Monday's Supreme Court decision on whether the president can fire the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director doesn’t have much bearing on the FCC, said attorneys and academics in interviews. Seila Law v. CFPB hinged on whether provisions protecting the CFPB director from removal were legal. The court struck down those rules in a 5-4 decision. Chief Justice John Roberts said protections against removal for agencies headed by multimember commissions or boards from both parties -- such as the FCC or FTC -- are distinct from protections for those headed by a single individual, such as the CFPB. That means the ruling is unlikely to have much application for the FCC or FTC, said University of Minnesota School of Journalism assistant professor-media law Christopher Terry and Andrew Schwartzman, Benton Institute for Broadband & Society senior counselor.
Monday's Supreme Court decision on whether the president can fire the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director doesn’t have much bearing on the FCC, said attorneys and academics in interviews. Seila Law v. CFPB hinged on whether provisions protecting the CFPB director from removal were legal. The court struck down those rules in a 5-4 decision. Chief Justice John Roberts said protections against removal for agencies headed by multimember commissions or boards from both parties -- such as the FCC or FTC -- are distinct from protections for those headed by a single individual, such as the CFPB. That means the ruling is unlikely to have much application for the FCC or FTC, said University of Minnesota School of Journalism assistant professor-media law Christopher Terry and Andrew Schwartzman, Benton Institute for Broadband & Society senior counselor.
The FCC’s $48 million settlement with Sinclair Broadcast doesn’t find the company in violation of the FCC’s candor rules, nor require the company to admit violations of the good faith negotiation or of candor requirements, said the order and consent decree released Friday. It also prevents any future enforcement action or petitions to deny based on the company’s sponsorship ID violations or other matters (see 2005060063).
Small satellite operators (SSO) challenging the FCC's C-band clearing order (see 2005050047) asked the agency to delay acting further pending judicial review before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Proceeding watchers said the agency is unlikely to accede. The commission didn't comment.
A voted on yet unreleased order and consent decree resolving investigations into conduct of Sinclair (see 2005060063) doesn’t conclude it was untruthful with the commission and says the TV broadcaster acted in good faith based on the company’s understanding of precedent during negotiations to buy Tribune, industry and FCC officials told us Thursday. The order and consent decree was approved 3-2, with the Democrats opposed, officials said. The decree includes a compliance plan that requires reporting for four years but doesn’t involve spinoffs or other stiffer requirements beyond the $48 million penalty, and prevents further FCC proceedings on the allegations, the officials said.
Sinclair agreed to a $48 million civil penalty as part of settling an FCC probe of the company's since-killed takeover of Tribune Media, the agency announced (see 2005060061) Wednesday. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said the agency isn't revoking Sinclair's licenses after staff investigated various allegations. That fit with expectations as staffers were reviewing lack of candor that potentially occurred during the pendency of Sinclair/Tribune (see 1906270068).
The public interest in the FCC disclosing the IP addresses, user-agent headers and related time stamps of net neutrality proceeding comments filed in its electronic comment filing system "is great because the importance of the comment process to agency rulemaking is great." That's according to Judge Lorna Schofield of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in an order Thursday (in Pacer, docket 18-cv-08607) granting a summary judgment motion by New York Times Co. It sued after the agency denied its Freedom of Information Act request for the application programming interface proxy server log containing the requested information (see 1809200023). The order denied an FCC motion for summary judgment and a Times motion for Plaintiffs’ motion for reasonable attorneys’ fees. The commission didn't comment. Litigation "should not have been necessary to get this vital information," emailed Benton Institute Senior Counselor Andrew Schwartzman. "I hope the Commission will now comply promptly rather than drag things out with appeals that will not succeed." Tweeted Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel: "It's time for the agency to come clean."
The public interest in the FCC disclosing the IP addresses, user-agent headers and related time stamps of net neutrality proceeding comments filed in its electronic comment filing system "is great because the importance of the comment process to agency rulemaking is great." That's according to Judge Lorna Schofield of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in an order Thursday (in Pacer, docket 18-cv-08607) granting a summary judgment motion by New York Times Co. It sued after the agency denied its Freedom of Information Act request for the application programming interface proxy server log containing the requested information (see 1809200023). The order denied an FCC motion for summary judgment and a Times motion for Plaintiffs’ motion for reasonable attorneys’ fees. The commission didn't comment. Litigation "should not have been necessary to get this vital information," emailed Benton Institute Senior Counselor Andrew Schwartzman. "I hope the Commission will now comply promptly rather than drag things out with appeals that will not succeed." Tweeted Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel: "It's time for the agency to come clean."
The full FCC unanimously approved a reconsideration order clarifying some aspects of the agency’s previous clarification of its political file rules (see 2003300046). As industry sought, the regulator clarified that the political advertising reporting policies it instituted in October apply only to third-party issue ads, not candidate ads. The agency said it will use “a standard of reasonableness and good faith” in judging whether broadcasters are complying with rules for commercials in determining whether the spots trigger disclosure obligations, concern a national issue, or appropriately use acronyms or abbreviations. All other issues raised in recon petitions by NAB and broadcasters including Scripps and Meredith are “pending,” said a footnote.
The FCC Wireline Bureau denied more time for comments on public safety aspects of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s Mozilla v. FCC net neutrality decision. California’s Santa Clara County, Los Angeles, New York City and others sought the extension for comments that were due Monday, after a 21-day extension granted by the FCC (see 2004170029). The April 16 request citing COVID-19 was too late; rules say extension motions must be filed at least seven days before filings’ due date, said Monday's order. “It is not plausible that Requestors first became aware of their purported need for additional time less than seven days before the deadline for initial comments on April 20.” Democratic FCC commissioners sought extra time. "Local governments and public safety officials have asked for more time to comment so that they rightfully can focus on responding to the public health emergency at hand," said Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel. "It’s shameful that the FCC did not heed their request.” Commissioner Geoffrey Starks tweeted, "We should've done better." It's "shameful" the FCC doesn't "think that the pandemic is enough of an emergency to provide more time for first responders to file comments about how the Commission can ensure that first responders can serve the public in emergencies like pandemics," said Benton Institute for Broadband and Society Senior Counselor Andrew Schwartzman. Sunday, the California Public Utilities Commission supported a 60-day extension to comments. The record wouldn’t be complete without Santa Clara County since the court specifically referenced its concerns, but COVID-19 may limit its ability to weigh in, the CPUC said in docket 17-108. “These parties should not have to choose between protecting public health and safety and participating in this proceeding.” The FCC declined to comment beyond the order.