Six radio broadcasters seek leave to intervene in support of the four petitions for review consolidated in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that challenge the FCC’s Dec. 26 quadrennial review order for allegedly violating Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act (see 2403050075), said their unopposed joint motion Monday. 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 radio broadcasters seeking to intervene in support of those petitions are Connoisseur Media, Mid-West Management, Midwest Communications, Sun Valley Radio, Eagle Communications and Legend Communications of Wyoming. The radio broadcasters, owners and licensees collectively of nearly 200 stations across the U.S., would see their interests “adversely affected” by the implementation of the FCC’s order, said their motion to intervene. It would harm them “by arbitrarily restricting their ability to compete in their markets against larger, less regulated digital content providers and advertising platforms,” they said. The platforms, including those owned by some of the largest U.S. companies, have been “siphoning away” listeners and advertising revenue from traditional radio, it said. The ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox affiliates associations sought leave Friday to intervene in support of the four petitions, arguing that the FCC’s order “refused to loosen” the commission’s “decades-old regulation of local television ownership to reflect today’s increasingly competitive media landscape (see 2403220041). NCTA on Monday came to the defense of the order, arguing that it rightfully retained the commission's local television ownership rule, which generally limits the number of full-power television stations an entity may own within the same local market (see 2403250064).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied Essential Network Technologies and MetComm.net's Feb. 26 emergency motion to expedite consideration of their Feb. 14 E-rate program petition for review, said its order Monday (docket 24-1027). The petitioners haven’t demonstrated that delay “will cause irreparable injury and that the decision under review is subject to substantial challenge, or that the public interest otherwise warrants expedition,” said the order. Their petition for review challenges the authority of the FCC and the Universal Service Administrative Co. (USAC) to stop processing the reimbursement of discounts for IT and broadband services that MetComm and Essential provided to schools under Section 254 of the Communications Act (see 2402200044). Their motion for expedited consideration argued that unless a briefing schedule is set that would allow for a D.C. Circuit decision on the appeal before the end of the court’s May sitting period, numerous elementary and secondary schools will be deprived of affordable IT infrastructure and broadband service for the new school year this fall (see 2403140002). But the FCC’s opposition said the petitioners have provided no compelling reasons for the D.C. Circuit to expedite review. “Under the circumstances, far from needing to expedite this case,” the D.C. Circuit “lacks jurisdiction to decide it,” because there is no final FCC action for the court to review, said the commission’s opposition.

Hamilton Relay, a telecommunications relay service (TRS) provider, seeks 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 2402210026), said its unopposed motion Wednesday (docket 24-3133) in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Hamilton provides TRS to individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, DeafBlind or have difficulty speaking, said its motion. The company provides intrastate and interstate text telephone, speech-to-speech and captioned telephone services in numerous states through individual state TRS contracts, nationwide relay service through its internet protocol captioned telephone service, which is regulated by the FCC, it said. Hamilton is entitled to intervene because it was a “party in interest” in the proceeding leading to the adoption of the order and the order’s changes to the FCC’s data breach notification rules adversely affect its interests, said the motion. Hamilton submitted comments in February 2023 in the FCC’s NPRM in the run-up to the order, it said. The order expands reporting obligations to the FCC and law enforcement agencies and imposes certain other duties on TRS providers pertaining to unauthorized access to or disclosure of customer proprietary network information and personally identifiable information, it said. In its February 2023 comments, Hamilton urged the FCC to consider how TRS providers are different from common carriers in the services they provide and the information they collect from their customers. The commission should ensure that any reporting obligations imposed on TRS providers “allow for the necessary flexibility to report relevant and actionable information to the appropriate law enforcement agencies and to customers,” it said then. It also urged the commission “to consider how its proposed rules will align, or potentially conflict, with existing state and federal privacy regimes,” it said.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the motion of 20 industry and business groups for expedited briefing and oral argument on their 16 consolidated petitions to vacate the commission’s Nov. 20 digital discrimination order (see 2403140042), said the court’s order Wednesday (docket 24-1179). The 8th Circuit granted unopposed motions for leave of two petitioners -- the Media Alliance and Great Public Schools Now and of the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society -- to intervene on the FCC’s behalf to prevent the order from being completely vacated, though they do oppose portions of it. In their motion, the industry petitioners argued that an expedited briefing would ensure the 8th Circuit has adequate time to render a decision on the petitions for review before the digital discrimination order takes effect Sept. 22. The FCC opposed the motion, arguing that “accelerating this highly complex proceeding” prejudices the government (see 2403190041).

The Media Alliance and Great Public Schools Now nonprofits, which filed a petition for review challenging portions of the FCC’s Nov. 20 digital discrimination order under the Administrative Procedure Act, seek to intervene on the FCC’s behalf against the 20 industry petitioners who want to set the entire order aside (see 2403140042), said their motion Friday (docket 24-1315) in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If the industry petitioners are successful in having the FCC’s digital discrimination rules vacated, communities that nonprofits advocate for -- including disproportionately low-income communities and communities of color -- “will be left with inferior options with limited speeds and increasing prices,” said their motion. This would harm their interests “in advancing equitable broadband access for their members and constituents, who, because of their race, ethnicity, color, income level, religion, or national origin, lack access to quality, affordable broadband,” it said.

The FCC’s motion to dismiss the Feb. 14 petition for review of Essential Network Technologies and MetComm.net for lack of jurisdiction (see 2403140002) is based on the “faulty premise” that this case doesn’t seek review of an FCC order, said the petitioners’ opposition Friday (docket 24-1027) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The petition for review challenges the authority of the FCC and the Universal Service Administrative Co. (USAC) to stop processing the reimbursement of discounts for IT and broadband services that MetComm and Essential provided to schools under Section 254 of the Communications Act (see 2402200044). The petition “requests judicial review of the regulations and the final orders of the FCC promulgating those rules,” which purport to authorize the USAC “to stop statutorily mandated reimbursement of discounts provided to elementary and secondary schools,” said the opposition. USAC’s conformity to those FCC rules “is causing irreparable injury to schools, students, and petitioners cognizable by a court of equity,” it said. The FCC “incorrectly suggests” this case is an appeal of USAC’s investigations, “where an FCC order concluding those investigations has been unreasonably delayed for years,” contrary to the Administrative Procedure Act, said the opposition. “This is not an appeal seeking review of the merits, if any, of USAC’s investigations,” it said. Rather the petition for review in this case asks the D.C. Circuit “to determine the legality of the FCC’s regulations promulgated by FCC orders purporting to authorize USAC to stop for years, if not indefinitely, the discount reimbursement” mandated by Section 254, said the opposition. The FCC's position in its motion to dismiss “has no reasonable basis in the law,” it said. The D.C. Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court have determined that the D.C. Circuit “has jurisdiction under the Hobbs Act to review the application of FCC rules promulgated by final FCC orders exercising the FCC's rulemaking power,” it said.

Petitioner Insurance Marketing Coalition's brief is due April 15, with respondent FCC's due 30 days later, said a briefing notice Tuesday (docket 24-10277) in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The coalition’s optional reply brief is due 21 days after the service of the commission’s brief, it said. The coalition’s petition for review asks the 11th Circuit to vacate the FCC’s Dec. 18 order implementing rules under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to target and eliminate illegal robotexts (see 2312220059). The coalition alleges the order exceeds the FCC’s statutory authority and was adopted “without observance of procedure required by law.” The order imposes several measures, including codifying that the national do not call registry’s protections apply to unlawful text messages.

Oral argument in Gray Television’s petition for review against the FCC is scheduled for May 15 in Birmingham, said an 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals calendar Friday (docket 22-14274). Argument time is 15 minutes for each side, it said. Gray’s petition argues that the agency’s authority over broadcast license transfers doesn’t apply to the company’s 2020 purchase of another broadcaster’s CBS network affiliate in Anchorage because no licenses were transferred (see 2309140058).

NAB filed a challenge Friday to the FCC's Dec. 26 quadrennial review order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, joining a number of similar challenges filed in other circuits (see 2402250001). The cases are all to be consolidated in the 8th Circuit under the order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (see 2403050075). The FCC failed to meet its statutory obligation to review ownership rules every four years, exceeded its authority by tightening rules rather than relaxing them, and violated the First Amendment by limiting stations from airing multiple top-four networks on multicast channels, alleged NAB in its petition for review (docket 24-1055). The new rules are content-based restrictions on television stations outside the FCC's authority, said the petition. The FCC also ignored the will of Congress and violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not considering evidence in the record on competition faced by broadcasters. “The record shows that advertisers are increasingly diverting resources away from local radio and television stations in favor of digital promotions,” the petition said. “But the Quadrennial Order disregards these bedrock changes in the media and advertising landscape.” The court should vacate and set aside the order, NAB said.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation randomly picked the 6th U.S. Court of Appeals to consolidate a pair of petitions for review that challenge the FCC’s Dec. 21 report and order updating the commission’s data breach notification requirements, said its consolidation order Monday (docket MCP No. 178). The Ohio Telecom Association filed its petition Feb. 20 in the 6th Circuit (see 2402210026), and the Texas Association of Business did so two days later in the 5th Circuit (see 2402230024). Both petitions seek review on grounds that the updated data breach notification rules exceed the FCC’s statutory authority.