The FCC's recently adopted rules defining "digital discrimination of access" violate the Administrative Procedures Act, said the Minnesota Telecom Alliance in a suit filed Tuesday against the agency in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Assuming "unprecedented authority," the FCC seeks to "empower itself to micromanage a host of legitimate business practices, including network buildout decisions, pricing, promotions, advertising, contract renewal, and customer service, the group said. The suit follows a similar suit filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in the 5th Circuit.
The FCC’s Jan. 19 motion to dismiss the Insurance Marketing Coalition’s petition for review for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the petition is premature (see 2401190057) presents the question of what constitutes entry of a regulation under the Hobbs Act, IMC said in its response Thursday (docket 23-14125) in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller for Eastern California in Sacramento signed an order Tuesday (docket 2:21-cv-00073) reassigning two related lead cables cases to her and U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeremy Peterson. A third case was already assigned to them. All the cases involve AT&T’s motions to compel third parties to comply with its subpoenas for documents involving the testing and analysis of lead cables in Lake Tahoe and elsewhere that it seeks for its defense of the lawsuit brought by the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (see 2307200027). The three cases are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123, said the order. “The actions arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions and would therefore entail a substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges,” it said. The assignment of the cases to the same judge “is likely to effect a substantial savings of judicial effort and is also likely to be convenient for the parties,” it said.
Following last week’s oral argument in two Chevron cases before the U.S. Supreme Court (see 2401170074), the future of the doctrine appears in doubt.
Comcast and Citrix have the resources “to take seriously the obligation” to protect customers’ personally identifiable information (PII), but they “failed to invest the time or resources necessary to protect the PII” of Raymond Goodrow and class members who are victims of Citrix’s October data breach, said a class action Wednesday (docket 0:24-cv-60100) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Fort Lauderdale.
U.S. District Judge Damon Leichty for Northern Indiana in South Bend denied plaintiff Donald Nicodemus’ motion for a permanent injunction that would have blocked Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita (R) from enforcing HB-1186, the state’s “buffer law,” said the judge’s signed opinion and order Friday (docket 3:23-cv-00744).
Here are Communications Litigation Today's top stories from last week, in case you missed them. Each can be found by searching on its title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The office of Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes (D) reached a settlement with Cox Communications totaling more than $13 million to resolve a complaint in which the state alleged the company failed to adequately disclose additional fees to customers, said the office Thursday. Under the settlement, Cox agrees to pay $10 million directly to the state and to distribute $3.04 million to current and former customers who signed up for television services between January 2017 and March 2021, it said. The settlement requires Cox to “accurately and clearly disclose any and all material terms or conditions to consumers at the time of sale,” said the AG’s office. It also agrees to refrain from imposing any “unilateral pricing increases” on its residential customers if Cox advertised that those customers would have “fixed monthly pricing,” it said. Cox didn’t immediately comment on the settlement. But a consent decree filed Wednesday in Maricopa County Superior Court said that while Cox has agreed to offer the $3.04 million in payments to eligible consumers, it denies that those payments “constitute restitution for any unlawful practice.”
The district court’s decision in Hachette vs. Internet Archive, in favor of four publisher plaintiffs, “paints with far too broad a brush,” said a Dec. 22 corrected amicus brief (docket 23-1260) from HathiTrust, filed Thursday before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Appeals Court.
RCN Telecom Services is “secondarily liable” for direct copyright infringement under sections 106 and 501 of the Copyright Act and in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, alleged motion picture distribution company Screen Media Ventures (SMV) in a complaint Wednesday (docket 3:23-cv-23356) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Trenton.