Court case

Privacy rights enshrined in Germany’s Constitution extend to foreigners living abroad and cover their online data, the country’s highest court ruled, ordering Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government to overhaul a law governing the foreign intelligence agency. The decision by the Constitutional Court found that parts of a 2016 law governing the country’s foreign intelligence agency, known by its German abbreviation BND, in part violated the universal right to privacy in communication.

Rural broadband provider Windstream Holdings Inc. is closer to exiting from chapter 11 under a proposal that would allow hedge-fund manager Elliott Management Corp. and other investors to buy the bulk of the company’s equity out of bankruptcy while wiping out most junior debt.

Siding with The New York Times, a federal judge has ordered that the Federal Communications Commission must disclose information about users who submitted comments during the 2017 net neutrality proceeding, despite the agency's objections that doing so could compromise people's privacy. US District Court Judge Lorna Schofield in the Southern District of New York ruled that disclosure of the data -- including commenters' IP addresses, time stamps, and user-agent headers -- is in the public interest, particularly given concerns that many comments were fraudulent.

Senators Kamala Harris (D-CA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) on sent a letter to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai demanding an extension on the comment period for the issues that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals recently remanded in the commission’s net neutrality repeal. Local governments in California and New York requested a 60-day extension of the comment period, yet the commission refused to give these first responders more time while they are fighting on the frontlines of a global pandemic. “While that comment period clo

A judge approved Facebook’s $5 billion settlement with the Federal Trade Commission over privacy violations—overruling objections that the deal didn’t adequately punish the company. Judge Timothy Kelly of the US District Court for the District of Columbia greenlighted the deal reached in the summer of 2019, which included the $5 billion fine, restrictions on some aspects of Facebook’s business decisions, and ongoing oversight of the social media giant.

On April 17, the FCC and the National Association of Broadcasters each filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to review the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit’s 2019 decision in Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC. The decision was the fourth in a line of intertwined cases dealing with the agency’s media ownership policies since 2004. In Prometheus IV, the Third Circuit remanded the diametrically opposed FCC’s media ownership decisions in 2016 and 2017, as well as the agency’s 2018 incubator program.

Free Press condemned the Federal Communications Commission’s abandonment of its authority to safeguard internet users and promote universal access to an open and affordable internet. The filing was in response to an Oct 2019 US Court of Appeals decision to remand for further consideration by the FCC three key issues related to the agency’s 2017 network neutrality repeal, which also rolled back other vital protections under Title II of the Communications Act.

By this Order, the Federal Communications Commission denies a further extension of time for filing comments and reply comments on the Public Notice seeking to refresh the record in the above-captioned Restoring Internet Freedom and Lifeline proceedings. On April 16, 2020, the City of Los Angeles, the County of Santa Clara, the Santa Clara

The court in Mozilla required the Federal Communications Commission to address how its Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which repealed the agency’s net neutrality rules and removed FCC jurisdiction over broadband, impacted public safety, pole attachments, and the Lifeline program. Instead of opening a new rulemaking proceeding, the FCC issued a Public Notice that fails to explain how the agency ultimately intends to proceed on this matter.