Court case

President Donald Trump's reelection campaign is suing a Wisconsin TV station for running an anti-Trump commercial that pieces together audio clips of the president talking about the coronavirus outbreak in a way they argue is misleading and false. The ad by the Democratic super PAC Priorities USA features a series of soundbites in which Trump downplayed the threat posed by the virus, while a chart that is splashed across the screen gradually begins to shoot upward as cases of the virus skyrocketed across the US.

According to the DC Circuit’s logic, the Federal Communications Commission’s jurisdiction over broadband Internet access services now resides in some sort of regulatory purgatory.

Twenty-eight senators wrote a letter to the Federal Communications Commission demanding that it consider how repealing net neutrality could negatively impact public safety, universal access, and broadband competition. In October 2019, the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the Trump FCC’s repeal of the Open Internet Order as lawful but also ruled that the FCC failed to adequately consider public safety, the Lifeline program for low-income consumers, and competitive broadband providers’ access to poles needed to deploy their networks.

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.