UPM “fraudulently tapped” into its roaming agreements with U.S. mobile carriers, “surreptitiously routing calls to Digicel Haiti’s home network from third parties who are not Digicel Haiti customers,” Digicel Haiti said, responding to UPM’s Feb. 21 complaint alleging it violated the Communications Act by banning resale of UPM’s telecommunications service (see 2302270073). Its answer was posted Friday (docket 23-64) at the FCC Enforcement Bureau.

Defendant Samsung and the plaintiffs in the 16 Samsung data breach class actions propose a May 22 deadline for the filing of a consolidated amended complaint, said their joint agenda and status report (docket 1:23-md-03055) on the multidistrict litigation, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Camden.

Plaintiff Gregory Roland’s putative class action alleging Chive Media Group violated the Video Privacy Protection Act by knowingly sharing his viewing data with Meta (see 2301230018) asserts “a novel theory of relief unseen and untested” in the Northern District of Illinois, said Chive’s memorandum of law Thursday (docket 1:23-cv-00337) in support of its motion to transfer Roland’s case to the U.S. District Court for Western Texas in Austin.

Plaintiff Dennis Gromov’s March 3 opposition to Belkin’s motion to dismiss his false advertising complaint (see 2303060037) provides “no justification” to save his claims from dismissal, said Belkin’s reply Wednesday (docket 1:22-cv-06918) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago.

Amazon engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text-message consumers after they opt out of its solicitations, alleged plaintiff Jennifer Holt’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Thursday (docket 6:23-cv-00104) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Oklahoma in Muskogee. Amazon’s unsolicited text message “spam” caused Holt and members of the proposed class harm, “including violations of their statutory rights, trespass, annoyance, nuisance, invasion of their privacy, and intrusion upon seclusion,” it said.

Telecom law has a “squishy” standard for finding conflict between state and federal USF rules, said U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler for Northern California in San Francisco at a virtual motion hearing Thursday. T-Mobile and subsidiaries want the court to preliminarily enjoin a $1.11 monthly per-line fee from taking effect April 1 in the state (see 2303100046). Beeler said she plans to issue a decision by Monday (docket 3:23-cv-00483).

The significant wireless service gap alleged in AT&T’s Dec. 22 complaint against the village of Oyster Bay Cove, New York, “has remained unremedied for years,” said AT&T’s portion of a joint status report on their three-month-long legal dispute (docket 2:22-cv-07807), filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court for Eastern New York in Central Islip. The impasse continues despite Telecommunications Act mandates ensuring wireless coverage for all, and despite the village having made property available for AT&T’s proposed 85-foot-tall cell tower to remedy the service gap, said the report.

The Walker family plaintiffs’ Feb. 28 opposition to the cellphone industry’s motion to dismiss their RF radiation complaint (see 2303010001) confirms that federal conflict preemption bars their claims, said the industry’s reply Tuesday (docket 2:21-cv-00923) in U.S. District Court for Western Louisiana in Lake Charles. Their claims are barred because they challenge the FCC’s RF emissions standards and equipment authorization "regime” in defiance of federal statutes, said the reply.

The California Public Utilities Commission unlawfully treated two-thirds of MetroPCS revenue as intrastate, the T-Mobile subsidiary claimed Tuesday at the U.S. District Court in San Francisco (case 3:17-cv-05959-JD). The company said it will move for summary judgment at an April 27 hearing.

Altice’s motion to dismiss the recording industry’s contributory copyright infringement complaint rests on the “false premise” that Altice, as an internet service provider, “can never be held liable under any legal theory for copyright infringement committed by its customers using its services on its watch,” said the plaintiffs’ sur-reply Monday (docket 2:22-cv-00471) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Texas in Marshall in opposition to the motion.