The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered consolidation of Hikvision USA’s petition (docket 23-1032) with that of Dahua Technology USA (docket 23-1073) to review the FCC’s Nov. 25 order barring the authorization of network equipment considered a threat to U.S. national security, said a clerk’s entry Friday. It ordered Dahua to file by March 31 its docketing statement form and statement of issues to be raised. Both petitions allege the order violates the Communications Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, that it was arbitrary and capricious, and that it wasn’t supported by substantial evidence (see 2303160043)

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Marketing Support Systems owner Kenneth Moser's petition for review Thursday of an FCC order saying Moser and his company violated the Truth in Caller ID Act by engaging in a "large-scale" robocalling campaign (see 2112020059). The 9th Circuit said the district court "has exclusive jurisdiction over the petition because Moser seeks to avoid enforcement of a forfeiture order," per a memorandum in case no. 21-70099.

The FCC’s 2020 declaratory ruling on wireless infrastructure worked, CTIA and the Wireless Infrastructure Association told the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a filing last week in case 20-71765. "At least one member of both CTIA and WIA has experienced a 31% decrease in the overall permitting timelines for concealed towers after the 5G Upgrade Order, reinforcing that there were real-world impediments being imposed by local governments that the clarifications … have helped to eliminate.” The FCC defended the legality of the order March 1 against a challenge by the League of California League of Cities (see 2303020038). CTIA and WIA agreed the order was lawful. "The interpretations and clarifications in the 5G Upgrade Order are not only permissible, but are compelled by the rules’ unambiguous meaning,” the wireless associations said. Even if the 2020 ruling’s contents could be considered new legislative rules, as cities argue, “they would still be valid because the agency complied with the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements, rendering harmless any alleged error.”

The FCC rejection of Wide Voice's petition for reconsideration of its June 9 order granting AT&T and Verizon's complaint about access stimulation rule violations (see 2109280065) "was not arbitrary and capricious, nor unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act," the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday in docket 21-71375. In the decision by Judges Richard Paez, Bridget Bade and Raner Collins and penned by Paez, the court said the FCC finding was "reasonable and lawful." WV argued the FCC needed to establish new rules barring the evasion of existing rules to find a Communications Act violation, but that "belie[s] common sense," the court said. WV outside counsel didn't comment.

Duke Energy’s opening brief is due April 10 in its petition for 4th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court review of the FCC’s November pole attachment order, said an amended briefing order Monday (docket 22-2220). AT&T’s response, plus the opening brief in its own petition for review, is due May 22, said the order. The FCC’s response brief is due July 6, followed by the Aug. 7 deadline for Duke’s reply, it said. AT&T’s petition for review says the FCC's order denied it "the full relief it sought" by requiring it to "pay a substantially higher rate for use of Duke’s poles” than competitors pay (see 2301190043). Duke’s petition says parts of the order "exceed or are inconsistent with the FCC’s jurisdiction and statutory authority" and are "an abuse of discretion" (see 2211290053).

U.S. Telecom Long Distance (USTLD) will pay $46,680 within 14 days to settle FCC allegations it violated the Communications Act, said a consent judgment Friday (docket 2:23-cv-00160) in U.S. District Court for Nevada in Las Vegas. Numerous consumers complained that USTLD changed their choice of telephone service providers without their knowledge or permission, placed unauthorized charges on their phone bills or issued “insufficiently specific” bills, said the judgment. USTLD within 90 days will certify to the FCC Enforcement Bureau “that it provided full refunds to consumers who complained in this case to the extent full refunds were not already provided,” it said. It also agreed to cease “all outbound telemarketing activity,” it said. The consent judgment “is neither an admission of liability” by the company, nor a concession by the U.S. “that its claims are not well founded,” it said. The DOJ filed a complaint against USTLD in January (see 2301310035).

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted Duke Energy’s motion to proceed with a deferred joint appendix in its consolidated petition with AT&T for review of the FCC’s Nov. 18 pole attachment order, said a clerk’s order signed Wednesday (docket 22-2220). Duke sought leave to file the deferred document because the “unique nature” of the proceeding made it difficult for the parties to forecast which portions of the record should be included in the joint appendix (see 2303010033). The joint appendix, previously due March 13 with Duke’s opening brief, is now due July 24, said an amended scheduling order Wednesday. Duke’s opening brief is now due April 10, with AT&T’s opening and response brief due May 10, said the amended order. The FCC’s response is due June 9, it said.

Duke Energy seeks leave from the 4th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court to file a deferred appendix in its consolidated petition for review of the FCC’s Nov. 18 pole attachment order, said its motion Tuesday. The 4th Circuit Appeals Court docketed as cross-appeals AT&T’s petition for review of the FCC’s order from the D.C. Circuit (docket 23-1096) with Duke’s petition for review in the 4th Circuit (docket 22-2220) (see 2301310040). Duke conferred with AT&T and the FCC, but due to the “unique nature” of the proceeding, “the parties are finding it difficult to forecast which portions of the record should be included in the joint appendix,” it said. The consolidated proceeding “requires staggered briefing on two, separate petitions for review that raise distinct legal challenges” to the FCC’s order, it said. Duke’s opening brief and joint appendix are due March 13, and AT&T’s opening brief and response are due April 24, with the FCC’s response to the briefs in both petitions due June 8. Duke “can’t determine at this time what portions of the record will be necessary to its response to AT&T’s opening brief,” and other parties “have echoed similar concerns” about their responses to Duke’s opening brief, it said. The “uncertainties” have Duke “concerned” that unless the 4th Circuit grants leave to file a deferred appendix, the joint appendix won’t conform to the court’s preference for a “selectively abridged record,” it said. All parties told Duke they either support or at least don’t oppose Duke’s motion for leave to file a deferred appendix, it said.

The FCC notified the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Monday that two cases were filed seeking review of a November FCC order clamping down on equipment from Chinese companies, preventing the sale of yet-to-be authorized equipment in the U.S. (see 2211230065).That came after Dahua Technology USA asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate the order. Hikvision appealed the order in the D.C. Circuit (see 2302170057). The order is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; and without observance of procedure required by law,” Dahua told the court last month (case 23-206).

Digicel-Haiti’s response is due March 23 to UPM Technology’s Feb. 21 complaint alleging Digicel-Haiti violated the Communications Act by banning resale of UPM’s telecommunications service, said an FCC Enforcement Bureau notice Thursday (docket 23-64). UPM’s reply is due April 3, said the notice. The complaint summarizes UPM’s counterclaims against Digicel-Haiti, which the U.S. District Court for Oregon stayed in October as Digicel-Haiti’s fraud case against UPM progressed toward a jury trial (see 2301260042|). Digicel-Haiti also violated the statute by its “chosen means of enforcing its ban on resale -- blocking traffic from UPM,” said the complaint. The case comes under FCC jurisdiction because Digital-Haiti was a carrier that ran a “Roam Like You’re Home” (RLYH) service, it said. Anyone in the U.S. with a SIM card for Digicel-Haiti’s network and enough money in the SIM card’s account could purchase RLYH service, it said. The complaint alleges Digicel-Haiti blocked the commerce in SIM cards that UPM bought through agents in Haiti and had shipped to the U.S., and that UPM had enrolled in RLYH for its resale business. “Digicel-Haiti’s conduct was not a mere technical violation of some formalistic rule,” said the complaint. “By stymying UPM’s efforts to compete, Digicel-Haiti directly undermined the Commission’s policy of relying on competition and technological innovation to drive international call termination rates down to cost,” it said.