Court case

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling that police must get a warrant to access the vast trove of location information wireless carriers collect on their customers marks a breakthrough for privacy rights. But the majority in Carpenter v. United States sidestepped key issues about whether police can still access location data in real time or for short periods without a warrant. These gaps will likely give rise to a flurry of new legal challenges --- and are already sparking calls for Congress to step in to fix potential loopholes.

Two tribes and a group of companies that get telecom subsidies under the Federal Communications Commission's Lifeline program want the FCC to hold off on its plan to limit the types of companies that get more Lifeline money to support subscribers on tribal lands. In 2017, the FCC approved a plan that would eliminate extra funding on tribal lands for wireless resellers, and limit the areas eligible for a higher subsidy. The enhanced subsidy adds an extra $25 to the monthly $9.25 per-subscriber total that Lifeline companies receive.

In a major win for privacy rights, the Supreme Court put new restraints on law enforcement’s access to the ever-increasing amount of private information about Americans available in the digital age. In the specific case before the court, the justices ruled that authorities generally must obtain a warrant to gain access to cell-tower records that can provide a virtual timeline and map of a person’s whereabouts. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 5 to 4 decision, in which he was joined by the court’s liberal members.

The New York State Supreme Court's appellate division has cleared the way for the state to continue pursuing a lawsuit against Charter Communications over broadband speed claims. The appellate court ruled that the FCC's 2015 Open Internet Order's transparency rules did not give the commission the power to preempt the state's lawsuit and said the state's claims are actionable.

Internet retailers can be required to collect sales taxes in states where they have no physical presence, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision. Brick-and-mortar businesses have long complained that they are disadvantaged by having to charge sales taxes while many of their online competitors do not. States have said that they are missing out on tens of billions of dollars in annual revenue under a 1992 Supreme Court ruling that helped spur the rise of internet shopping. On June 21, the court overruled that ruling, Quill Corporation v.

As many of you know, on June 12 Judge Richard Leon of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled against the US government and in favor of AT&T’s application to merge with Time Warner, without the imposition of any conditions. From the viewpoint of many, both the Federal Communications Commission and Department of Justice have been stuck in administrative molasses, seeking to apply sectoral market analysis, preserve questionable bright line tests, and continue the imposition of rigid restrictions as part of transactional reviews the same way now as in 2008, 1988, or 1958.

The Supreme Court will decide whether iPhone users can sue Apple for locking down the iOS ecosystem, something the suit’s plaintiffs say is creating an anti-competitive monopoly. Apple v. Pepper could theoretically affect how tech companies can build walled gardens around their products. The Supreme Court isn’t going to make a call on that specific issue, but its decision could affect people’s relationship with all kinds of digital platforms. Here’s what’s at stake when the Supreme Court case starts, which should happen sometime in the next year. 

Antitrust has two main theories of competition. One is to try to ensure that lots of rivals compete in open markets to create better products and services. Call this the democratic theory. The other is to allow a few giants to control everything, then use antitrust only to make sure there are enough giants to create some competition, here and there. Call this the Godzilla versus Rodan theory. Godzilla is, of course, the Japanese irradiated sea monster and Rodan is a flying beast strong enough to fight Godzilla.

The Supreme Court sidestepped a decision on when partisan gerrymandering goes too far, ruling against the challengers of a Republican-drawn map in WI and a Democratic redistricting in MD. The rulings in the separate cases once again put off a decision on when courts can find that partisan efforts to keep parties in power goes so far as to be unconstitutional. But the court again left open a path for such challenges. It was a technical resolution of what has seemed to hold the promise of being a landmark decision about extreme efforts to give one party advantage over another.

The US Supreme Court agreed to hear Apple's bid to kill an antitrust lawsuit over the market for iPhone apps in a case that could shield e-commerce companies from consumer claims over high commissions. The lawsuit accuses Apple of monopolizing the app market so it can charge excessive commissions of 30 percent. Apple, backed by the Trump administration, says it can’t be sued because the commission is levied on the app developers, not the purchasers who are suing.