broadband imputation does not impose price controls on ISP affiliates and does not impose any additional regulations affecting their operations." The court disagrees with telcos' argument that broadband imputation's indirect effects result in economic or utility-style regulation of ISPs, Franson added. On the constitutional claim, Franson wrote, “A subsidy is not private property and, therefore, the reduction of the subsidy does not constitute the taking of private property of the telephone companies or the ISP affiliates.” Justices Bert Levy and Kathleen Meehan concurred.

A Pennsylvania appeals court remanded for a second time in a four-year-old legal fight to get a variance for erecting a 195-foot wireless tower on a school district’s property. Vogue Towers submitted a variance application in December 2018 and received approval from the Upper Yoder Township Zoning Hearing Board in April 2019. Citizens from Upper Woodmont appealed to a state trial court, which sided with the company. But on appeal, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court in July 2020 remanded so the lower court could determine if the company was applying for a location squarely within the board's jurisdiction. Later, the Yoder township updated its zoning ordinance and Vogue Towers amended its application to ensure the tower was in the township’s limits. The board approved the amended application in December 2020, but the citizen objectors appealed again. In April 2021, the trial court dismissed the complaint and affirmed the zoning board’s decision. Citizens appealed the case back to the Commonwealth Court. Judge Michael Wojcik ruled Thursday that the lower court suitably complied with his court’s previous remand. “However, there is absolutely no record evidence demonstrating that the new site for the proposed cell tower as provided in the Amended Application meets all of the mandatory requirements supporting the grant of a variance under either the Zoning Ordinances" or the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code. "As a result, we are constrained to again vacate the trial court’s order affirming the Board’s decision, and remand the matter to the trial court to receive evidence demonstrating that the new site … meets all of the required elements supporting the grant of a variance.”

A trial on CTIA’s dispute with the Kentucky 911 Service Board is set for Jan 30, 2024, the U.S. District Court of Eastern Kentucky ordered Wednesday (case 3:20-cv-00043). With discovery ending March 22, dispositive and other motions are due July 28, the court said: The final pretrial conference will be Jan. 16, 2024. The case is back in district court after the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals last January declined to rehear judges’ ruling that the lower court erred in concluding the 2018 federal Wireless Telecom Tax and Fee Collection Fairness Act conflicts with and preempts a Kentucky 911 law (see 2201280059).

NetChoice “is working to block a law that protects our kids from predatory online practices,” said California Governor Gavin Newsome in a statement on the tech industry group’s lawsuit against a California privacy law that would require websites to collect data and verify the ages of users (see 2212140063). “As a father of four, I know the constant toll exposure to social media platforms and devices can have on our children and their mental health. Several groups and academics condemned the California law, arguing the current Internet couldn’t function if it's allowed to proceed. “It is critical that we build safeguards to protect kids and their online privacy,” Newsome said. The Parents Television Council, a group that wants ratings for online content, also released a statement condemning Netchoice v. Bonta. “NetChoice’s lawsuit shows that it cares only about its net income, not about the health and well-being of children,” said PTC President Tim Winter in a release. “Of course, this lawsuit was entirely predictable: the professed concern these big media companies have about ‘constitutional rights’ begins and ends with their cash flow.”

A state appeals court ordered the Oregon Public Utility Commission to reconsider an order denying payphone providers refunds from Lumen. The Northwest Public Communications Council (NPCC), a regional payphone provider association, asked the PUC to order Lumen to issue refunds for payphone rates that its predecessor Qwest charged payphone companies between 1996 and 2003, saying the charged rates didn’t comply with federal law. “The PUC's prior orders in this docket neither require nor preclude the requested refunds and … we cannot say whether state and federal law require the PUC to order the requested refunds,” Oregon Appeals Court Judge Darleen Ortega wrote in Wednesday’s decision (case A166810). “However, because we conclude that the PUC relied on factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence, we reverse Order No. 17-473 and remand to the PUC for reconsideration.” The PUC hasn’t determined if the pre-2003 rates complied with federal law, said Ortega. “Under the applicable regulatory scheme, the PUC does not have discretion to simply ignore NPCC's allegations that Qwest's pre-2003 payphone rates violate section 276” of the 1996 Telecom Act, she said. “And if, after proper inquiry, the PUC finds that Qwest's pre-2003 payphone rates exceeded that allowed by federal law and amount to 'unjust and unreasonable exactions,' the PUC has a duty to protect ratepayers, including NPCC's members, by providing some appropriate remedy,” which “may include ordering refunds for overcharges.” The Oregon PUC "will be reviewing the order and will take appropriate action based on the court’s decision," a spokesperson said Monday. Lumen declined to comment.

The opening brief of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is due Jan. 24 in its 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals challenge of Maryland's digital ad tax, said a briefing order Thursday (docket 22-2275). Maryland's response is due Feb. 23, said the order. The Chamber is appealing the U.S. District Court of Maryland's March decision dismissing businesses' challenge of the tax and the district court's Dec. 2 dismissal of their challenge to the tax's pass-through ban.