Justia Communications Law Opinion Summaries

An 18-year-old high school senior from Texas was indicted by a federal grand jury for transmitting threats in interstate commerce, based on statements he made while using the online gaming platform Roblox. The statements, made in a virtual “Church” experience, referenced possessing firearms, preparing munitions, and intentions to commit violence at a Christian event. Other Roblox users, located in Pennsylvania and Nevada, reported these statements to the FBI, believing them to be serious threats rather than mere role-play or trolling. The government alleged the defendant's remarks corresponded to a real concert scheduled in Austin and supported its case with evidence from the defendant’s internet history and statements captured by a keylogger.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed the indictment before trial, concluding no reasonable juror could find that the defendant’s statements constituted “true threats” outside the protection of the First Amendment. The court found the context—a role-playing video game environment filled with extreme and offensive avatars—undermined the seriousness of the statements, and excluded evidence of the defendant’s conduct outside Roblox as irrelevant. The district court released the defendant without conditions, later imposing some conditions after a government request.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the question of whether the statements were “true threats” is a factual issue that should ordinarily be decided by a jury at trial, not by the judge on a pretrial motion. The court found that disputed facts and contextual uncertainties required a trial on the merits, and that the district court erred by resolving these issues prematurely. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the indictment and remanded for further proceedings. The appeal regarding the defendant’s release was dismissed as moot. View "United States v. Burger" on Justia Law

A company providing internet and phone services on the Delmarva Peninsula began experiencing significant network interference, which it attributed to a larger telecommunications provider. The company alleged that the interference resulted from the provider operating outside its assigned frequency band, transmitting at excessive power levels, and deploying 5G technology in a manner that impeded its established 4G service. Additionally, the company claimed that the larger provider undermined its business relationships with university partners from whom it leased necessary radio frequencies, by interfering with those relationships and attempting to acquire the relevant FCC licenses.After informal attempts to resolve the interference, the company filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), requesting relief including monetary compensation for necessary network upgrades. The FCC dismissed the complaint, and the company’s request for reconsideration remained pending. Subsequently, the company filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, asserting claims under the Communications Act and Maryland state law. The district court dismissed all claims, concluding that the federal claim was either unavailable or barred, the state-law claims were preempted, and the remaining state-law tort claim failed under the applicable legal standard.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that the plaintiff’s claim under the Communications Act was barred by the Act’s election-of-remedies provision, as the company had already sought relief from the FCC on the same underlying issues. The court further held that the Communications Act expressly preempted the state-law network interference claims. Finally, the court found that the company had forfeited its only appellate argument regarding the dismissal of its business tort claim, as it had failed to preserve that argument in the district court. Thus, the judgment was affirmed. View "Bloosurf, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc." on Justia Law

A national trade association representing large online businesses challenged a recently enacted California statute designed to protect minors’ privacy and well-being online. The law imposes specific requirements on businesses whose online services are likely to be accessed by children under eighteen, including obligations regarding data use, age estimation, and restrictions on certain user interface designs known as “dark patterns.” Before the law took effect, the association brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, arguing that several provisions were unconstitutional on First Amendment and vagueness grounds, and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement.The district court initially enjoined the entire statute, finding the association was likely to succeed on its facial First Amendment challenge. On the State’s appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated most of the injunction, affirming only as to a specific requirement regarding Data Protection Impact Assessments and related inseverable provisions, and remanded for the district court to analyze the association’s other facial challenges and the issue of severability under the Supreme Court’s clarified standards in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC. On remand, the district court again enjoined the entire statute and, in the alternative, seven specific provisions.On further appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the association did not meet its burden for a facial challenge to the law’s coverage definition or its age estimation requirement, vacating the injunction as to those. However, the court affirmed the preliminary injunction as to the law’s data use and dark patterns restrictions on vagueness grounds, finding the provisions failed to clearly delineate prohibited conduct. The court vacated the injunction as to the statute’s remainder and remanded for further proceedings on severability. View "NETCHOICE, LLC V. BONTA" on Justia Law

A group of activists and the Chinook Center, a nonprofit organization, participated in a housing-rights march in Colorado Springs. After the march, the Colorado Springs Police Department (CSPD) launched an investigation targeting some participants. CSPD obtained three search warrants: two related to Jacqueline Armendariz, a protester accused of obstructing an officer by dropping her bike, and one targeting the Chinook Center’s Facebook account. The first Armendariz warrant authorized a search of her home and seizure of her electronic devices. The second allowed a search of data on those devices, including a broad keyword search. The third warrant authorized obtaining all posts, messages, and events from the Chinook Center’s Facebook account for a seven-day period.Armendariz and the Chinook Center filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against the City, individual CSPD officers, the FBI, and others, alleging that the warrants were overbroad in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement. They also brought state-law claims, and the Chinook Center alleged a violation of the Stored Communications Act. The district court granted motions to dismiss all claims, concluding that the officers were protected by qualified immunity, the plaintiffs failed to allege plausible constitutional violations, and that municipal liability was unsupported.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s ruling that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity regarding the warrant to seize Armendariz’s electronic devices. However, the court reversed the grant of qualified immunity to the officers for the second warrant (searching data on Armendariz’s devices) and the Facebook warrant, holding that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged these warrants were overbroad in violation of their clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. The court also reversed the dismissal of related claims against the City and remanded for further proceedings. The dismissals of Armendariz's claims against the FBI and the United States were affirmed. View "Armendariz v. City of Colorado Springs" on Justia Law

ARcare, Inc., a nonprofit community health center receiving federal funding, suffered a data breach in early 2022 when an unauthorized third party accessed confidential patient information, including names, social security numbers, and medical treatment details. After ARcare notified affected individuals, several patients filed lawsuits alleging that ARcare failed to adequately safeguard their information as required under federal law. Plaintiffs reported fraudulent invoices and that their information was found for sale on the dark web.The actions were removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, where six class actions were consolidated. ARcare sought to invoke absolute immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 233(a) of the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act (FSHCAA), which provides immunity for damages resulting from the performance of “medical, surgical, dental, or related functions.” ARcare moved to substitute the United States as defendant under the Federal Tort Claims Act, arguing the data breach arose from a “related function.” The district court denied the motion, finding that protecting patient information from cyberattacks was not sufficiently linked to the provision of health care to qualify as a “related function” under the statute.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the statutory immunity issue de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of immunity, holding that the FSHCAA’s language does not extend statutory immunity to claims arising from a health center’s data security practices. The court reasoned that “related functions” must be activities closely connected to the provision of health care, and data security is not such a function. Therefore, ARcare is not entitled to substitute the United States as defendant, and the denial of statutory immunity was affirmed. View "Hale v. ARcare, Inc" on Justia Law

A Texas-based company distributed files online that enabled the 3D printing of functional, untraceable firearms. After New Jersey’s Attorney General issued a cease-and-desist letter and the state legislature enacted a statute prohibiting the distribution of such files to unlicensed individuals, the company and an affiliated nonprofit restricted New Jersey residents from accessing these files. The plaintiffs challenged the actions, alleging violations of the First, Second, and Fourteenth Amendments.Initially, the plaintiffs filed suit in the Western District of Texas, which dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs then filed a similar suit in the District of New Jersey, alleging the statute constituted criminal censorship. After complex procedural maneuvers—including appeals and transfers between Texas and New Jersey, and requests for retransfer—the litigation proceeded in the District of New Jersey, which consolidated the relevant cases.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District of New Jersey’s decision to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The Third Circuit affirmed the lower court’s rulings. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying retransfer to Texas. The court further held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a Second Amendment claim, as there were no allegations that any plaintiff or member was prevented from 3D-printing a firearm. The court also found the statute was not void for vagueness under the Due Process Clause, as it provided fair notice of prohibited conduct. Finally, the court held that plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts showing that the computer code at issue was expressive and entitled to First Amendment coverage, as the complaint did not detail the nature or expressive use of the files. The dismissal with prejudice was affirmed. View "Defense Distributed v. Attorney General New Jersey" on Justia Law

A Pennsylvania-based company operating an online marketplace for firearms was sued under New Hampshire law by a former Boston police officer and his wife. Their claims alleged that the company’s website facilitated the sale of a firearm in New Hampshire in 2015, which was later used to shoot the officer in Boston in 2016. The plaintiffs asserted causes of action including negligence, aiding and abetting tortious conduct, public nuisance, loss of consortium, and loss of support, based on the website’s alleged design and operation in encouraging illegal gun sales.Previously, the plaintiffs had filed a similar suit in the Massachusetts Superior Court against the company and other defendants, but that court dismissed the claims against the company based on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, without ruling on personal jurisdiction. After jurisdictional discovery, the Massachusetts Superior Court subsequently dismissed the claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiffs then filed the present action in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, which denied their request for jurisdictional discovery and dismissed their claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding the company had not purposefully availed itself of the protections of New Hampshire’s laws.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling in part and vacated it in part. The First Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie case of purposeful availment based on contacts up to 2016, but concluded that evidence of thousands of “New Hampshire” firearm listings on the website from 2018 onward, when considered with other evidence, sufficed for a prima facie showing of purposeful availment. The court remanded for consideration of relatedness and reasonableness and affirmed denial of jurisdictional discovery. View "Stokinger v. Armslist, LLC" on Justia Law

The City of Lakewood, Colorado enacted a business and occupation tax on certain telecommunications providers in 1969, which initially applied only to utility companies maintaining a telephone exchange and supplying local service within the city. Following changes in state and federal law promoting competitive neutrality and prohibiting barriers to entry, the city amended its tax ordinances in 1996 and again in 2015. The 1996 amendment expanded the tax to cover all providers of basic local telecommunications service, including some cellular services, while the 2015 amendment further broadened the scope to include all cellular and wireless voice service providers. Lakewood did not seek voter approval before enacting either amendment.After Lakewood audited MetroPCS California, LLC and assessed more than $1.6 million in unpaid business and occupation taxes, MetroPCS sued in the Jefferson County District Court. The district court granted summary judgment to MetroPCS, ruling that both the 1996 and 2015 Ordinances constituted "new taxes" under Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR), and thus required advance voter approval. The court found the ordinances expanded the tax to previously untaxed providers and services, generating revenue that was not merely incidental or de minimis. Lakewood’s arguments that the ordinances simply clarified or updated the existing tax and did not produce significant new revenue were rejected. The district court declared both ordinances void and unenforceable for lack of voter approval.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case directly. Applying de novo review, it affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Court held that both the 1996 and 2015 Ordinances imposed new taxes within the meaning of TABOR, as they expanded the tax base to include new classes of providers and services, and the resulting revenue increases were not incidental. Because Lakewood failed to obtain voter approval prior to enacting these ordinances, both were held void and unenforceable. The Court remanded the case for consideration of MetroPCS’s request for appellate fees and costs. View "MetroPCS Cal., LLC v. City of Lakewood" on Justia Law

Law enforcement authorities investigating a graduate student at a university for rape served a search warrant on a major electronic service provider seeking data linked to the student’s university email account. Along with the warrant, the authorities obtained a nondisclosure order (NDO) that prohibited the provider from disclosing the existence of the warrant or the investigation to the target, the university, or others for 90 days. The provider did not contest the restriction as it applied to the target, but sought to modify the NDO so it could inform a trusted contact at the university about the warrant, arguing that doing so would not compromise the investigation and was required under state law and the First Amendment.In the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, the provider’s motion to modify the NDO was denied. The court based its decision on a sealed affidavit supporting the warrant and NDO, finding that several statutory criteria justifying nondisclosure were satisfied. The court also rejected the provider’s proposal to notify a university contact, expressing concern about its lack of jurisdiction over the university and the possibility of unauthorized disclosure. The NDO was later extended, but ultimately lifted after the student was arrested.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the provider’s petition for a writ of mandate. The court held that the trial court complied with the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act by making the required findings before issuing the NDO, and that the NDO satisfied strict scrutiny under the First Amendment. The court reasoned that the NDO served a compelling governmental interest in protecting an ongoing criminal investigation and was narrowly tailored, as allowing disclosure to a university contact posed unacceptable risks. The petition for writ of mandate was denied, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs on appeal. View "Microsoft Corp. v. Superior Ct." on Justia Law

Several subsidiaries of a major entertainment company providing video streaming services were notified by the City of Santa Barbara that they owed significant sums in unpaid video users’ taxes, penalties, and interest for the period from 2018 to 2020. The City’s demand was based on a 2008 ordinance, approved by local voters, which imposed a tax on those using “video services” in the city. The ordinance defined “video services” broadly, including services delivered by Internet Protocol. The companies argued that their streaming services did not fall under the ordinance because streaming platforms do not provide a “channel” as contemplated by the ordinance, instead relying on customers’ independently obtained Internet services.Following the City’s deficiency notice, the companies appealed administratively. An independent hearing officer upheld the City’s position, concluding that the ordinance applied to video streaming. The companies then sought judicial review in the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County by filing a petition for a writ of administrative mandate. The trial court denied their petition, determining that the ordinance was intended to apply to streaming, that its enforcement did not violate federal or state law, and that the City was not required to provide additional notice before enforcement.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, affirmed the lower court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the ordinance, as approved by the electorate, applies to providers of video streaming services and that the ordinary, non-technical meaning of “channel” should govern. The court further held that applying the tax to streaming services does not violate the Internet Tax Freedom Act, the First Amendment, or the California Constitution, nor did the City’s delayed enforcement require additional voter approval or special notice under state law. The judgment denying the companies’ petition was affirmed. View "Disney Platform Distribution, Inc. v. City of Santa Barbara" on Justia Law