The consolidated petitions of 20 industry groups that challenge the FCC’s Nov. 20 order implementing Section 60506 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (see 240319004) do so because the order interprets digital discrimination to mean not only intentional discrimination but also “actions with a disparate impact,” the groups’ brief said Wednesday (docket 24-1179) in the 8th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court in support of their petitions. Disparate-impact liability is "rare," and every "interpretive clue here" confirms that Congress didn't intend to impose it, said the brief that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, CTIA and NCTA and others submitted. The FCC nevertheless has created the “first-ever regime” prohibiting business practices that cause a disparate impact based on income level, it said. The petitioners contend that the rule exceeds the commission’s statutory authority and that the order is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, it said. In light of the many "complex and novel questions" presented and the fact that these cases involve two “distinct, nonaligned groups of petitioners,” the industry petitioners ask that the 8th Circuit afford one hour of oral argument time, with the precise division to be determined after the briefing is complete, it said.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court granted the unopposed March 20 motion of Hamilton Relay, a telecommunications relay service (TRS) provider, to intervene in support of the Ohio Telecom Association’s petition for review challenging the FCC’s Dec. 21 order modifying and expanding the commission’s data breach notification rules on telecom carriers, VoIP providers and TRS providers (see 2403210001), said a clerk’s order Wednesday (docket 24-3133). Hamilton provides intrastate and interstate text telephone, speech-to-speech and captioned telephone services in numerous states through individual state TRS contracts, plus nationwide relay service through its internet protocol captioned telephone service, which is regulated by the FCC. Hamilton’s motion said it was entitled to intervene because it was a party of interest in the proceeding leading to the adoption of the order and because the order’s data breach notification rules changes adversely affect its interests.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the unopposed motion of the American Television Alliance of low-power stations to intervene as of right in defense of the FCC’s Dec. 26 quadrennial review order against the four consolidated petitions challenging the order for allegedly violating Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act (see 2404080002), said a signed clerk’s order Wednesday. The consolidated petitions pending in the 8th Circuit are from Zimmer Radio (docket 24-1380), Beasley Media Group (docket 24-1480), NAB (docket 24-1493) and Nexstar Media Group (docket 24-1516).

The American Television Alliance (ATVA) of low-power stations seeks leave to intervene as of right in defense of the FCC’s Dec. 26 quadrennial review order against the four consolidated petitions challenging the order for allegedly violating Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act, said the alliance’s unopposed motion Friday in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The 8th Circuit, in an April 2 order, granted NCTA’s motion to intervene on the FCC’s behalf (see 2404020045). In the order under review, the FCC found that its existing media ownership rules, with some minor modifications, remain necessary in the public interest, said ATVA’s motion. Most important to the group, the FCC retained the local television ownership rule with modest adjustments to reflect changes that have occurred in the television marketplace, it said. That rule limits the number of full-power television stations an entity may own within the same local market to at most two, subject to some limits, it said. The “top-four prohibition” generally bars broadcasters from owning two stations ranked among the top four in a local market, it said. The order “rejected broadcaster efforts” to weaken the top-four prohibition for strong public interest reasons, and the commission also took action to prevent parties from exploiting unintended ambiguities or gaps in the top-four prohibition, it said. ATVA and its members will be “substantially affected” by the 8th Circuit’s review of the order, said the motion. FCC rules require ATVA members to engage in retransmission consent negotiations with television broadcasters throughout the country, and the association argued throughout the agency proceeding that the challenged rules will protect consumers from rising costs due to pass-through of retransmission consent fee increases that result when broadcasters are able to negotiate retransmission consent fees for two top-four stations jointly in a market, it said. ATVA “likewise explained to the FCC the need to close the loophole that was increasingly being exploited” by network affiliation arrangements and acquisitions to circumvent the top-four prohibition, it said. An 8th Circuit decision calling the FCC’s decisions into question in these areas “would increase broadcasters’ already-powerful ability to extract supracompetitive retransmission consent fees from ATVA members and, ultimately, from consumers,” said the motion. The consolidated petitions pending in the 8th Circuit are from Zimmer Radio (docket 24-1380), Beasley Media Group (docket 24-1480), NAB (docket 24-1493) and Nexstar Media Group (docket 24-1516). The 8th Circuit previously granted the unopposed motions of four network affiliates associations (see 2403220041) and six radio group owners (see 2403260001) to intervene in support of the four consolidated petitions.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the briefing schedule that the parties proposed in the four consolidated petitions for review challenging the FCC’s Dec. 26 quadrennial review order for allegedly violating Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act (see 2404030004), said the court’s tentative schedule Friday. The opening briefs of the four petitioners and their intervenor supporters are due July 15, it said. Sept. 13 is the deadline for the FCC’s response brief and that of NCTA, which is intervening on the FCC’s behalf to defend the order against the petitioners’ Section 202(h) challenges, said the schedule. Reply briefs are due Oct. 15 and final briefs Nov. 18, it said. The parties said they framed the schedule to allow for the briefing to be complete and the cases ready for submission on the merits before the end of calendar 2024. The dates “may be advanced or extended by court order or a party's early or late filing of a brief,” said the schedule. All briefs and appendices should be filed with the 8th Circuit’s St. Louis office, it said. The consolidated petitions pending in the 8th Circuit are from Zimmer Radio (docket 24-1380), Beasley Media Group (docket 24-1480), NAB (docket 24-1493) and Nexstar Media Group (docket 24-1516).

Consumers' Research asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the FCC's USF contribution factor for Q2 of FY 2024 (see 2401100044). In a filing posted Wednesday (docket 24-60160), the group repeated its claim that USF contributions are illegal taxes that the Universal Service Administrative Co. collects and "should be rejected."

Opening briefs of the four petitioners and their intervenor supporters challenging the FCC’s Dec. 26 quadrennial review order for allegedly violating Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act (see 2403220041) would be due July 15 under a proposed briefing schedule that has the backing of all parties, NAB told the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a filing Tuesday. Sept. 13 is the proposed deadline for the FCC’s response brief and that of NCTA, which is intervening to defend the order against the petitioners’ Section 202(h) challenges, said the filing. Reply briefs would be due Oct. 15 and final briefs on Nov. 18, it said. The proposed schedule “would allow for the briefing to be complete and the cases ready for submission on the merits” before the end of calendar 2024, it said. The petitioners currently anticipate filing joint opening and reply briefs, it said. The intervenors supporting the Section 202(h) challenge anticipate filing two sets of opening and reply briefs, one from the four network affiliates associations, the other from six radio ownership groups, it said. “The number of briefs, the issues the parties intend to raise, and the number of words needed for full and efficient presentation of the issues could change if additional petitions for review or intervention motions are filed,” it said. April 15 is the deadline to file additional petitions for review of the quadrennial order; further intervention motions would be due 30 days later, said the filing. The parties request leave to file a supplemental joint proposed briefing schedule by April 22, seven days after the deadline to file a petition for review, it said. They further request leave to file a second supplemental joint proposal by May 22, if necessary, seven days after the deadline to intervene, “to ensure all parties are accounted for,” it said. The consolidated petitions pending in the 8th Circuit are from Zimmer Radio (docket 24-1380), Beasley Media Group (docket 24-1480), NAB (docket 24-1493) and Nexstar Media Group (docket 24-1516).

The 8th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court granted the unopposed motions of four network affiliates associations (see 2403220041) and six radio group owners (see 2403260001) to intervene in support of the four consolidated petitions for review that challenge the FCC’s Dec. 26 quadrennial review order for allegedly violating Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act, said a clerk’s order Tuesday. The 8th Circuit also granted NCTA’s motion to intervene to defend the FCC’s order against those Section 202(h) challenges (see 2403250064). The court denied without prejudice the network affiliates associations’ request to be deemed intervenors in any petitions that may be consolidated with the existing four in the future. The consolidated petitions pending in the 8th Circuit are from Zimmer Radio (docket 24-1380), Beasley Media Group (docket 24-1480), NAB (docket 24-1493) and Nexstar Media Group (docket 24-1516).

LTD Broadband’s opening brief is due May 8 in its petition to review the FCC’s rejection of the company's long-form application for Rural Digital Opportunity Fund support (see 2402070081), said a clerk’s order Friday (docket 24-1017) at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The FCC’s respondent brief is due June 24, and LTD’s reply brief July 24, the order said. LTD is challenging the FCC’s Dec. 4 order denying LTD’s application for review of the Wireline Bureau’s decision to reject the company’s application. LTD is asking the D.C. Circuit to hold the order unlawful and set it aside.

The U.S. motion to dismiss Ligado's complaint (see 2401260003) employs "a haze of regulatory complexity" to hide the fact that the government has appropriated the company's FCC-granted property rights to use the L band for terrestrial 5G services, Ligado said. "That is a classic taking that requires just compensation," Ligado told the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Monday in a docket 23-1797 memorandum of law in opposition to the U.S. motion to dismiss. It urged the court to act quickly on the motion to dismiss, saying the government's "orchestrated campaign of obstruction and delay [has] driven the company to the brink of bankruptcy."