Court case

In a lively and freewheeling argument on Wednesday, the Supreme Court considered whether it should place limits on class-action settlements in which the plaintiffs’ lawyers receive millions and their clients get nothing. In the process, several justices mused about the nature of privacy in the digital age. The case arose from an $8.5 million settlement between Google and class-action lawyers who said the company had violated its users’ privacy rights. Under the settlement, the lawyers were paid more than $2 million, but members of the class received no money.

The state of California has struck a temporary agreement with the Justice Department not to move forward with a federal lawsuit challenging the state’s new net neutrality law, delaying a pivotal legal battle over the future of the Internet. The Justice Department will postpone its litigation against California until a separate case directly involving the Federal Communications Commission runs its course, according to court filings. The agreement must be approved by a judge.

I am pleased that California has agreed not to enforce its onerous Internet regulations. This substantial concession reflects the strength of the case made by the United States earlier this month. It also demonstrates, contrary to the claims of the law’s supporters, that there is no urgent problem that these regulations are needed to address. Indeed, California’s agreement not to enforce these regulations will allow Californians to continue to enjoy free-data plans that have proven to be popular among consumers.

Russians working for a close ally of President Vladimir Putin engaged in an elaborate campaign of “information warfare” to interfere with the midterm elections, federal prosecutors said in unsealing a criminal complaint against one of them. The woman, Elena Alekseevna Khusyaynova, of St. Petersburg, was involved in an effort “to spread distrust toward candidates for US political office and the US political system,” prosecutors said.

In a brief filed in court, AT&T argues that the Department of Justice used bad numbers to come to the wrong conclusion about AT&T-Time Warner merger and a lower court was right to reject that conclusion and allow the deal. AT&T pointed out in its brief to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit that, "in the crucible of litigation, DOJ's claims were exposed to be both narrow and fragile," and ultimately fell apart. "Relying primarily on a theoretical model that purports to simulate the bargaining dynamics between programmers and pay-TV distributors, DOJ sought to prove that t

President Donald Trump's frequent threats and hostile acts directed toward journalists and the media are not only offensive and unbecoming of a democratic leader; they are also illegal. Although the president can launch verbal tirades against the press, he cannot use the powers of his office to suppress or punish speech he doesn’t like. When President Trump proposes government retribution against news outlets and reporters, his statements cross the line.

Facebook knew of problems in how it measured viewership of video ads on its platform for more than a year before it disclosed them in 2016, according to a complaint filed by advertisers. A group of small advertisers filed a lawsuit in California federal court in 2016, alleging the tech giant engaged in unfair business conduct by disseminating inaccurate metrics that significantly overestimated the amount of time users were spending watching video ads.

The Federal Communications Commission told the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that it acted properly when it repealed the US government’s net neutrality rules in 2017, marking its first legal salvo in a campaign to battle back 22 states and tech companies including Mozilla, Facebook, and Google that contend the agency’s move was illegal. The FCC said it was perfectly within its right to rethink how it regulated those internet service providers, citing a landmark Supreme Court decision outlining the agency’s powers from 2005.

The Justice Department has minced no words in its reply to AT&T's defense of its purchase of Time Warner, telling a federal court that the company's brief was "little more than a revisionist 58-page summary of the district court’s opinion." Antitrust chief Makan Delrahim said AT&T's brief "never resolves the district court’s erroneous rejection of the economics of bargaining and the principle of corporate-wide profit maximization, which are the basis of our appeal.” DOJ sasy the court's main error was "that the merger will not increase AT&T’s bargaining leverage."

Does California have authority to impose net neutrality rules? Both the US Department of Justice and the broadband industry claim that the inherently interstate nature of the internet means that only the federal government can regulate broadband services. A second, even thornier question is whether the Federal Communications Commission was within its rights when it effectively banned states from adopting net neutrality rules. At its heart is this conundrum: In repealing the Obama-era rules, the FCC said it didn’t have authority to impose net neutrality regulations.