AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless will pay about $10.25 million to the 50 states and the District of Columbia under an agreement that settles claims of deceptive and misleading advertising practices, multiple state AGs announced Thursday. The bipartisan AGs signed a pact with AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless to resolve the investigations. The three carriers “baited consumers with deceptive claims about ‘unlimited’ data, ‘free’ phone offers and incentives to switch, only to switch the offer and not deliver on their advertised claims,” Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison (D) said. In addition to the monetary penalties, the carriers agreed to make future ads truthful, accurate and not misleading, Ellison's office said. Going forward, unlimited must mean no numerical limits and such plans should disclose any data speed restrictions and what triggers them, it said. Carriers offering to pay for customers to switch companies must clearly disclose what and how they will pay consumers, it said. Among other requirements, the carriers must present clear terms and conditions for so-called free devices or services, it said. A CTIA spokesperson said the “voluntary agreements reflect no finding of improper conduct and reaffirm the wireless industry’s longstanding commitment to clarity and integrity in advertising so that consumers can make informed decisions about the products and services that best suit them.” T-Mobile said, “After nine years, we are glad to move on from this industry-wide investigation with this settlement and a continued commitment to the transparent and consumer-friendly advertising practices we’ve undertaken for years.” AT&T and Verizon referred us to CTIA’s statement. State AGs slammed the carriers as they applauded the settlement. New York AG Letitia James (D) said it’s a good resolution after carriers “lied to millions of consumers.” Many wireless carriers' deals are “too good to be true,” California AG Rob Bonta (D) said. Ohio AG Dave Yost (R) said “it's unacceptable to make false promises about what consumers might expect from their wireless carriers.”
Congress should remove federal preemption language from the American Privacy Rights Act (see 2405080055) and allow state attorneys general to continue enforcing state laws, 15 Democratic AGs wrote Congress Wednesday. AGs signing the letter were from California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Washington, D.C. “We encourage Congress to adopt legislation that sets a federal floor, not a ceiling, for critical privacy rights and respects the important work already undertaken by states,” they wrote. California AG Rob Bonta (D) said his state is “at the forefront of privacy protections and must retain the ability to respond to privacy concerns as tech rapidly innovates. We urge Congress not to undercut the important protections that states have established.”
The California Public Utilities Commission set next steps for foster youth and broadband equity, access and deployment (BEAD) programs through two 4-0 votes at a livestreamed meeting Thursday. The vote on extending the CPUC’s current foster youth pilot program beyond July came after multiple delays as the agency and stakeholders considered how to ensure a seamless transition. And even with the first volume of California’s BEAD plan done, much work remains to achieve maximum broadband across the state, California commissioners said.
The FCC gave net neutrality supporters some of what they were looking for on 5G network slicing, one of the most contested issues before commissioners, providing further clarity (see 2404190038), a comparison of the order and a draft shows. The FCC posted the order late Tuesday. The commission approved it 3-2 at a contentious meeting last month.
The California Public Utilities Commission could freeze the state LifeLine specific support amount (SSA) for wireline and wireless providers at $19 until it adopts another method for calculating the SSA, Administrative Law Judge Robyn Purchia said in a Monday ruling in docket R20-02-008. Purchia sought comments on the possible freeze by June 3. Replies will be due June 14. Carriers in January comments resisted a CPUC staff proposal for updating the method (see 2401250051). “We agree with parties’ recommendations to further analyze market conditions, customer impacts, pilot results, and the regulatory landscape,” Purchia wrote. “However, we also see a need to de-link the SSA from the highest [carrier of last resort] basic rate before rates increase again in 2025.”
Minnesota won’t craft a law that might put the state's $652 million allocation from NTIA’s broadband equity, access and deployment (BEAD) program in jeopardy, Senate Broadband Committee Chair Aric Putnam (D) pledged shortly after midnight Tuesday. Up late considering a labor budget bill that included an industry-opposed broadband safety proposal, senators voted 35-32 to reject amendments from Sen. Gene Dornink (R) that would have scrapped the worker safety plan.
Most comments support an Enterprise Wireless Alliance petition at the FCC seeking modifications to Part 90 rules to eliminate the assignment of frequencies within the band's 809-816/854-861 MHz portion to specific pools of eligible entities (see 2402280033). Public safety groups opposed the change.
Indian Peak Properties seeks to vacate the FCC’s March 7 order denying its petitions for declaratory ruling, said its petition for review Monday (docket 24-1108) in U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit. Indian Peak's petitions had sought a federal preemption under the commission’s over-the-air reception devices (OTARDs) rule of a decision by Rancho Palos Verdes, California, to revoke, under local ordinances, the company’s conditional use permit for the deployment of rooftop antennas on a local property. The FCC’s order denying Indian Peaks that relief was premised on a new “human presence” rule for OTARDs, the petition said. That means FCC staff found that Indian Peak failed to plead facts sufficient to establish a regular human presence at the property where the antennas were deployed. But such a “substantive rule” under the Administrative Procedure Act requires a notice-and-comment rulemaking to be legal and effective, said Indian Peak's petition. But “no notice was given, and the public was afforded no opportunity to comment on the new rule,” it said. Instead, the order announced this rule when it denied Indian Peak’s application for review before the commission, it said. The order also upholds FCC staff’s refusal to declare a proceeding, and hold in abeyance state court litigation, it said, The order thus “upholds staff’s violations of FCC rules of procedure,” it said. With its appeal, Indian Peak seeks reversal of these “arbitrary and capricious agency actions that are contrary to law,” and remand to the FCC “for treatment not inconsistent” with the D.C. Circuit’s opinion, it said. On remand and with the FCC’s grant of Indian Peak’s petitions, the local zoning ordinance would be preempted, and the company would be able to replace the disputed antennas on the rooftop of the property, it said.
A proposal that the FCC launch a rulemaking authorizing 5/5 MHz broadband deployments in the 900 MHz band received support in comments, which were due Thursday in docket 24-99. But commenters stressed that the relocation process must be voluntary, and that the rules must protect incumbents from harmful interference. The filings offer a snapshot of how 900 MHz is used today.
Vermont’s net neutrality law seems in good shape legally following two significant, late-April decisions by the FCC and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said experts on the statute. ISP groups must decide what to do with their 2018 lawsuit at U.S. District Court of Vermont now that the case can resume following the 2nd Circuit ruling.