Court case

Net neutrality regulations have been dead for years, and they should stay that way. Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission has moved to reopen and re-litigate the issue. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel has initiated a new rule-making that would enact what are largely the same net neutrality rules tried back in 2016. The law has changed and markets have changed, and yet the arguments for and against net neutrality have largely remained the same.

The Federal Trade Commission and 17 states sued Amazon, alleging the online retailer illegally wields monopoly power that keeps prices artificially high, locks sellers into its platform, and harms its rivals. The FTC and states alleged that Amazon violated antitrust laws by using anti-discounting measures that punished merchants for offering lower prices elsewhere.

There have been several lawsuits over the last few years that challenge the legitimacy of the Federal Communications Commission's Universal Service Fund (USF). A suit from a non-profit group called Consumers’ Research argues that USF fees are taxes and that the original creation of the USF was unconstitutional since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 gave the FCC the power to levy taxes.

Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr, a longtime opponent of net neutrality rules, blasted the idea of bringing back regulations now that Democrats have a majority at the agency again. He said that recent Supreme Court law makes clear that a net neutrality revival would not survive legal challenges, meaning that any effort to craft rules would sap time from a FCC that should be focused elsewhere.

The fate of the Universal Service Fund (USF) remains uncertain, as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held an en banc (before the entire bench) hearing to debate whether the current system is illegal The USF includes four main programs aimed at addressing the digital divide – High Cost, Lifeline, E-Rate (for schools and libraries) and Rural Health Care.

The Department of Justice (DoJ) supports Dish Network’s request for more time to buy 800 MHz spectrum licenses from T-Mobile but says seven more months is sufficient rather than the ten months that Dish had requested. In a September 18 filing with the US District Court for the District of Columbia, the DoJ said a modest extension of the deadline for Dish to acquire the spectrum licenses will serve the competition goals of the final judgment that enabled Sprint to merge with T-Mobile. The DoJ referred back to a 2013 petition that T-Mobile filed with the Federal Communications Commission when

Netflix and SK Broadband, one of South Korea’s largest internet service providers, are ending all their lawsuits and are instead creating a strategic partnership to provide better entertainment experiences to Korean customers. The legal dispute began in 2020 over whether content providers that generate large amounts of traffic should pay “network usage fees” in addition to the bills paid by the household end users, or whether that would go against the principle of net neutrality and lead to higher costs for consumers. Netflix said that it could offer a technological solution to traffic volu

California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D-CA) resolved a $93 million settlement with Google over allegations that its location-privacy practices violated California consumer protection laws. The settlement follows a multi-year investigation by the California Department of Justice that determined Google was deceiving users by collecting, storing, and using their location data for consumer profiling and advertising purposes without informed consent.

The STOP CSAM Act of 2023 (S. 1199) would authorize appropriations to establish the Child Online Protection Board to adjudicate complaints against interactive computer service providers (such as Internet service providers, social media companies, and municipal broadband providers). The bill also would authorize the appropriation of funds to appoint guardians at litem (attorneys and social workers who protect child victims throughout court proceedings) and trustees who facilitate restitution payments owed to child victims.

There is reason for optimism about the federal government stepping up to create a policy framework for artificial intelligence (AI) that will keep us safe while enabling innovations that will improve all our lives. But, beneath the surface, there is a shark in the water, ready to obstruct any congressional or administrative action. That shark is the Supreme Court’s “major questions doctrine.” Although Members of Congress have proposed to establish a new federal commission to protect consumers.