Court case

For Internet trolls, the week of July 24 may as well have been Christmas. On July 25, Judge James Cacheris of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia handed down a decision stating that public officials may not “block” their constituents on social media. The case, which will influence a similar case filed by the Knight First Amendment Institute against President Trump, involved a dispute between defendant Phyllis Randall, chairman of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, and plaintiff Brian Davison.

The facts allege that Randall banned Davison from her Facebook page titled “Chair Phyllis J. Randall” after Davison published comments during an online forum that, in Randall’s view, consisted of “slanderous” remarks about “people’s family members” and “kickback money” (if the facts seem confusing or incomplete, it’s not just you — neither party could recall the precise contents of the deleted comment). Although it is difficult to contest that Randall was acting in her official capacity, the court’s conclusion that a social media platform is analogous to a public forum is ill-conceived.

A class-action complaint against Comcast can move forward after a federal judge rejected a Comcast motion to dismiss it. The lawsuit, filed in October 2016 in US District Court in Northern California, accuses Comcast of falsely advertising low prices and then using poorly disclosed fees to increase the amount paid by cable TV customers. Those fees are the "Broadcast TV Fee," which had increased from $1.50 a month to $6.50 since 2014, and the "Regional Sports Fee" that rose from $1 to $4.50 since 2015. These fees are not included in the advertised prices, so customers end up paying higher prices than the ones they are led to believe they will pay, the lawsuit said.

When customers question Comcast reps about the fees, "Comcast staff and agents explicitly lie by stating that the Broadcast TV Fee and the Regional Sports Fee are government-related fees or taxes over which Comcast has no control," the complaint said. Comcast filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that its order submission process could not have created a contract and that customers agreed to pay the fees in the "Subscriber Agreement" and "Minimum Term Agreement." But US District Court Judge Vince Chhabria disputed Comcast's reasoning and wrote that the class-action plaintiffs have made plausible claims.

President Donald Trump, your tweets are definitely being used against you in the court of law. The latest example is the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which decided that Democratic attorneys general for 16 states can launch a court battle to try to force the Trump Administration to keep paying Obamacare subsidies that help make insurance more affordable for millions of lower-income people. The judges said it makes sense for states to launch a court fight to keep Obamacare subsidies because Republicans who don't like these subsidies are in power and because President Trump has tweeted he'd like to get rid of them. The lawsuit, the judges said, is "timely in light of accumulating public statements by high-level officials.”

This is becoming a pattern: Judges, when deciding how to rule in politically sticky situations, pull up Twitter and see what the president has said about it. In June, a federal appeals court ruled not to reinstate the president's' travel ban because he failed to prove the travel ban is so necessary for public safety that it's okay for it to temporarily curtail people's liberties. The court cited one of the president's tweets.

The Federal Communications Commission’s 2015 pole attachment order was upheld in a ruling July 31 by the Eighth Circuit Court, providing a potential win for competitive and incumbent providers expanding their fiber networks. In 2015, a group of electric utilities, including Ameren Corporation, American Electric Power Service, CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, and Virginia Electric and Power Company petitioned to review a November 2015 order of the FCC governing the rates that utility companies may charge telecommunications providers for attaching their wired facilities to utility-owned poles.

The FCC, which was joined by intervenors Incompas, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Level 3 Communications, and USTelecom, opposed the petition. In delivering its decision, the court found that the November 2015 Order provided a “reasonable interpretation of the ambiguity” in Section 224 of the Pole Attachments Act.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a prominent privacy rights watchdog, is asking the Federal Trade Commission to investigate a new Google advertising program that ties consumers’ online behavior to their purchases in brick-and-mortar stores.

The legal complaint, to be filed with the FTC on July 31, alleges that Google is newly gaining access to a trove of highly sensitive information -- the credit and debit card purchase records of the majority of US consumers -- without revealing how they got the information or giving consumers meaningful ways to opt out. Moreover, the group claims that the search giant is relying on a secretive technical method to protect the data -- a method that should be audited by outsiders and is likely vulnerable to hacks or other data breaches. “Google is seeking to extend its dominance from the online world to the real, offline world, and the FTC really needs to look at that,” said Marc Rotenberg, the organization’s executive director. EPIC alleges that if consumers don’t know how Google gets its purchase data, then they cannot make an informed decision about which cards not to use or where not to shop if they don’t want their purchases tracked. The organization points out that purchases can reveal medical conditions, religious beliefs and other intimate information.

A federal judge in Virginia said that a local politician had violated the First Amendment rights of a constituent because the politician briefly banned the constituent from the politician's personal Facebook account. "The suppression of critical commentary regarding elected officials is the quintessential form of viewpoint discrimination against which the First Amendment guards," US District Judge James Cacheris wrote in a suit brought by a constituent against Phyllis Randall, the chairwoman of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors in Virginia.

The judge didn't issue any punishment against Randall, as the Facebook ban for constituent Brian Davison only lasted about 12 hours. That said, the judge noted Randall committed "a cardinal sin under the First Amendment" by barring the constituent who posted about county corruption. What's more, the judge pointed out from the first sentence of the ruling that "this case raises important questions about the constitutional limitations applicable to social media accounts maintained by elected officials."

A Georgia federal judge dismissed a class-action racial discrimination lawsuit filed by one current and one former CNN employee against the network's parent company Time Warner. The lawsuit had alleged racial discrimination at the news organization for more than 20 years, according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The two black men who filed the lawsuit alleged they were compensated less than their white co-workers, were denied promotions and pay increases and that the “Defendants have engaged in a pattern and practice of racial discrimination in performance evaluations, compensations, promotions and terminations."

The Supreme Court has agreed to give Internet service providers more time to decide whether to appeal a DC Court's ruling upholding the Federal Communications Commission's Title II Open Internet order. The court granted a petition by USTelecom and others to extend the deadline for appeal (filing a writ of certiorari) from July 30 to Sept. 28.

ISPs pointed out that the new FCC might have mooted that appeal by September—if it has voted on a proposal from FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to reverse the Title II classification and review the rules. Seeking the extension in addition to USTelecom were NCTA–The Internet & Television Association, CTIA–The Wireless Association, the American Cable Association, AT&T, CenturyLink, Alamo Broadband, TechFreedom and various individuals including VoIP pioneer Daniel Berninger. The FCC has sought comment on the proposal by the Republican FCC majority under chairman Ajit Pai to reclassify internet access—wired and wireless, fixed and mobile, customer facing and interconnections—as an information service not subject to Title II and to review whether rules against blocking, throttling and paid prioritization are necessary.

Sealed law enforcement requests to track Americans without a warrant through cellphone location records or Internet activity grew sevenfold in the past three years in the District, new information released by a federal judge shows. Details about the growth come as the US Supreme Court weighs whether to rein in such rapidly expanding demands. Legal experts said the disclosure appears to mark a first, and that neither the Justice Department nor private companies have previously made public such specific data about how often law enforcement agencies seek those court orders. The summary data gave counts of requests by year from 2008 through 2016 made in criminal cases handled by the Justice Department or US attorney’s office for the District. Details about each individual case, such as the name of a suspect or what records were sought, were not disclosed.

The requests were made under a 1986 statute that enables law enforcement agencies to obtain court orders requiring ­communication service providers to turn over records about individual customers. The orders do not apply to information about telephone calls, such as the time, date, duration and numbers dialed, which can be obtained in other ways. Instead, the requests seek individuals’ Internet connection records or cellphone tower records. Those records exclude the content of communications but can be highly valuable to investigators seeking to establish a history or pattern of movement, conduct or relationships. The information requests can include Internet browsing logs and activity; the time, date, size, sender and recipient of email, instant or social media messages, or other transaction records; as well as computer identification numbers and information about websites that a user accessed.

The Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that gag orders issued with warrant-like national security letters do not violate the First Amendment. National security letters serve the same functions as a warrant but do not require judicial oversight. They are frequently used to solicit digital data from telecom companies and are frequently accompanied by nondisclosure orders barring the companies from informing customers that law enforcement has harvested their data.

Credo Mobile and CloudFlare, a cybersecurity firm, received a total of five national security letters between 2011 and 2013 and sued, arguing they had a First Amendment right to notify customers. In 2013, District Judge Susan Illston ruled that the letters were unconstitutional, but stayed her decision and later reversed it in 2016 once lawmakers added additional civil liberties protections. The appeals court upheld Illston's amended opinion, agreeing that civil liberties safeguards in place — including notifying recipients the letters could be challenged in court — were adequate. "The nondisclosure requirement in the NSL law therefore does not run afoul of the First Amendment," wrote Judge Sandra Ikuta in the decision.