California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) backed bills on kids’ privacy and social media addiction, the AG office said Monday. SB-976 by Sen. Nancy Skinner (D) would provide social media controls for parents, including the ability to decide whether their children see a chronological news feed or one based on an algorithm, the current default. Also, the bill would let parents stop social media notifications and block access to platforms overnight and during the school day. AB-1949 by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D) would amend the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) to stop businesses from collecting, using, sharing or selling personal data of anyone younger than 18, unless they get consent or if it’s absolutely needed for the business’ purpose. Parents would have to provide consent for users younger than 13. “Social media companies have shown us time and time again that for profits, they are willing to harness addictive content to target a vulnerable population: our children,” said Bonta. The bill was rebuked by NetChoice, which last year won a preliminary injunction against California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code (AADC) Act (see 2309190006). “These are the same harmful ideas recycled from California’s AADC,” said NetChoice General Counsel Carl Szabo. “Rather than violate the Constitution, annihilate privacy, and force the government control of families,” California policymakers should craft proposals educating “parents and kids and imprison[ing] predators.”
Public housing broadband grant recipients should provide free service without government subsidies, the California Public Utilities Commission could soon clarify. The CPUC may vote March 7 on a proposed decision that would adopt changes to the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) broadband public housing account and tribal technical assistance program (docket R.20-08-021). Responding to some commenters’ questions about the public housing program’s no-cost broadband obligation (see 2312140034), the CPUC would clarify that "the Commission’s intent is for BPHA grant recipients to provide broadband service at no cost to residents of the low-income community, without public purpose subsidies or other funding, which is consistent with our determination in Resolution T-17775 that ‘no cost’ means unsubsidized service that is free to customers.” The CPUC rejected a cable industry challenge to that resolution in September, affirming that service the affordable connectivity program subsidizes doesn’t count as free (see 2309010006). In general, the CPUC’s possible changes to the broadband public housing account “expand eligibility for non-publicly supported housing developments and for project costs to facilitate deployment of broadband networks in low-income communities that lack access to free broadband service that meets state standards,” the proposed decision said Monday. Changes to the tribal technical assistance program would align it with the local agency technical assistance program, the CPUC added. In a separate proceeding on utility service affordability (docket 18-07-006), the California Broadband and Video Association warned the CPUC not to expand the proceeding's focus beyond gas, water and electric. ISPs aren’t public utilities, the state cable association said Thursday. “The broadband marketplace continues to be marked by extensive and rapidly increasing competition across a variety of technologies and platforms, which disciplines prices and improves affordability without regulatory price controls.”
California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) announced an “investigative sweep” of streaming services and devices, alleging they don't comply with the California Consumer Privacy Act’s (CCPA) opt-out requirements for businesses that sell or share personal information of consumers, said a Friday news release. The investigation covers services that don’t offer an easy way for consumers to stop the sale of their data, said the release. The CCPA “secures increased privacy rights for California consumers,” including the right to know how businesses collect, share and disclose their personal information, it said. Under the CCPA’s right to opt out, businesses that sell personal data or share personal information for targeted advertising must give consumers the right to opt out, it said. Exercising that right “should be easy and involve minimal steps,” it added. Consumers using a smart TV should be able to navigate to the settings menu in a streaming service’s mobile app and enable the “Do Not Sell My Personal Information” setting, it said. Consumers’ preference to opt out should be “honored across different devices if they are logged into their account when they send their opt-out request." In addition, consumers should “easily encounter” a streaming service’s privacy policy with their CCPA rights, it said.
California should allow low-income consumers to apply for the state's LifeLine program without providing the last four digits of their social security numbers, consumer advocates told the California Public Utilities Commission Friday. The CPUC last month sought comments about expanding the program for those without SSNs (see 2312200019). Lifeline providers said they would consider it if the state makes up for a possible gap in federal funding and waives liability for incorrect enrollments.
House Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone of New Jersey led four Democrats Monday in filing the Do Not Disturb Act to counteract perceived undermining of anti-robocall protections following the U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous 2021 ruling in Facebook v. Duguid. In that case, the court backed a narrow definition of an automatic telephone dialing system under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (see 2104010063). Senate Communications Subcommittee leaders focused during an October hearing on DOJ’s perceived reluctance in enforcing existing anti-robocall statutes (see 2310240065).
Wireless carriers in comments this week condemned a “dynamic approach” to data and other proposals for California’s low-income program. The California Public Utilities Commission received feedback Wednesday on an Oct. 30 staff proposal for setting California LifeLine specific support amounts (SSA) and minimum service standards (MSS). Some urged the CPUC to tap the brakes, especially with uncertainty about continued funding for the federal affordable connectivity program (ACP).
Five states rely too much on fiber in their broadband, equity, access and deployment (BEAD) program plans, Wireless ISP Association CEO David Zumwalt said Tuesday in a letter to NTIA Administrator Alan Davidson. California, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina and New York will likely exhaust BEAD funds before connecting all unserved and underserved locations, warned Zumwalt: NTIA should direct the states to alter their proposals before the federal agency approves them. More than a dozen other state plans indicate they may lack money for non-deployment activities including digital equity projects, the wireless industry group’s CEO added: States could address the funding gap by deploying fixed wireless networks and setting an “appropriately low” extremely high cost per location threshold. Also, Zumwalt raised concerns with states that require up to five years of audited financial statements before applying for funds, “a gating criteria that will foreclose participation by many smaller broadband providers.”
More than a dozen small independent LECs urged the FCC to ensure any Title II reclassification of broadband is "accompanied by strong regulatory forbearance and state preemption language," which will prevent creation of a patchwork of state regulations (see 2401180042). An ex parte filing posted Tuesday in docket 23-320 said the California-based companies met virtually with an aide to Commissioner Brendan Carr Monday. The coalition sought "strong preemption language" that would "prevent disparate and accelerating state regulations" of broadband internet access service. The FCC "has an important opportunity to achieve a uniform, balanced national framework for broadband regulation through clear forbearance and preemption directives."
Consumer and industry advocates sounded alarms late last week over a proposed California ballot initiative that would make social media companies liable for up to $1 million in damages for each child their platform injures. Courts would likely find that Common Sense CEO James Steyer’s December proposal violates the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, said comments California DOJ forwarded to us Friday. For example, “Initiative 23-0035 is a misguided and unconstitutional proposal that will restrict all Californians’ access to online information,” the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) said.
Telecom and media companies support the intentions behind FCC and FTC “junk fees” regulatory actions, but implementation raises questions and potential compliance headaches, industry representatives said. At an FCBA event Monday, Brownstein Hyatt financial services lawyer Leah Dempsey said many industries see the White House and regulatory agency focus on junk fees as "kind of a campaign issue." She said President Joe Biden will likely be "touting the war on junk fees" at his next State of the Union address. Dempsey also said there are concerns that agencies are coming to predetermined outcomes on fees.