Vermont could be the first state to include a private right of action in a comprehensive privacy bill. The Vermont House voted 139-0 Friday to approve H-121, which would allow individuals to sue in privacy cases and give the state's attorney general an enforcement role. The bill will go next to the Senate. Initially, the House Commerce Committee decided not to advance H-121 in 2023 after members determined it needed work (see 2304060060). But on Thursday, lawmakers amended the bill, teeing up H-121 for a Friday vote. The Commerce Committee considered privacy testimony for four years to draft a “protective but largely technology-and industry-neutral proposal,” Rep. Monique Priestley (D) said. The amended bill would align with privacy laws in Connecticut and many other states, taking some features from each, Priestley added. Some would be “unique to Vermont,” including the private right of action and restrictions on “how businesses may use data to what is consistent with the reasonable expectations of consumers,” she said. For the Computer & Communications Industry Association, the “private right of action is our main point of concern with the bill's current language,” said CCIA State Policy Director Khara Boender: “The bill otherwise is largely harmonized with existing privacy frameworks” like Connecticut’s. Private rights of action in state laws such as the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act “have resulted in plaintiffs advancing frivolous claims with little evidence of actual injury,” Boender said. No other comprehensive privacy bill has a broad private right of action, though the California Consumer Privacy Act has a narrower one, said Husch Blackwell privacy attorney David Stauss. Whether it survives the Vermont Senate is an open question, he said. "I certainly expect that there will be significant pushback."
State enforcers of net neutrality report no legal actions against ISPs more than five years after the laws took effect. A Communications Daily public records request showed that Washington state’s attorney general's office received 21 complaints related to net neutrality since enacting its first law in March 2018, but most were resolved informally. Half the states with such laws told us they hadn’t received complaints.
The California Public Utilities Commission scolded Verizon Wireless in an order Thursday for its handling of a case of alleged customer fraud. The CPUC granted relief to a family of complainants through a 4-0 vote on a consent agenda during a Thursday meeting. Verizon could face further sanctions, the agency said. “During the course of this proceeding, Verizon failed to disclose material information concerning the porting and reassignment of at least one of Complainants’ mobile phone numbers,” said the draft decision in docket C.23-12-005. “This proceeding will remain open in order to explore an Order to Show Cause against Verizon for this material omission.” The complainants alleged that, without notice, Verizon terminated service to and locked their five iPhones and associated phone numbers for reasons of fraud. The customers said that, as a result, they had to buy five phones and suffered irreparable injury to their businesses because they couldn’t port their locked numbers to another carrier. Verizon asked to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because its agreement with customers requires arbitration. However, the CPUC said the arbitration clause doesn’t circumvent the commission’s authority. Also, the carrier argued that it may terminate customers’ phone services without notice under its agreement and in exigent circumstances. Verizon argued that it acted after determining that the customers committed fraud. The CPUC agreed that the carrier could terminate customers’ service, but was “not satisfied with the way Verizon's Fraud Department handled this case and the allegations against the Complainants.” Accordingly, the CPUC required that Verizon confidentially “submit a comprehensive report of the procedures and criteria used … to identify and accuse customers of fraud,” with “specific evidence that supported Verizon's claim that the Complainants in this case engaged in fraudulent activity.” Also, the CPUC said the customer agreement “does not authorize Verizon to lock a phone or lock a number associated with a mobile phone.” So, the agency required Verizon to unlock five iPhones and their associated numbers. In addition, the CPUC required the carrier to refund the customers the costs of three of the five locked phones, plus the five replacement phones they bought after their service was terminated. Verizon declined to comment.
“Consumers shouldn’t have to pay higher prices because companies break the law,” U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland told a news conference Thursday announcing the bipartisan antitrust suit (docket 2:24-cv-04055) against Apple brought by DOJ and the AGs of 15 states and the District of Columbia. DOJ alleges in USA v. Apple that the tech giant has consolidated its monopoly power “not by making its own products better but by making other products worse.”
The California Public Utilities Commission again delayed votes on an AT&T enforcement item and another proposal to make a foster youth program permanent. Both were scheduled for Thursday’s meeting, but staff postponed them until the April 18 meeting, said a CPUC hold list Tuesday. CPUC President Alice Reynolds previously asked to address the AT&T item at a Feb. 15 meeting (see 2402150067). It would deny the carrier’s corrective action plan explaining how it will correct failures and improve service after failing to meet the state’s out-of-service repair interval standard in 2021. In addition, the CPUC originally planned a Feb. 15 vote on the foster youth proposal but twice postponed it. Earlier this month, the agency received a dire warning from the foster youth pilot program’s administrator, iFoster (see 2403110042), which said the current draft would create a program “destined to fail.”
Public interest groups and two academics urged the FCC to update its approach to net neutrality rules to address issues concerning new services like network slicing, which industry, particularly T-Mobile (see 2402260058), has raised. “Open Internet protections primarily focus on providers’ practices when providing broadband Internet access service [BIAS],” the filing said: “But ever since the FCC first adopted comprehensive open Internet protections in 2010, the agency has recognized that other services that are delivered over the same last-mile connection … may also undermine the open Internet, harming innovation, competition, investment, and user choice.” The FCC should consider how the service is defined “in the first sentence of the BIAS definition … or a functional equivalent of regular BIAS,” advocates said. The technology shouldn’t harm the open internet “by negatively affecting the capacity available for, and the performance of, BIAS, either dynamically or over time” or “have the purpose or effect of evading Open Internet protections,” the filing said. The filing was made by the Open Technology Institute at New America; Public Knowledge; Barbara van Schewick, director of Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society; and Scott Jordan, computer science professor at the University of California, Irvine.
Prepare for more California privacy activity in coming months, California Privacy Protection Agency Senior Privacy Counsel Lisa Kim said Wednesday. Kim previewed CPPA enforcement, rulemaking and legislative work at a virtual FCBA privacy symposium Wednesday. A growing patchwork of state privacy laws makes it difficult for businesses to create a good consumer experience for making privacy choices, said corporate privacy practitioners during a later panel.
The California Public Utilities Commission scrapped its procedural schedule for AT&T’s petition seeking statewide relief from carrier of last resort (COLR) obligations. The commission will release a new schedule after April 30, which is the due date for possible replacement COLRs to notify the CPUC that they want to replace AT&T in particular areas, Administrative Law Judge Thomas Glegola ruled Tuesday in docket A.23-03-003. An evidentiary hearing was slated for April 23-25 under the previous, now-discarded schedule. AT&T urged the commission not to waste time seeking replacement COLRs last month (see 2402210038).
Social media companies should obtain parental consent before sending children push notifications that keep them on platforms, a bipartisan group of 43 state attorneys general told the FTC in comments due Monday (see 2312280030). Some tech and telecom groups warned that the FTC's push-notification proposal is likely to be unconstitutional and outside its statutory authority.
The California Public Utilities Commission received warnings Friday about how the CPUC plans to make a foster-youth pilot a permanent part of the California LifeLine program. IFoster, the pilot’s administrator, said the current draft is “unconscionable” and would create a program “destined to fail.” The CPUC "is about to take a successful Digital Equity program and destroy it while also making ineligible foster youth as they age out of foster care, the very time they need a communications device most to obtain housing, food, and apply for jobs,” the nonprofit iFoster commented in R.20-02-008. Moreover, it said the revised proposal “will result in 12,000 foster youth losing what has been to date a life-saving resource that they describe as a lifeline, a bright spot in their lives, and a necessity for their vital communications.” It's wrong for the CPUC to try to conform the program to the state's “ill-fitting regular LifeLine program,” which “routinely rejects foster youth.” Also, using the traditional LifeLine model would mean removing the mandate for providing a device for foster youth and "no requirements for high speed or unlimited data or hotspot capability,” said iFoster. Neither T-Mobile nor affiliate Assurance Wireless will participate in the proposed permanent program, T-Mobile commented. The revised proposal "still does not address how -- or whether -- current Pilot Program participants will receive service" after the pilot expires July 31, T-Mobile cautioned. Cox supported making the program a permanent part of California LifeLine. But the CPUC shouldn't assign the program its own minimum service standards or specific support amounts, the cable company said. The CPUC had planned to vote Feb. 15 on an earlier proposal but twice postponed the item. The commission now plans voting on the revised proposal at its March 21 meeting (see 2402290056 and 2403050016).