The Supreme Court denied a cert petition filed by Charter on a 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision that the Cable Act doesn't preempt Maine's cable TV charges prorating law (see 2212050004), per a docket notation Monday (docket 21-1539).

Maine, in defending the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' holding in favor of the state's prorated cable subscriber refunds law, offers no plausible defense of that ruling, petitioner Charter Communications told the Supreme Court Wednesday (docket 21-1539) in reply to the state's opposition to Charter's cert petition (see 2212050004). It said Maine's argument the rebate requirement isn't rate regulation because Charter can set the pre-rebate price however it wants implies that a law letting cable companies set rates but to rebate anything they charge in excess of $25 would be allowed. The pro rata rebate "authorizes precisely the sort of rate regulation that the Cable Act expressly prohibits," Charter said. It said the 1st Circuit's "flawed and atextual decision" goes contrary to other courts' considerations about whether the Cable Act preempts proration laws. SCOTUS needs "to resolve the confusion on this question and to ensure the Cable Act -- and other express preemption provisions -- are interpreted according to their plain terms," the company said. Maine didn't comment Thursday.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in web platform liability cases Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh on February 21 and 22, said a release Monday. Gonzalez v. Google’s oral argument will be Feb. 21, and for Twitter v. Taamneh Feb. 22. Both cases involve the question of whether Internet companies can be held liable for the activities of terrorist groups that use their platforms. SCOTUS rulings in either case are expected to have implications for the future of Internet content moderation (see 2212010070).

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts again granted Dish Network designated entities Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless an extension of the deadline to file a cert petition, per a notation Friday in SCOTUS docket 22A401. The deadline, which had been Friday, is now Jan. 15. Northstar counsel requested the extension to get up to speed on the challenge by Northstar and SNR of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's decision upholding the FCC's denial of AWS-3 auction bidding credits for the DEs (see 2212060056). Roberts previously granted an extension from Nov. 16 to Dec. 16 (see 2211080018).

The Texas social media law “infringes the core First Amendment rights” of NetChoice and Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) members “by denying them editorial control over their own websites, while forcing them to publish speech they do not wish to disseminate,” the internet industry groups said in a Thursday petition for writ of certiorari at the Supreme Court. The groups said in September they would seek review of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision to uphold the Texas social media law HB-20 (see 2209290047). They also seek SCOTUS review of a similar Florida law (see 2210240066). SCOTUS is expected to hear the Texas case because the 5th Circuit decision created a circuit split with an earlier 11th Circuit decision partly striking down Florida law (see 2209190080). “If allowed to stand, the Fifth Circuit’s opinion will upend settled First Amendment jurisprudence and threaten to transform speech on the Internet as we know it today,” said the internet groups’ petition. CCIA President Matt Schruers said the case, “involving a key Constitutional issue and split appellate court decisions, calls for Supreme Court oversight.”

The Supreme Court invited the solicitor general to file a brief expressing the views of the U.S. in ML Genius v. Google, said an entry Monday in docket 22-121. The case involves Genius, an online platform for transcribing and annotating song lyrics, and its requirement that visitors agree to its contractual terms as a condition for using its services. These terms include the promise not to reproduce the contents of Genius’ platform, said the company’s Aug. 5 petition for cert. “Google contractually bound itself to those terms, but, in blatant breach of that contract, Google stole Genius’s labors for its own competing commercial purposes,” said the petition. The 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said in a March 31 judgment the Copyright Act preempts Genius’ breach-of-contract claim, under a provision that applies only to claims equivalent to exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright, said the petition: “At least five circuits disagree with this ruling and only one other circuit agrees.” The question presented is, "Does the Copyright Act’s preemption clause allow a business to invoke traditional state-law contract remedies to enforce a promise not to copy and use its content?"

The question of whether Israeli spyware company NSO should receive conduct-based immunity is irrelevant to whether the U.S. Supreme Court should grant certiorari in NSO’s appeal of a 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision blocking the company from allegedly accessing the encrypted messages of WhatsApp users, said NSO in a supplementary brief filed in NSO Group Technologies v. WhatsApp (docket 21-1338) Friday. NSO was responding to a DOJ filing (see 2211250017) that urged SCOTUS not to grant cert, but that what NSO said stopped short of endorsing the lower court’s ruling. “The question presented is not whether NSO’s conduct-based immunity defense should ultimately succeed,” said NSO’s filing. “The question is what law governs NSO’s defense -- the FSIA [Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act] or the common law." That question ”is worthy of review even if NSO’s defense ultimately fails.” Even so, “NSO’s circumstances do not support the government’s conclusion that it cannot receive common-law immunity,” the filing said. "Conduct based immunity does not depend on an ad-hoc, standardless assessment of whether the State Department chooses to support a particular defendant,” said NSO.

Dish Network designated entity Northstar Wireless asked the Supreme Court for another extension of the deadline for filing its petition for writ of certiorari in a challenge to an appellate court's upholding of the FCC's denial of AWS-3 auction bidding credits. In an application Monday, Northstar counsel Paul Clement of Clement & Murphy requested the 30 additional days because he has been familiarizing himself with the case and also has "substantial briefing and argument obligations" in other cases leading up to the current Dec. 16 deadline. An extension was previously granted Clement in November (see 2211080018).

A 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision that the Cable Act doesn't preempt Maine's cable TV charges prorating law (see 2201040072) doesn't warrant Supreme Court review because there's no meaningful split of authority on the issue, the state said Friday in opposition to Charter Communications' cert petition (docket 21-1539). The 1st Circuit is the first federal appellate court to look at the issue, Maine said. The 1st Circuit decision "is well-supported," since Maine's pro-rata law doesn't regulate rates but merely directs cable companies to refund a portion of the cancellation month regardless of whatever rate they set, it said. In its cert petition filed earlier this year, Charter said requiring pro-rata rebates to canceling subscribers "squarely conflict[s]" with the Cable Act’s prohibition on state and local rate regulation, and SCOTUS should resolve the split among federal and state courts about whether the Act preempts such laws. SCOTUS also should take advantage of the opportunity to tackle "a related (and even deeper) circuit split over whether a presumption against preemption applies to statutes -- like the Cable Act -- that expressly preempt state and local legislation," the cable company said.

Plaintiff-appellants oppose the motion by defendant-appellee Porch.com for the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to stay the mandate, pending Supreme Court review, of its decision on violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act that blurs the lines between residential and business phone numbers in such cases (see 2210130080). There’s no “reasonable probability that cert will be granted” by the high court in the case, said their opposition Monday (docket 20-35962). There's no Circuit split and no constitutional issue at play in the decision, they said. “Thus, there cannot be cert on that basis. Nor is there any other issue of great significance that would lead the Supreme Court to take the issue.” The case has been on appeal for more than two years, they said: “Appellants are entitled to their day in court. And the public is entitled to know that these types of calls will stop.”