Court case

Today’s extension of the period for public comment about net neutrality is welcome. However, when it comes to collecting public feedback on what the FCC’s net neutrality repeal means when it comes to public safety and low-income consumers, an even longer extension would have been appropriate. The American public cares about net neutrality and should have every opportunity to let Washington know how important it is for every part of our civic and commercial lives.

The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau grants a 21-day extension of time for filing comments and reply comments on the Public Notice seeking to refresh the record in the Restoring Internet Freedom and Lifeline proceedings. With this 21-day extension, comments are due on April 20, 2020, and reply comments are due on May 20, 2020.

A federal appeals court grappled March 5 with whether average consumers know the difference between the ads and the organic search results that appear on Google. Arguing before the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, 1-800 Contacts — which is seeking to reverse a Federal Trade Commission decision that its trademark agreements violated antitrust law — contended that they don’t understand.

iPhone users are slated to get $25 each from an up-to-$500 million settlement of a class-action lawsuit over Apple's decision to throttle the performance of iPhones with degraded batteries. People eligible for the payments are US residents who used affected versions of iOS before December 21, 2017, on the iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6S, 6S Plus, 7, 7 Plus, or SE.

YouTube is a private forum and therefore not subject to free-speech requirements under the First Amendment, a US appeals court ruled. "Despite YouTube's ubiquity and its role as a public-facing platform, it remains a private forum, not a public forum subject to judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment," the court said.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wants a do-over on his 2005 decision in a case that had a major impact on the power of federal agencies and regulation of the broadband industry. In National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, better known as Brand X, Justice Thomas wrote the 6-3 majority opinion that upheld a Federal Communications Commission decision to classify cable broadband as an information service. But in a dissent on a new case released Feb 24, Justice Thomas wrote that he got Brand X wrong.

AT&T's mandatory-arbitration clause is unenforceable in a class-action case over AT&T's throttling of unlimited data, a panel of US appeals court judges ruled. The nearly five-year-old case has gone through twists and turns, with AT&T's forced-arbitration clause initially being upheld in March 2016.

The FCC got it wrong when it repealed net neutrality. The decision put the agency on the wrong side of history, the American public, and the law. And the courts agreed. That’s why they sent back to this agency key pieces regarding how the rollback of net neutrality protections impacted public safety, low income Americans, and broadband infrastructure. Today, the FCC is seeking comment on how best to move forward. My advice? The American public should raise their voices and let Washington know how important an open internet is for every piece of our civic and commercial lives.

In Mozilla Corp. v. FCC,  the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the vast majority of the Federal Communications Commission’s 2017 decision to end net neutrality protections. However, the court also remanded three discrete issues for further consideration by the FCC. On February 6, 2020, the D.C. Circuit denied all pending petitions for rehearing, and the Court issued its mandate on February 18, 2020. With this Public Notice, the Wireline Competition Bureau seeks to refresh the record regarding the issues remanded to the FCC by the Mozilla Court.

A federal judge has ruled in favor of Sprint and T-Mobile’s $26 billion merger.