Attorneys general from Missouri and Louisiana on Wednesday will depose Anthony Fauci in their lawsuit claiming the Biden administration colluded with tech giants to censor information on social media in 3:22-CV-01213 (see 2210240057). “We all deserve to know how involved Dr. Fauci was in the censorship of the American people during the COVID pandemic,” said Louisiana AG Jeff Landry (R). “Tomorrow, I hope to find out.” Missouri AG Eric Schmitt (R) claimed their offices “have uncovered documents and discovery that show clear coordination between the Biden Administration and social media companies on censoring speech.” The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana on Monday stayed depositions for White House Director of Digital Strategy Robert Flaherty, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Director Jen Easterly, which has been a point of contention in the case (see 2211020071). The court ordered the district court to address “issues of the availability of suitable alternative sources for the evidence sought in the proposed depositions” and decide whether “further discovery should be paused until a ruling on a timely-filed motion by the Government to dismiss.” The court noted that in order to “require the depositions of high agency officials, the party seeking them must show that exceptional circumstances exist.” It asked the district court to “analyze whether the information sought can be obtained through less intrusive, alternative means, such as further written discovery or depositions of lower-ranking officials.” The court denied the government’s mandamus petition seeking to “vacate the district court’s order authorizing the depositions” of the three officials.

The attorneys general of nine blue states plus the District of Columbia worry about “reproductive health privacy” on the App Store since the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade, they wrote Apple CEO Tim Cook Monday. The AGs urged Cook to “protect consumers’ private reproductive health information.” Third-party apps available on the App Store “collect consumers’ private reproductive health data, which can be weaponized against consumers by law enforcement, private entities, or individuals,” they said. “This gap in Apple’s protections threatens the privacy and safety of App Store consumers, and runs directly counter to Apple’s publicly expressed commitment to protect user data.” They asked Apple “to ensure that the apps on its App Store meet the privacy standards necessary to protect against the misuse of private reproductive health data.” Apple should require app developers “to either certify to Apple or affirmatively represent in their privacy policies” that they will delete data “not essential” to the use of the app, including location history, search history and any other related data of consumers “who may be seeking, accessing, or helping to provide reproductive health care,” they said. Apple should also require developers to “provide clear and conspicuous notices regarding the potential for App Store applications to disclose to third parties user data related to reproductive health care, and require that applications do so only when required by a valid subpoena, search warrant, or court order,” they said. Developers of App Store apps that collect consumers’ reproductive health data or that sync with user health data stored on Apple devices should “implement at least the same privacy and security standards as Apple with regards to that data,” said the AGs. Apple didn’t comment Monday.

Connecticut's top enforcer will investigate Altice after getting about 500 complaints since 2017 about the cable company’s internet speeds, fees and technical support, Attorney General William Tong (D) said Monday. Altice faces possible violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, the AG office said. Many consumers with 300 Mbps or 400 Mbps plans told the AG they didn’t get those speeds, said the office: And the AG is scrutinizing a $3.50 “network enhancement fee” for internet customers. “Our investigation seeks comprehensive records dating back to January 2017 to determine exactly what Altice Optimum knew and what they were doing to deliver the internet speeds and service they promised,” said Tong. “We will not hesitate to hold them accountable.” Bipartisan leaders of Connecticut’s House and Senate technology committees supported the probe. “Households relying on these services for employment, education and entertainment can experience significant harm if they lack reliable internet service,” said the Senate panel’s Chairman Norm Needleman (D). “If Altice Optimum contributed to that harm, they should face the consequences.” Connecticut should thoroughly review consumer complaints, said the same committee’s Ranking Member Paul Formica (R). Frontier Communications settled a similar Connecticut AG probe last summer by agreeing to invest $42.5 million to upgrade DSL to fiber and to end a “hidden” $6.99 monthly internet infrastructure fee (see 2208310057). "Altice shares the state’s goal of ensuring Connecticut residents and businesses receive high-quality service and have a positive customer experience," said the company's spokesperson, noting Altice is deploying a 100% fiber network across the state and earlier this year launched multi-gigabit speeds. "We are proud to serve our Connecticut communities and will cooperate with state officials to provide relevant information."

An Arkansas circuit court didn’t abuse its discretion when it certified a class action by Gurdon and other cities against Altice’s Suddenlink, the Arkansas Supreme Court decided last week. The cities challenged 911, franchise and Arkansas high-cost fund fees assessed by Suddenlink. The lower court certified the class action without ruling on a Suddenlink motion to compel individual, non-class arbitration or an alternative motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Suddenlink appealed the certification and the circuit court’s refusal to address its arbitration motion before certifying the class. “The arbitration issue is not appealable on an interlocutory basis because the circuit court never entered an order denying Suddenlink's motion to compel arbitration,” wrote Associate Justice Shawn Womack. The lower court didn’t abuse its discretion on any of the six standards for class-action certification, Womack said. Associate Justices Rhonda Wood and John Kemp concurred. “The majority implies the issue preventing our review is the absence of an order denying arbitration under Rule 2(a)(12)” of Arkansas civil appellate procedure. “But that's wrong. … The argument on appeal falls outside our Rule 2(a)(9) review because it rests on a statute that doesn't relate to Rule 23 class certification.” Altice didn’t comment Thursday.

NAACP opposed South Carolina courts’ motion to stay discovery in a data scraping case at the U.S. District Court of South Carolina. The NAACP and American Civil Liberties Union sued the South Carolina State Court Administration in March for banning automated data collection (case 3:2022-cv-01007). The state court defendants asked Nov. 4 to stay discovery pending a decision on their July motion to dismiss the case. “Defendants fall far short of carrying their ‘heavy’ or ‘heightened’ burden to show good cause for such a stay,” the South Carolina State Conference of NAACP said Tuesday.

An Ohio court set trial for May 14, 2024, in the state’s lawsuit that seeks to regulate Google as a common carrier (case 21 CV H 06 0274). Court of Common Pleas Judge James Schuck’s Tuesday scheduling order also set a final pretrial conference for May 6, 2024. The court ruled May 24 that Ohio “stated a cognizable claim” that Google could be a common carrier, though it disagreed the company is a public utility. Ohio also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to stop alleged self-preferencing by Google on search results pages (see 2210110007).

The Massachusetts Department of Public Health worked with Google to covertly install a COVID-19 tracing app that tracks and records movement and personal contacts of Android users without consent, the New Civil Liberties Alliance alleged in a class-action lawsuit filed Monday. The department “secretly” installed the app on more than a million Android devices because “few” state residents were downloading the original app, which “required voluntary adoption,” NCLA said: “When smartphone owners delete the app, DPH simply re-installs it.” The tracing app doesn’t appear on the home screen with other apps and can be found only when users open settings and use the “view all apps” feature, the lawsuit said. NCLA asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to grant injunctive relief and nominal damages to the class, represented by plaintiffs Robert Wright, who lives a portion of the year in Great Barrington, and Johnny Kula, who doesn't live in the state but works there. “Persuading the public to voluntarily adopt such apps may be difficult, but it is also necessary in a free society,” said NCLA attorney Sheng Li. “The government may not secretly install surveillance devices on your personal property without a warrant -- even for a laudable purpose.” DPH hasn't received documentation about the lawsuit and doesn't comment on pending litigation, a staffer said Tuesday. The office for Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey (D) didn’t comment. Google didn’t comment.

The national Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force has taken enforcement action against two “voice service providers” for their alleged involvement in illegal robocalls, announced Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr (R) Tuesday. The providers being targeted in the action are Avid Telecom and One Eye, he said. “By partnering with a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general, we are able to leverage our resources and better identify those who are enabling these con artists in their attempts to steal from unsuspecting consumers,” said Carr. On behalf of the entire task force, Indiana is enforcing civil investigative demands (CIDs) against Avid and One Eye, but One Eye has stopped responding to the task force, and Avid has refused to answer the CID, said Carr’s office. Efforts to reach Avid and One Eye for comment Tuesday were unsuccessful.

The 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals set oral argument for Jan. 12 at 10 a.m. EST in New York Attorney General Letitia James’ appeal of the July 2021 final judgment of the U.S. District Court for Eastern New York that granted an injunction to six telecom associations, permanently enjoining James from enforcing New York’s Affordable Broadband Act. The statute requires internet service providers to sell broadband plans in New York state for $15 a month to low-income households, but the associations argued successfully before U.S. District Judge Denis Hurley in Central Islip, New York, that federal law preempts the statute. Each side will be afforded 10 minutes in oral argument, said a hearing notice Thursday (docket 21-1975). The plaintiff-appellees in Democrat James' appeal are the New York State Telecommunications Association, CTIA, ACA Connects, USTelecom, NTCA and the Satellite Broadcasting & Communications Association.

California’s 2nd District Court of Appeals postponed to Jan. 12 oral argument on a Securus appeal of the California Public Utilities Commission’s 7-cent cap on intrastate per-minute rates for incarcerated person calling services (see 2206300026). The court announced the change from Dec. 8 in a Friday docket entry in case B320207.