An administrative law judge recommended a $200,000 fine for T-Mobile’s MetroPCS in a California Public Utilities Commission investigation related to a state universal service fund surcharges dispute. The CPUC’s enforcement division sought a $10 million fine because the carrier insufficiently responded to a Sept. 27, 2021, data request (see 2209230032). MetroPCS’ response violated the state utilities code and a commission rule, and the carrier should pay the maximum $100,000 allowed for each offense, ALJ Robert Mason said. But the judge disagreed with the enforcement division that the company’s conduct was a continuing offense, which would allow for higher penalties. A pending and related court case didn’t excuse the carrier from responding fully, said Mason, who also dismissed the carrier's other objections. “A penalty is … needed to punish the degree of MetroPCS’ wrongdoing and ensure the protection of the public interest,” he said. Parties in docket I.22-04-005 have until July 25 to appeal the ALJ decision, or it will become final. T-Mobile didn’t comment.
California and France privacy regulators will collaborate under a declaration the California Privacy Protection Agency announced Tuesday. CPPA Executive Director Ashkan Soltani and Marie-Laure Denis, the Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertes (CNIL) chair, signed the pact in Paris. “We’re excited to collaborate with the CNIL and pave the way for information sharing on areas of mutual interest,” Soltani said in a CPPA news release. Denis said, “We are looking forward to working together on common research projects, to exchanging good practices or to sharing experiences. Data circulation on a global scale requires such an approach to go beyond the national and European framework.”
California’s Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday passed legislation that would ban companies from using children’s personal data to train AI systems without parental consent. The committee unanimously advanced AB-2877, and it’s now up for Senate Appropriations Committee consideration. Introduced by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D), the bill passed the California Assembly 73-0 in May. The legislation expands privacy protections under the California Consumer Privacy Act to include machine-learning technology. Bauer-Kahan told the committee the expansion is necessary because California passed its privacy law before the widespread use of AI. AB-2877 would require parental consent for children under 13 and teen consent for users aged 13-15. TechNet and the California Chamber of Commerce oppose the legislation. Chamber Policy Advocate Ronak Daylami said the bill is rooted in the assumption that it’s inherently harmful to use a teen’s personal information to train AI. Legislators should focus on a technology’s outputs instead of regulating and interfering with inputs, she said. Sen. Benjamin Allen (D) briefly noted the bill's potential for pushing companies out of California but conceded he hadn’t fully studied the measure. California’s current budget crisis has “made me acutely aware of how dependent we are on the tech industry to pay for all the programs we like,” Allen said. The legislation doesn’t impede businesses' ability to operate in the state, said Bauer-Kahan, noting a desire from Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) for the state to lead in AI technology (see 2405300064). Brokers are making a lot of money selling Californians’ data, and the state should clarify that it’s not allowed with kids unless there’s parental consent, she said.
A California Senate panel scaled back what the California Public Utilities Commission could require from cable companies under a proposed update of the state’s 2006 video franchise law, known as the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act (DIVCA). At a hearing webcast Monday, the Senate Communications Committee voted 12-4 to approve the Assembly-passed AB-1826 with amendments. The Senate committee delayed receiving testimony on an Assembly-passed equity bill (AB-2239) that would ban digital discrimination as defined by the FCC (see 2405230012).
The California Public Utilities Commission has it “backwards” in presuming that the carrier of last resort (COLR) remains necessary, Free State Foundation President Randolph May blogged Monday. The CPUC decided last week (see 2406200065) to open a proposed rulemaking that would update COLR regulations with “a rebuttable presumption that the COLR construct remains necessary, at least for certain individuals or communities in California.” May responded, “Given the undeniable change in the competitive landscape, driven by ongoing technological advancements … there should be a rebuttable presumption that the COLR construct remains unnecessary.”
Forcing tech platforms to pay for news content isn’t the right approach to protect local journalism, a Public Knowledge policy expert, an independent lawyer and a local news publisher executive said Monday. They spoke against proposals like the California Journalism Preservation Act, which will be considered at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday (see 2406120049). During a Computer & Communications Industry Association event, internet attorney Cathy Gellis said public discourse depends on access to information, and pay-for-news proposals reduce platforms’ incentives to share links. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., has championed a federal bill requiring platforms to pay to carry news (see 2309010048); similar proposals are seen in Canada and Australia. In the U.S., these proposals create First Amendment issues and conflicts with copyright law, whose purpose is ensuring the public benefits from copyrighted material, Gellis said. Public Knowledge Policy Director Lisa Macpherson noted the Copyright Office previously argued against copyright solutions for news publishers facing financial hardship (see 2206300023). Lion Publishers Executive Director Chris Krewson, who represents more than 500 independent news publishers, said saving small news outlets isn’t a journalism issue but rather a small-business problem. He said his members benefit from exposure and link-sharing on social media. The better solution is legislation that helps media startups with costs related to healthcare, media liability insurance and technology, said Krewson. "The death of your local newspaper is not the death of local news," he said, defending his members' ability to produce content independently.
AT&T and other major carriers continue clashing over giving FirstNet access to the 4.9 GHz band. The Coalition for Emergency Response and Critical Infrastructure on Friday said AT&T is attempting "a massive and illegal spectrum grab" in trying to give FirstNet what is essentially exclusive control of the band. The move would take "valuable mid-band spectrum away from local public safety users," CERCI said. It said AT&T hasn't mentioned that FirstNet customers already have access to all the carrier's 5G spectrum. Assigning the spectrum to FirstNet is "a poorly crafted nesting doll of bad licensing and legal theories designed solely to benefit AT&T" and cut off public safety users, CERCI said. The organization was responding to a docket 07-100 filing Friday in which AT&T boasted Public Safety Spectrum Alliance (PSSA) support for assigning the 4.9 GHz band spectrum to FirstNet (see 2401190067). AT&T said there's broad public safety consensus that mid-band spectrum is needed to build out 5G and integrating the spectrum into the nationwide public safety broadband network will let FirstNet improve network speed and capacity for public safety. A freeze on new entrants into the band would protect incumbents and allow robust use of otherwise underutilized spectrum, it said. AT&T said claims that FirstNet access to the band would be a windfall to the carrier are a mischaracterization. Criticizing the PSSA proposal, the California Department of Transportation last week said that a nationwide license to FirstNet "will create extensive and irreparable problems for the public-safety community." CDOT said network providers that integrate commercial spectrum and commercial network components into public safety broadband networks could deny the band's use for public safety users under the PSSA proposal.
The California Public Utilities Commission on Thursday denied AT&T relief from carrier of last resort obligations, while opening a rulemaking to take a fresh look at COLR rules. Also at its meeting, the CPUC approved broadband grants, acted on enforcement items and set annual budgets for the California Advanced Service Fund (CASF) and state video franchise law.
Vermont legislators failed to override a veto of the state's comprehensive privacy bill. Last week Gov. Phil Scott (R) vetoed H-121, which controversially included a private right of action and a kids code section similar to a California law that was temporarily enjoined. The tech industry lauded Scott's veto, while consumer advocates and the bill’s sponsor urged a legislative override (see 2406140017). Overrides require a two-thirds majority from each chamber. On Monday, the House met that threshold with a 128-17 vote, but the effort died in the Senate, where members voted 14-15. “Industry feared this legislation and worked so hard to kill it because it had real teeth to prevent their harmful data practices,” Consumer Reports Policy Analyst Matt Schwartz said. But the fight for strong Vermont privacy protections will continue, he added. The failure also disappointed Design It For Us, said co-Chair Zamaan Qureshi: The bill “would have been a much-needed step toward protecting youth from the sustained exploitation and undue harms that we experience from social media.”
A California bill requiring more public information on resiliency efforts by telecom companies cleared the Senate Communications Committee on Tuesday. The bill (AB-2765) would require the California Public Utilities Commission to report on inspections that ensure companies comply with resiliency plans. The Assembly previously passed the measure in a unanimous vote last month (see 2405220055). Communication during an emergency can be a matter of “life and death,” sponsor Gail Pellerin (D) said during the committee’s livestreamed hearing. The Utility Reform Network lobbyist Ignacio Hernandez said the bill would give Californians more confidence that communications networks will have backup power during disasters. While the state requires telecom companies to have backup power plans, the public currently can’t tell the degree to which companies are complying and whether remedial actions are needed, he said. The bill goes next to the Appropriations Committee.