A federal judge issued a $910,700 judgment against Newman Broadcasting over the company’s claiming new entrant bidding credits for which it wasn’t eligible, DOJ announced Thursday. The alleged violation concerned bids for radio frequencies. Between 2005 through 2007, Newman certified it was eligible for a 35 percent new entrant bidding credit though it was “in part controlled by an experienced radio station owner with other stations in the same market” and thus not, the department said. The court judgment resolves a 2016 lawsuit by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia in U.S. District Court in Washington arguing the company violated the False Claims Act. Newman didn’t comment.
Charter Communications and El Centro, California, ended their reciprocal legal fight over a blackout of Northwest Broadcasting stations on the operator (see 1804260003). The dispute ended in June (see 1806080051). U.S. District Judge Anthony Battaglia of San Diego last week issued an order granting the sides' joint motion for dismissal (in Pacer, docket 18-CV-00679-AJB-PCL) in Charter's claim that El Centro meddled in negotiations with Northwest. The two sides the same day filed a joint motion to dismiss (in Pacer, docket 18-cv-00785-AJB-PCL) in El Centro's complaint alleging violations of the California False Claims Act. El Centro and a handful of other communities also filed a complaint with the FCC alleging a Charter violation of the 30-day advance notice rule with the Feb. 2 blackout (see 1804050049).
El Centro, California, can't show Charter Communications' actions weren't consistent with the terms of service the city accepted as a cable subscriber, the MVPD said in a docket 18-cv-00785-AJB-PCL reply (in Pacer) in support of its motion to dismiss El Centro's complaint alleging violations of the California False Claims Act (see 1805170002). The reply, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in San Diego, said El Centro also can't dispute it kept accepting Charter video service while knowing two Northwest Broadcasting local stations were blacked out, so it can allege a false claim or material representation. Charter also said its terms of service don't promise a particular channel lineup, reserving the discretion to modify channel lineups. The city's outside counsel didn't comment Thursday.
That Charter Communications bills in advance, with cable subscribers thus knowing the particulars of claims, doesn't preclude those bills from constituting false claims for payment, said El Centro, California, in an opposition (in Pacer) Wednesday in docket 18-cv-00785-AJB-PCL in U.S. District Court in San Diego. It responded to Charter's motion (in Pacer) seeking dismissal of El Centro claims the cable operator is violating the California False Claims Act in removing Northwest Broadcasting affiliates without then reimbursing the city, a customer (see 1804260003). Charter's motion to dismiss last month said El Centro, in accepting its services, agreed to the terms of service with full knowledge two channels were blacked out, and the city's remedy was to terminate service or follow the dispute procedures in the terms. The MVPD is suing El Centro for alleged interference in the carriage dispute with Northwest (see 1805110057).
With El Centro's new citation against Charter Communications alleging other violations of California state law and the city issuing notices seeking payment of penalties, Charter Thursday in U.S. District Court in San Diego filed a docket 18-cv-00679-AJB-PCL first amended complaint (in Pacer). The company said California's Digital Infrastructure & Video Competition Act (DIVCA) pre-empts all the city code provisions on which the original citations are based and lays out notice requirements El Centro didn't meet when it issued the new citation. The amended suit asks for a declaration that DIVCA pre-empts the city code provisions that are the basis of the citations and an injunction preventing the city from trying to enforce its pre-empted municipal code violations. El Centro didn't comment Friday. The operator sued El Centro in April for allegedly meddling in the MVPD's carriage dispute with Northwest Broadcasting (see 1804060003) and the municipality is suing Charter under the California False Claims Act for removing Northwest affiliates from its channel lineup without then reimbursing the city, a subscriber (see 1804260003).
El Centro, California, -- being sued in U.S. District Court by Charter Communications for allegedly interfering in the cable company's carriage dispute with Northwest Broadcasting (see 1804060003) -- is now pursuing its own complaint against the operator. Charter, in a docket 18-cv-00785-JLS-BLM removal notice (in Pacer) Monday in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, said the March El Centro complaint should move from California Superior Court to federal court because the civil penalties being sought could exceed $75,000 and because Charter is headquartered in Connecticut. Outside counsel for the city said Thursday that removal is automatic, though it has 30 days from the filing of a notice of removal to file a motion to remand. El Centro said Charter was violating the California False Claims Act in removal of two Northwest Broadcasting affiliates from its channel lineup without then reimbursing the city, a Charter subscriber. It said the operator continues to bill the city in full despite "knowingly submitting false claims for payment." The company didn't comment Thursday.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., chastised Facebook, Google and Twitter for refusing to testify at a Thursday hearing on social media filtering (see 1804250072). Democratic members accused Republicans of considering social media issues only when it suits their interests. The committee debated perceived platform censorship against conservatives and Christians.
The New York Supreme Court refused to dismiss the state’s lawsuit against Charter Communications that claims the company deceived customers about internet speeds (see 1801120009). In a ruling last week in case 450318-2017E, Judge Peter Sherwood rejected Charter arguments that federal law pre-empts the New York attorney general’s claims. The FCC’ net neutrality order doesn’t support Charter’s case, either, Sherwood said: It "includes no language purporting to create, extend or modify the preemptive reach of the [FCC] Transparency Rule.” Charter failed “to identify any provision of the [False Claims Act (FCA)] that preempts state anti-fraud or consumer-protection claims, or reflects any intention by Congress to make federal law the exclusive source of law protecting consumers from broadband providers' deceptive conduct,” Sherwood wrote. Neither the AG’s claims nor New York’s consumer protections laws conflict with the FCC’s transparency rule, the judge said. "It does not, contrary to defendants' arguments, provide a safe harbor for statements outside those disclosures.” A Charter spokeswoman said the court “made no ruling on the allegations about historic Time Warner Cable practices, and we will continue to contest these claims vigorously as the case progresses.” The company “not only delivers its advertised internet speeds, we have in fact raised the minimum broadband speeds that all our New York customers receive, at the same price,” she said.
Legislation to revise communications surveillance laws will be officially offered Friday, House Judiciary Committee leaders said at a news conference Thursday. Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said he’s confident a bill can be passed before authority expires Dec. 31. A discussion draft released Wednesday (see 1710040066) attempts to strike a balance between providing law enforcement tools to target criminal activity and the need to protect civil liberties, lawmakers said. The White House will continue to seek a clean reauthorization with no sunset, said a National Security Council spokesman.
A surveillance transparency ordinance proposed in Oakland, California, passed unanimously Tuesday at a hearing of the City Council Public Safety Committee. The measure, which moves to the full council, requires public notice and comment before using surveillance technologies, with the council deciding whether to allow adoption of the technologies (see 1705080044). Oakland supports the proposed ordinance, said Joe Devries, assistant to the city administrator. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and community groups also supported the proposal at the streamed hearing. No one testified against it, though public safety groups opposed a similar measure at the California legislature (see 1703140017). "The Public Safety Committee's unanimous support for a citizen drafted surveillance ordinance demonstrates their belief that transparency and citizen input around complicated subjects are necessary, that whistleblowers are to be protected, and that nondisclosure agreements subvert good government," Oakland Privacy Advisory Commission Chairman Brian Hofer emailed Wednesday.