An ordinance amending the Los Angeles County Code, allowing for “the fast-tracked proliferation of wireless infrastructure,” violates the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the state constitution, alleged a complaint Tuesday (docket 23STCP00750) in Los Angeles County Superior Court, filed by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and other nonprofits.

The Biden administration’s collusion with Big Tech to censor social media content (see 2301090030) “involves some of the most egregious First Amendment violations in American history,” said the Republican Louisiana and Missouri attorneys general in their supplemental brief Tuesday (docket 3:22-cv-01213) in U.S. District Court for Western Louisiana in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction. The AGs soon will file motion pursuing class allegations against the White House, it said.

Plaintiff Peter Grayson wants the U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Newark to deny BMW’s motion to compel his 3G telematics dispute to arbitration (see 2301310001) because the BMW Assist subscriber agreement he signed isn’t applicable to the inoperable telematics control unit (TCU) at issue in his case, said his opposition to the motion Tuesday (docket 2:22-cv-06103).

Plaintiff Marcus Baker provides no case law supporting his “draconian position” that his Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act claims against Match Group should proceed before the U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago, rather than in small claims court, as JAMS (formerly Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services) ordered when it closed Baker’s arbitration, said the dating service Tuesday in its reply (docket 1:22-cv-06924) to Baker’s opposition to Match Group’s Jan. 13 motion to dismiss (see 2302150002).

TikTok surreptitiously intercepts the private communications of its users, alleged a Wednesday privacy class action (docket 1:23-cv-01430) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago.

The FBI was right to censor Twitter’s transparency report due to national security concerns, a three-judge panel for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday, affirming a district court decision and rejecting the company’s First Amendment claims in docket 20-16174.

Crown Castle’s September 2020 argument in U.S. District Court for Southern Texas in Houston that the Telecommunications Act preempts the city of Pasadena, Texas, design manual is “inconsistent with the unambiguous language” of the statute’s Section 253, said Pasadena’s reply brief Monday (docket 22-20454) in the 5th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court. Pasadena wants to reverse the lower court’s granting of summary judgment in Crown Castle’s favor on grounds that a "plain reading" of the manual shows the spacing requirement for small node networks is "clearly more burdensome" than the requirements applicable to other users of the public rights of way (see 2212010001).

Here are Communications Litigation Today's top stories from last week, in case you missed them. Each can be found by searching on its title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

Defendant kitchenware company Food52 agreed to use “reasonable efforts” within 18 months to make its website accessible to the blind and visually impaired, in compliance with Title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act. It signed a consent decree March 2 with plaintiff Ramon Fontanez, as posted Monday (docket 1:22-cv-09584) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York.

Gannett cited a subscriber’s previous business relationship with its newspapers and her claim for monetary damages in a Friday motion (docket 2:22-cv-01464) to strike class allegations in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case.