Court case

In April 2021, State District Court Judge Matthew Wilson in New Mexico ordered school officials to take steps to provide the needed devices and broadband connections for students who are forced to attend school remotely. This ruling was made during the deepest part of the pandemic when most schools in New Mexico were shut down. His ruling was based upon complaints that The New Mexico Public Education Department was not complying with a court decision in the case of Yazzie/Martinez v.

Meta —the parent company for Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp — could drag hundreds of competitors into its legal battle, aiming to slow the Federal Trade Commission's prosecution and "bury" its lawyers in paperwork.

Lawyers for Cox Communications will begin oral arguments on March 9 in the appeal of a $1 billion copyright infringement award that it says is not only wrong on a legal basis, but could upend the entire broadband industry if it is allowed to stay.

Using terms like “predatory” and “anti-competitive,” four retail wireless dealers filed suit against T-Mobile in recent weeks, all saying they were basically run out of business since the operator's merger with Sprint. Absolute Wireless, Maycom, Solutions Center and Wireless Express each named T-Mobile in their complaints. All of them previously sold wireless services for Sprint.

Legal memos filed in recent days in the case against a former lawyer for the 2016 Clinton campaign, Michael Sussmann, reignited disputes over special counsel John Durham’s continuing probe into the origins of the FBI’s investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. Durham said in a filing that his office would show at Sussmann’s trial

In what’s described as a “proposed decision,” California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Administrative Law Judge Karl Bemesderfer has denied a petition by Dish Network that seeks more time in migrating CDMA customers off T-Mobile’s network. In a filing in early February 2022, the CPUC said the decision by ALJ Bemesderfer has no legal effect “until and unless” the commission hears the item and votes to approve it. The item may be heard, at the earliest, at the California commission’s March 17 meeting. But it essentially signals defeat for Dish at the CPUC level on this item.

The US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dealt internet service providers (ISP) groups a blow, as a three-judge panel upheld the state of California’s right to implement its own net neutrality rules. Analysts at New Street Research tipped the decision to prompt more state action on the issue; Blair Levin of New Street Research argued the ruling opens the door for states with similar views on net neutrality to pass their own regulations.

This is the right decision. It will ensure that the people of California will continue to have unfettered internet access, blocks internet providers from discriminating against websites for financial or political gain, and reduces the chance that their customers will be ripped off.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld California’s net neutrality law, rejecting an attempt by telecommunications industry groups to prevent the state from enforcing it. The court upheld a previous ruling, which means the status quo stays and the state can continue to enforce the law. This means California can continue its ban on internet providers slowing down or blocking access to websites and applications that don’t pay for premium service. California's net neutrality law was signed by former Gov Jerry Brown (D-CA) in 2018.

During his time on the Supreme Court, Justice Stephen Breyer authored and signed onto a slew of significant antitrust and regulation opinions that loom large over the cases against Facebook and Google today. His departure from the bench will mean the loss of serious antitrust expertise — a development that will sadden some traditionalists and cheer progressive antitrust activists that say change is long overdue. Breyer’s views on corporate power shifted somewhat over the years, but antitrust experts point to his decision to sign onto Justice Antonin Scalia’s 2004 opinion in Verizon v.