Court case

Chairman Pai is at it again, pushing his anti-consumer agenda – this time on the eve of an historic election.  Americans deserve strong Net Neutrality protections, but this FCC is rushing ahead of November 3rd to further cement its efforts to deprive Americans of these critical protections.  At a time when internet connectivity is especially critical for students, parents, first responders, low-income and rural Americans, the FCC should be protecting American families, not undermining them.  Time and again, this FCC has put industry interests before those of consumers, and its actions this

The Department of Justice's case against Google hones in on the company's alliance with Apple as a prime example of what prosecutors say are Google’s illegal tactics to protect its monopoly and choke off competition in web search. The scrutiny of the pact, which was first inked 15 years ago and has rarely been discussed by either company, has highlighted the special relationship between Silicon Valley’s two most valuable companies — an unlikely union of rivals that regulators say is unfairly preventing smaller companies from flourishing. “We have this sort of strange term in Silicon Valley:

Rep Anna Eshoo (D-CA-18), a senior member of the House Communications and Technology Subcommittee, wrote to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai to express her high concerns that the FCC is ignoring its court-mandated obligation to protect public safety in its latest net neutrality repeal order and called on the Chairman to drop the proposal from next week’s open meeting agenda. “California is experiencing the most horrific wildfire season in history, and I’m deeply concerned that the FCC is ignoring its mandate to protect public safety as required by statute and by a federal

Representatives from AT&T met with Federal Communications Commission staff to answer a Common Cause, Public Knowledge and Next Century Cities letter sent to the FCC claiming AT&T’s decision to grandfather copper-based DSL services – services the groups maintain should not even be considered broadband – somehow underscores the need for full-fledged public utility regulation of broadband.

More antitrust cases are likely to be filed against Google soon by state attorneys general, even though partisan-tinged wrangling has clouded the path forward. At least two separate though overlapping groups of attorneys general are investigating the company concurrently. One effort, led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) focuses on online advertising and could lead to a lawsuit being filed within weeks.

The Department of Justice — along with eleven state Attorneys General — filed a civil antitrust lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Columbia to stop Google from unlawfully maintaining monopolies through anticompetitive and exclusionary practices in the search and search advertising markets and to remedy the competitive harms.

Internet service providers will suffer “irreparable harm” if California is allowed to enforce its net neutrality law, which includes restrictions on carriers' ability to exempt video streams from data caps, trade groups told a federal judge.

Superior Court Judge Shana Frost Matini ruled that Michael Pack overstepped his authority when he fired the board of an agency that helps dissidents and journalists in repressive countries and sought to replace it with his own slate of directors, including himself.

The US Chamber of Commerce, NCTA – The Internet & Television Association, and others asked the Supreme Court to hear an appeal by Comcast on when courts can force a monopoly to do business with its rivals.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s pick to succeed the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, could well help shift the Supreme Court’s view of how much deference to give decisions by agencies like the Federal Communications Commission. The doctrine of Chevron deference, established by the Supreme Court in the 1984 case of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. vs. Natural Resources Defense Council, established the legal test for when courts should defer to the expertise of a regulatory agency.