Amazon wants U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams for Southern New York to “clarify” whether Jiakeshu Technology’s petition to vacate an arbitration award in Amazon’s favor is on hold until she resolves Jiakeshu’s subsequent motion to remand the petition to New York Supreme Court. Amazon removed the petition to the Southern District of New York. It presumes that court “would not want to have briefing on the petition to vacate while it determines whether jurisdiction is proper” in Manhattan federal court, Davis Wright attorney John Magliery wrote Abrams in a letter Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-10119). He's seeking the clarification “in an abundance of caution,” he said. Jiakeshu seeks recovery of $50,000 in sales proceeds that an arbitrator let Amazon keep after Amazon deactivated Jiakeshu’s third-party store for improperly paying customers to submit positive reviews (see 2212010065). Under Abrams’ Dec. 7 order, Friday is the deadline for Jiakeshu to file additional materials in support of its petition to vacate, with Amazon’s response due Feb. 10 (see 2212080037). Her Dec. 22 order sets a Feb. 10 deadline for Amazon to oppose Jiakeshu’s motion to remand (see 2212230010).

A jury trial would begin during the court’s September 2024 three-week docket on Sage Telecom’s allegations that debt collector Mercantile Adjustment Bureau made “indiscriminate” phone calls to Sage customers in violation of the Texas Business & Communications Code (see 2301050058), said Sage’s proposed scheduling order Tuesday (docket 3:22-cv-02737) in U.S. District Court for Northern Texas in Dallas. Dec. 14 would be the deadline for completing discovery, said the proposed order. Sage provides discounted internet and phone service to low-income Texas consumers through state and federally funded programs. It alleges at least 187 subscribers to its LifeLine service received multiple telephone solicitations in the past two years.

The Communications Workers of America filed a motion for leave Friday (docket 22-1310) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to intervene in support of the National Labor Relations Board in T-Mobile’s appeal of an unfavorable ruling from the NLRB over the company’s attempt to combat unionization efforts at a Kansas call center. The union was the successful charging party before the NLRB in the case, it noted. T-Mobile and the NLRB don’t oppose the motion, it said. The court set a Feb. 6 deadline for T-Mobile’s opening brief (see 2212280021) and a March 8 deadline for NLRB’s answering brief.

A jury trial is scheduled to begin Dec. 18 on plaintiff Helen Pollak’s allegations that Experian refuses to remove a fraudulent Verizon account from her credit profile (see 2212290001), said an order signed Thursday by Chief U.S. District Judge Beth Phillips for Western Missouri in Kansas City. Pollak alleges it’s “profoundly unfair” Verizon can verify false information, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and that Experian “continues to let them do it.” Verizon denied FCRA culpability.

T-Mobile denies the allegations of Heidi Cramer, its former director-sales, that two former sales executives schemed to artificially inflate small and medium business orders, and that she was terminated for the actions of her male co-workers when the plan went awry because she's a woman (see 2210260038), said the carrier’s answer Tuesday (docket 2:22-cv-03800) in U.S. District Court for Southern Ohio in Columbus. Cramer alleges former T-Mobile Senior Vice President-Sales James Kirby and ex-Vice President-Sales Jason Grutzius orchestrated a “zero dollars plan” by deviating from the standard industry practice of selling devices to suit immediate customer need, and would instead sell customers all needed and forecasted devices immediately. The practice permitted T-Mobile to cast itself in a favorable light with investors when representing its current subscriber figures without requiring customers to pay for devices they didn't immediately need, she alleges. The plan backfired in 2021 when T-Mobile incurred a high volume of unexpected customer cancellations, she says. T-Mobile fired Cramer for the infractions, she alleges, but not Grutzius and Kirby, who were allowed to stay on, and ultimately left the company on their own in 2022. T-Mobile denies Grutzius and Kirby “engaged in terminable or improper conduct,” said its answer Tuesday. Cramer’s sex-discrimination claims are barred “by the applicable statute of limitations,” it said. Cramer’s “alleged injuries and harms” were caused by her own actions, it said. T-Mobile’s actions toward Cramer “were based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons,” it said.

T-Mobile removed to U.S. District Court for Eastern Michigan in Detroit a class action filed Dec. 2 in Wayne County Circuit Court alleging the carrier violated the Federal Communications Act when it failed to safeguard its subscribers' most sensitive information through SIM swap schemes. As a result of T-Mobile's failures, third parties have been able to gain access to T-Mobile’s subscribers’ financial accounts “and transfer significant sums of money from the accounts without the subscribers' authorization,” alleged plaintiff Michigan First Credit Union. T-Mobile subscribers challenged the unauthorized transactions with their financial institutions, which reimbursed customers for the cash transfers, as they're required to do under Regulation E of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, said the complaint. Banks across the U.S. “have therefore been forced to bear the damages” associated with T-Mobile’s “actions and omissions,” it said. “These financial institutions are completely without fault, but are held responsible for these damages because of the strict liability provisions of Reg E,” said the complaint. Based on its allegations, the complaint puts “substantially more” than $5 million “in controversy in this action,” said T-Mobile’s notice of removal (docket 2:22-cv-13159). T-Mobile didn't comment Tuesday. An unrelated Dec. 21 class action alleged T-Mobile failed to protect customers' information in a SIM swap fraud (see 2212270024). That complaint alleged T-Mobile’s “gross negligence” in protecting consumers’ data, plus its “negligent hiring and supervision” of employees responsible for safeguarding that information, resulted in the loss of millions of dollars for plaintiffs in the class action.

The Democratic National Committee and the Biden administration colluded to suppress and sensor "disfavored speakers, viewpoints and content on social media platforms” by falsely labeling content as “dis-information,” misinformation and “mal-information,” alleged a class-action complaint (docket 2:22-cv-9438) Dec. 29 in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles. The mainstream media "aided and abetted" the conspiracy, which had the participation of internet retailers and distributors, public school teacher unions and school board associations, alleged the three Republican plaintiffs, Richard Jackson of Los Angeles, Julie Briggs of Dallas and Gregg Buchwalter, also of Los Angeles. The complaint names about a dozen defendants in all, including Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Twitter and the DNC but not members of the Biden administration. It alleges the DNC “weaponized” various federal agencies to unnecessarily close schools and shut down services, with the goal to “censor and suppress lawfully protected speech and communications of disfavored (primarily conservative or Republican Party) speakers." The “vast Censorship Scheme’s tentacles” reached Apple and Amazon, which "continue to refuse” to distribute books, articles, movies, audio and other communications published by conservative or “disfavored” speakers under direction of the administration’s "Orwellian guise of ‘misinformation,’” it alleged. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and to enjoin the defendants from "falsely framing the public narrative” and “further gaslighting of ordinary Americans.”

Amicus briefs from NCTA and Robert Frieden, Penn State University law professor, were filed Wednesday in support of the FCC in the Consumers’ Research case challenging the USF in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (docket 22-13315). Consumers’ Research’s arguments are largely identical in all four of its USF challenges (see 2212280038). The amicus briefs from Frieden and NCTA appear largely the same as those they have filed in the other circuits (see 2212200073). Ending USF and the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund would upend the cable industry's ongoing operations and investments and threaten connectivity for millions of people and companies, NCTA argued. Frieden’s amicus brief focused on arguments that the independent funding structure of the USF is in line with common international practice.

Consumers’ Research filed another legal challenge to the FCC’s Universal Service Fund, this time against the Q1 2023 contribution factor, in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The group has another challenge in the 6th Circuit against the Q4 2021 contribution factor, plus a case in the 5th Circuit against the Q1 2022 factor, and a challenge in the 11th against the Q4 2022 factor. Oral argument was held in the 5th Circuit case earlier this month (see 2212060070), and the FCC filed a response brief in the 11th Circuit last week (see 2212230007). The latest filing takes a similar tack to Consumers’ Research’s other cases, arguing that the USF contribution factor is an unconstitutional tax because it's imposed by the FCC rather than Congress, and that the FCC has violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The group is likely challenging the contribution factor in the same circuit as an ongoing challenge to provide a backstop if the other 6th Circuit case is dismissed or rejected for narrow procedural reasons, said Benton Institute for Broadband & Society Senior Counselor Andrew Schwartzman, who has filed in support of the FCC in other Consumers’ Research cases. Consumers’ Research didn’t comment. The new case likely won’t be briefed or move forward while the other 6th Circuit one is ongoing, Schwartzman said.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit set a Feb. 6 deadline for the opening brief of petitioner T-Mobile in its appeal of an unfavorable ruling from the National Labor Relations Board over the company’s attempt to combat unionization efforts at a Kansas call center, said a clerk’s order Tuesday (docket 22-1275). Respondent NLRB is due to file its answering brief March 8, and T-Mobile's optional reply is due April 5, said the order. The brief from intervenor Communications Workers of America is due March 15, said the order. The NLRB found on Sept. 20 that the carrier violated National Labor Relations Act Section 8(a)(1) when it reprimanded a customer service agent in its Wichita call center for sending union-related emails to co-workers while on the job. The case was consolidated Dec. 8 with NLRB’s cross-application for enforcement “in full” of its Sept. 20 order against T-Mobile to cease and desist from promulgating rules in response to employees’ union activities and from telling employees that they may not send union-related emails to employees’ work email addresses.