An FCC advisory opinion on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act would be “a fool's errand” and should be “DOA,” Commissioner Anna Gomez said Sunday in a thread on X responding to a New York Post report that FCC Chairman Brendan Carr is planning to act on 230 soon. “The FCC should not be in the business of controlling online speech,” Gomez said. “Congress and the courts must quickly step in to stop this unlawful power grab.”
Lawyers who made the recent arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson agreed that the case will likely turn on the views of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Morrison Foerster’s Joseph Palmore, who represented McKesson, and Gupta Wessler’s Matthew Wessler, representing McLaughlin, spoke during an FCBA continuing legal education event Wednesday.
Securus urged the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to transfer to the 5th Circuit the company’s challenge of the FCC’s July order implementing the Martha Wright-Reed Act of 2022, which reduces call rates for people in prisons while establishing interim rate caps for video calls (see 2407180039). Securus and various states disagreed sharply with public interest groups about whether the rates set were too low or potentially too high.
The FCC gave proper notice that the 2024 foreign-sponsored content rules could apply to noncandidate political advertising and public service announcements, the agency said in a brief Friday filed in docket 24-1296 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. It also said Congress authorized the requirement that stations obtain certifications that their air time isn’t being leased by foreign governments. The law gives the FCC the power to require broadcasters to use “reasonable” diligence to determine the sponsor of an ad or lease, the agency said, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s Loper Bright v. Raimondo decision striking down Chevron deference. “The use of the term ‘reasonable’ means Congress ‘authorized’ the agency ‘to exercise a degree of discretion’ in determining the diligence required,” the FCC said.
The Government Wireless Technology & Communications Association (GWTCA) and state departments of transportation in Utah and Washington defended their motion for a partial stay of an FCC requirement that current 4.9 GHz licensees provide the agency with granular licensing data not later than June 9 or face cancelation of their licenses (see 2412230048). They responded to the Public Safety Spectrum Alliance, which opposed the request (see 2412310023). PSSA, which supports giving the FirstNet Authority effective control of the band, said proponents of a stay didn’t meet FCC requirements for granting one.
With the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling overturning the FCC’s latest order (see 2501020047), the U.S. has likely seen the last gasps of net neutrality, Free State Foundation President Randolph May said in the Yale Journal on Regulation. “Because of Loper Bright’s burial of Chevron deference, there’s a good chance that the ‘net neutrality’ saga, finally, may be over, at least in the courts,” May wrote. “With the impending change in the FCC’s makeup, there’s virtually no chance the agency will seek reconsideration or appeal to the Supreme Court,” he added. Other parties in the litigation “favoring regulating ISPs like public utilities could pursue those avenues, but it’s unlikely they will want to risk a Supreme Court decision affirming the Sixth Circuit decision.” Congress, not the FCC, is “the appropriate forum for the debate regarding adoption of a proper policy framework for broadband providers.” Daniel Lyons, a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, also praised the 6th Circuit decision. “The court eschewed the easier path of ruling under the Major Questions Doctrine and instead tackled the complex and often contradictory language of the Communications Act,” Lyons wrote in a Thursday blog post. He saw the decision as a win for industry and innovation. The FCC can no longer “impose a one-size-fits-all business model on broadband providers, allowing them to explore innovations like 5G network slicing without fearing regulatory backlash,” he said: ISPs “are no longer at risk of rate regulation and other regulatory requirements that come with Title II classification, a category originally designed to discipline the telephone system.”
Sens. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., slammed the ruling of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (see 2501020047) vacating the FCC’s April net neutrality order. In a statement released Thursday, the lawmakers said, “Without net neutrality, consumers, small businesses, and innovators alike will face increased costs, reduced choice, and less competition. It is a lose-lose-lose.” They added, “This ruling upends the fundamental principle that internet service providers should not act as gatekeepers, favoring certain users, content, or services over others." Markey and Wyden said the decision also shows why the U.S. Supreme Court was wrong when it overturned the Chevron doctrine. The opinion “makes basic errors about communications technologies, neatly illustrating why expert regulators, not judges, are best positioned to make complex public policy decisions.” Andrew Schwartzman, senior counsel at the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, in an email wrote that the opinion “misreads” the 1996 Telecom Act “in finding that broadband internet service is not subject to the regulatory requirements of Title II of the Communications Act.” Among other concerns, “that deprives the FCC of the power to protect national security, insure that competitive broadband suppliers can have access to necessary distribution outlets and endangers wireless access programs for low-income consumers.” The “good news” was in the judges didn’t do, Schwartzman said. The three-judge panel “gave a narrow reading to the impact of the recent Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision overruling the Chevron doctrine,” he said. The court also didn’t “rely on the carriers’ ‘major question doctrine’ arguments, so that the FCC will retain the power to regulate various aspects of broadband service without future Congressional action.” But Seth Cooper, Free State Foundation director-communications policy studies, said the court offered a “straightforward reading” of the Communications Act. The opinion was “refreshing because it shows how traditional tools of statutory interpretation can be used to resolve even seemingly technical questions like the regulatory classification of broadband,” Cooper emailed: “It’s the type of decision that eluded us so long as lower courts were subject to the ‘Chevron doctrine’ and effectively required to rationalize even far-fetched agency interpretations or re-interpretations of supposed ambiguous statutory provisions.”
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling overturning the FCC’s latest net neutrality order Thursday was based on the court’s reading of the Communications Act and failed to dive into major questions items, as laid out in recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions (see 2409030030). It also means the next FCC, under President-elect Donald Trump, likely won’t spend its early days on a reversal of the order, which was approved 3-2 in April (see 2404250004).
Consumer groups representing the blind support NAB’s request for FCC clarification of its audible crawl rule, according to comments filed in docket 12-107 by last week’s deadline. The FCC has continuously waived the rule for nearly a decade because compliance isn’t technologically feasible, according to broadcasters. Last week, the FCC granted its latest, a six-month retroactive waiver (see 2412200055). “To the extent that information provided in an accessible text crawl is the same as the information provided by a nontextual graphic, we are tentatively supportive of a minor modification of the rule,” the American Foundation for the Blind and the American Council of the Blind said in a joint filing. In addition, any FCC effort to enforce the audible crawl waiver would be “legally suspect’ in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling overturning Chevron deference, Gray Local Media commented.
FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr’s recent warning letter to Disney CEO Bob Iger (see 2412240021) appears politically motivated, could be read as a reversal of Carr’s past stances on sticking to the text of FCC rules and evokes the long-defunct fairness doctrine, according to former FCC commissioners, academics and attorneys we interviewed. President-elect Donald Trump has selected Carr to head the FCC.