A district court judge in Missoula, Montana, 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 the company's constitutional challenge to the federal TikTok ban embedded in the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy issued his signed order Wednesday (docket 9:23-cv-00061). TikTok and parent ByteDance filed the constitutional challenge May 7 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (see 2405070045). The stay will be lifted if the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reverses Molloy’s preliminary injunction barring Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen (R) from enforcing the statewide TikTok ban, said the order. It directs the parties to file a joint status report within 30 days of the final adjudication of the D.C. Circuit action.

Altice for at least the past five years has charged Connecticut consumers a monthly “network enhancement fee” (NEF) that it has “misrepresented the nature and purpose of,” alleged Connecticut Attorney General William Tong (D) in a complaint Monday in Hartford Superior Court that alleges deceptive advertising and billing practices. The complaint alleges that Altice also didn’t specifically disclose NEF increases to consumers, but instead disclosed and increased the NEF at the same time as general rate increases. The NEF is thus nothing more than a hidden “junk fee,” said the complaint. Altice advertised a price for internet service that didn’t include the NEF “but actually charged many of its Connecticut customers a higher price that does include the NEF,” said the complaint. In this way, Altice was able to advertise “an artificially lower price” for internet service, it said. The complaint also alleges that in certain ads for Altice internet services, representations about Wi-Fi speeds and additional fees “are not clear and conspicuous,” it said. In certain TV ads, certain disclosures about Wi-Fi speeds and limitations on Wi-Fi speeds “were provided in gray text on gray backgrounds making them nearly impossible to read and appeared on the screen only for fleeting moments,” said the complaint. In certain web-based ads, certain disclosures about internet speeds appear only on the second pages of the ads in extremely fine print, it said. In certain direct mail ads, speed disclosures are in extremely fine print on the back of the mailer, it said. Consumers are led to believe that by selecting and paying for a certain speed of internet service, that they will receive this speed of service, when this isn’t always the case, it said. The complaint alleges three categories of violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, including the improper NEF, inadequate speed disclosures and English-language disclosures on Spanish marketing materials. The complaint seeks payment of restitution for consumers, plus penalties to the state.

T-Mobile voluntarily dismissed its complaint against the California Public Utilities Commission regarding the state’s shift to a per-line universal service fund surcharge. The 9th Circuit Court last month affirmed the U.S. District Court for Northern California decision to deny a preliminary injunction against the CPUC (see 2404260066). The 9th Circuit said the carrier failed to show a likelihood of success. “This notice of voluntary dismissal is being filed with the Court before Defendants have served either an answer or a motion for summary judgment … and by operation of law, the dismissal is without prejudice,” T-Mobile said Thursday at the district court (case 3:23-cv-00483-LB).

AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless will pay about $10.25 million to the 50 states and the District of Columbia under an agreement that settles claims of deceptive and misleading advertising practices, multiple state AGs announced Thursday. The bipartisan AGs signed a pact with AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless to resolve the investigations. The three carriers “baited consumers with deceptive claims about ‘unlimited’ data, ‘free’ phone offers and incentives to switch, only to switch the offer and not deliver on their advertised claims,” Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison (D) said. In addition to the monetary penalties, the carriers agreed to make future ads truthful, accurate and not misleading, Ellison's office said. Going forward, unlimited must mean no numerical limits and such plans should disclose any data speed restrictions and what triggers them, it said. Carriers offering to pay for customers to switch companies must clearly disclose what and how they will pay consumers, it said. Among other requirements, the carriers must present clear terms and conditions for so-called free devices or services, it said. A CTIA spokesperson said the “voluntary agreements reflect no finding of improper conduct and reaffirm the wireless industry’s longstanding commitment to clarity and integrity in advertising so that consumers can make informed decisions about the products and services that best suit them.” T-Mobile said, “After nine years, we are glad to move on from this industry-wide investigation with this settlement and a continued commitment to the transparent and consumer-friendly advertising practices we’ve undertaken for years.” AT&T and Verizon referred us to CTIA’s statement. State AGs slammed the carriers as they applauded the settlement. New York AG Letitia James (D) said it’s a good resolution after carriers “lied to millions of consumers.” Many wireless carriers' deals are “too good to be true,” California AG Rob Bonta (D) said. Ohio AG Dave Yost (R) said “it's unacceptable to make false promises about what consumers might expect from their wireless carriers.”

U.S. District Judge Ann Marie McIff Allen for Utah in Salt Lake City recused herself from the case in which NetChoice is seeking to defeat Utah’s newly enacted Minor Protection in Social Media Act, said the judge’s signed recusal order Monday (docket 2:23-cv-00911). The case was reassigned to U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby, said a text-only docket notice Tuesday. NetChoice seeks a preliminary injunction blocking Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes (R) and Katherine Hass, director of Utah’s Division of Consumer Protection, from enforcing the statute when it takes effect Oct. 1 (see 2405060006). NetChoice calls the statute “an unconstitutional restriction on minors’ and adults’ ability to access and engage in protected speech.”

NetChoice seeks a preliminary injunction blocking Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes (R) and Katherine Hass, director of Utah’s Division of Consumer Protection, from enforcing the state’s newly enacted Minor Protection in Social Media Act when it takes effect Oct. 1, said its motion Friday (docket 2:23-cv-00911) in U.S. District Court for Utah in Salt Lake City. The statute “is an unconstitutional restriction on minors’ and adults’ ability to access and engage in protected speech,” it said. It “impermissibly regulates the conditions under which minors and adults can access certain websites and how those websites facilitate, disseminate, and display protected speech,” it said. The entire statute violates the First Amendment and the due process clause “because its definition of what entities are covered is unconstitutional,” it said. Parts of the statute also “independently violate” the First Amendment and the due process clause and are federally preempted under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, it said. It’s the second time Utah has enacted a law “violating bedrock constitutional principles of free speech” in attempting to regulate minors’ access to social media, it said. After Utah enacted 2023’s Social Media Regulation Act, NetChoice sued and moved to preliminarily enjoin that law’s enforcement, it said. Utah responded by repealing its 2023 law and replacing it in part with the new statute, it said. But the newly enacted statute “suffers from many of the same flaws ... while at the same time creating new ones,” it said. The statute regulates websites’ ability to publish and distribute speech to minors and speech by minors, it said. It also regulates minors’ ability to produce and receive speech and adults’ access to speech, it said. Minors are entitled to a significant measure of First Amendment protection, said NetChoice. Governments can’t burden adults’ right to access protected speech “in their efforts to regulate the speech appropriate for minors,” it said. The court “should reach the same result as courts across the country that have enjoined similar attempts to regulate online speech,” it said. “Regrettably, Utah’s government has chosen to double down on its misguided laws that thwart parents, undermine the state's dynamic creator economy, jeopardize the data security of its citizens and violate their constitutional rights,” said Chris Marchese, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, in a statement Friday. Utahns, not the government, “should be able to determine how they and their families use technology,” he said.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals scheduled oral argument for July 17 at 9 a.m. PDT in San Francisco of California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s (D) appeal from the district court's order preliminarily enjoining him from enforcing the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (see 2312140003) (docket 23-2969), said an oral argument notice Monday. Also on the July 17 calendar in the same courtroom is oral argument in the appeal from the denial of X's motion for a preliminary injunction to block Bonta’s enforcement of AB-587, requiring social media companies to provide the state with semiannual disclosures of their content-moderation policies (see 2401190038) (docket 24-271), said the notice. The 9th Circuit has apportioned oral argument time of 20 minutes per side in each appeal, said the notice.

The U.S. District Court for Southern New York has denied the motion of three plaintiff-appellees to enforce the preliminary injunction order that bars New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) from enforcing the state’s hateful conduct law, Sarah Coco, assistant solicitor general in James’ office, wrote the clerk of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Appeals Court in a Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j) letter Thursday (23-356). James’ 2nd Circuit appeal seeks to lift the injunction, but the appeal is being held in abeyance, pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in NetChoice’s First Amendment challenges to the Texas and Florida social media content moderation laws (see 2402230077). The New York law, Section 394-ccc, requires social media networks to give users a mechanism for reporting hateful conduct on the platforms. The law also requires the networks to disclose a policy explaining how they will respond to those user reports. The three plaintiff-appellees -- UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, plus the Rumble Canada and Locals Technology online networks -- contended in their motion that James violated the injunction by sending voluntary requests for information to social media networks, including plaintiff Rumble Canada, said Coco’s letter. According to the plaintiff-appellees’ motion, James improperly sought information about the networks’ responses to the proliferation of calls for violence against Jewish and Muslim people on social media in the aftermath of the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel, said the letter. But the district court’s denial of the motion absolved James of any wrongdoing, said the letter.

The Association of American Railroads appealed an ISP access case to the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The association notified the U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia about the appeal Wednesday in the district court’s docket 1:23-cv-00815-DJN-WEF. Last month, Judge David Novak dismissed the railroad association’s lawsuit against state officials including Virginia State Corporation Commission Judge Jehmal Hudson (see 2404170052). The railroads disagree with a 2023 state law that gave ISPs access rights to railroad property. The district court rejected each count of the complaint for various reasons, including lack of standing, failure to state a claim and sovereign immunity.

Telecom industry groups get until May 24 to seek rehearing of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision to uphold New York’s Affordable Broadband Act, said an order Tuesday (docket 21-1975). The court responded to a Monday motion by New York State Telecommunications Association, CTIA, USTelecom and other plaintiffs seeking a two-week extension “to file a petition for rehearing and / or rehearing en banc” (see 2404300015). The rehearing motion would otherwise have been due May 10. The 2nd Circuit ruled Friday that federal law doesn’t preempt the New York law under Communications Act Title I classification of broadband (see 2404260051). But on Thursday, the FCC voted 3-2 to reclassify broadband as Title II (see 2404250004).