Court case

Apple has suffered a blow in its efforts to salvage its lucrative search placement deal with Google. A new ruling from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals affirms that Apple cannot participate in Google's upcoming antitrust hearing, which could leave a multibillion-dollar hole in Apple's balance sheet. The judges in the case say Apple simply waited too long to get involved. Google pays Apple $20 billion a year to secure placement as the default search provider in the Safari desktop and mobile browser. The antitrust penalties pending against Google would make that deal impermissible. 

Lawyers defending the Federal Communications Commission’s authority to manage a longstanding $8.1 billion broadband subsidy expressed cautious optimism ahead of the March 26 Supreme Court oral arguments in FCC v.

Community anchor institutions (CAIs)—such as schools, libraries, community health centers, and similar organizations—play a crucial role in offering free or affordable internet access to underserved communities. In many areas, the connectivity options offered by CAIs—whether on-site (via wired or wireless networks) or through remote programs like hotspot lending—are among the few affordable and reliable services available.

Congress is supposed to write the laws, but these days it often prefers to delegate to the executive branch, and then cheer or boo the results. Twice amid the New Deal, but not since, the Supreme Court struck down statutes as abdications of Congress’s lawmaking power. Yet the Court has another chance in the case that the Justices will consider Wednesday, FCC v. Consumers’ Research.

The Federal Trade Commission is asking a federal appellate court to reject advertising and business organizations' challenge to click-to-cancel rules that aim to let consumers easily terminate recurring subscriptions to newspapers, gyms, and other businesses. The agency's filing comes in response to a lawsuit brought by the Interactive Advertising Bureau, Michigan Press Association, NCTA -- The Internet & Television Association, Chamber of Commerce and other business groups that are seeking to invalidate the rules.

Federal law seeks to make communications technology like telephones and the internet, in the words of one older statute, “available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States.” A longstanding federal program that seeks to implement this goal is now before the Supreme Court, in a case known as FCC v. Consumers’ Research, and the stakes could be enormous.

Over 30 organizations have signed a letter urging US senators to vote against a resolution that would overturn a Federal Communications Commission decision to allow E-Rate funding to be used for Wi-Fi hotspots for students, school staff and library patrons.

CBS has asked the Federal Communications Commission to end its investigation into edits of its “60 Minutes” Kamala Harris interview, arguing that the federal government risks becoming “a roving censor” trampling on free speech rights.President Trump was furious over October 2024's “60 Minutes” interview with then-Vice President Harris in the closing weeks of the campaign. The president and other conservatives chided CBS after it was revealed that “60 Minutes” producers had edited Harris’ jumbled response to a question about the Biden administration’s handling of the Israel-Hamas war.

The Supreme Court has once again rejected a telecommunications industry challenge to New York's $15 broadband law. The court first refused the hear the case in December, which meant that an appeals court ruling upholding the law was not disturbed.

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will hear oral arguments on March 26 in the case of FCC v. Consumers’ Research regarding the constitutionality of the Universal Service Fund (USF). The Court will be reviewing a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that said that the USF is unconstitutional. That ruling conflicted with rulings from two other appeal courts that largely blessed the Federal Communications Commission and USF. The case that drove this to the Supreme Court was filed by Consumers’ Research, a nonprofit activist group.