The Benton Institute for Broadband & Society seeks to intervene on the FCC’s behalf in most of the petitions for review, now consolidated in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (see 2402120077), that seek to vacate the commission’s Nov. 20 digital discrimination order, said the institute’s motion Tuesday. Benton’s own petition for review (docket 34-1317) challenges portions of the FCC’s order pertaining to its absence of a formal complaint process and the order’s treatment of providers that receive broadband, equity, access and deployment funds under the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (see 2401310003). Though Benton seeks review “of a few elements of the agency decision at issue in these cases, it supports all other parts of that order,” it said. The rules under review in the Nov. 20 order “will advance broadband deployment and adoption by prohibiting discriminatory practices,” said the motion. Benton “will benefit from successful implementation and enforcement of those rules,” it said. If the order under review is reversed or vacated as a result of the grant of all or portions of the petitions for review, Benton “will have to expend additional institutional resources to combat discriminatory practices that impede or preclude additional broadband deployment and adoption,” it said. Benton’s motion to intervene specially excludes the petition filed by the Media Alliance and Great Public Schools Now (docket 24-1319), it said. It’s evident that the petitioners in that docket “are similarly situated with Benton as to the issues for which they seek review,” said the motion. Benton has contacted all the parties through its counsel, and all have stated that they won't object to the grant of the motion, it said.
Communications Litigation Today is tracking the below lawsuits involving appeals of FCC actions. Cases marked with an * were terminated since the last update. Cases in bold are new since the last update.
Petitioners Maurine and Matthew Molak want the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to “disregard the statutory requirement” under Communications Act Section 405(a) that persons who weren’t parties before the FCC file a petition for reconsideration as a “condition precedent” to seeking judicial review, said the FCC and DOJ reply Friday (docket 23-60641) in support of their motion to dismiss the Molaks’ petition (see 2402070002).
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the FCC’s motion suspending the briefing schedule on Maurine and Matthew Molak's petition for review to vacate the commission’s Oct. 25 declaratory ruling that authorizes E-rate program funding for Wi-Fi on school buses until the court resolves the FCC’s motion to dismiss the Molaks’ petition (see 2402070002), said a clerk’s order Thursday (docket 23-60641). But the 5th Circuit, in a separate clerk’s order Thursday, denied the FCC’s unopposed motion for extra time to reply to the Molaks’ opposition to the motion to dismiss (see 2402120064).
A Nashville-based marketing firm is suing TracFone and Verizon over false claims it paid field agents on commission, a practice barred by the FCC Lifeline program, said the firm's breach of contract complaint Thursday (docket 1:24-cv-20600) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Miami.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act restriction on artificial and prerecorded voice messages applies to any call, including calls sent via MMS, said the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the National Consumer Law Center in an amicus brief Wednesday (docket 23-3826) in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The brief supports plaintiff-appellant Jacob Howard’s appeal to reverse the district court’s dismissal of his TCPA complaint against the Republican National Committee (see 2402080021).
Florida’s Senate Bill 7072 is a “compendium of First Amendment problems,” and Texas’ HB-20 social media law “interferes with Petitioners’ First Amendment rights,” said petitioners NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) in reply briefs Thursday before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Ligado will oppose Iridium's request to intervene in its L-band litigation against the U.S., the company said in an email to us. Iridium and aviation interests filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims last week joining the U.S. in opposing the suit (see 2402120009). Ligado said Iridium is a competitor, and DOD -- also a defendant in Ligado's suit -- is one of its largest sources of revenue. "Iridium is using its proposed participation to support a primary customer, shield itself from discovery, and benefit from the government’s taking of our property," Ligado said. "Contrary to the amicus curiae parties’ assertions, the bipartisan FCC unanimously authorized Ligado to operate terrestrial 5G services within our licensed spectrum after a rigorous, multiyear process," it said. "That April 2020 decision is final."
The U.S. Supreme Court granted Monday’s unopposed motion by the U.S. solicitor general for a one-month extension to April 3 to respond to the Consumers’ Research cert petition against the FCC (see 2402120035), said a text-only docket notice Tuesday (docket 23-743). This extension is necessary because the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has granted rehearing en banc in a parallel case, Consumers’ Research v. FCC (docket 22-60008), said the motion. The 5th Circuit’s decision could affect the resolution of the cert petition in this case, said the motion.
T-Mobile’s transfer of two customers’ cellphone numbers to a third-party device via a SIM swap, without their permission or authorization, allowed a fraudster to unlawfully access their accounts and steal more than $50,000, said a Friday negligence complaint (docket 1:24-cv-00627) in U.S. District Court for Northern Georgia in Atlanta.