Justia Communications Law Opinion Summaries

Michael Terpin, a cryptocurrency investor, sued AT&T Mobility, LLC after hackers gained control over his phone number through a fraudulent "SIM swap," received password reset messages for his online accounts, and stole $24,000,000 of his cryptocurrency. Terpin alleged that AT&T failed to adequately secure his account, leading to the theft.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed some of Terpin's claims for failure to state a claim and later granted summary judgment against him on his remaining claims. The court dismissed Terpin's fraud claims and punitive damages claim, holding that he failed to allege that AT&T had a duty to disclose or made a promise with no intent to perform. The court also held that Terpin failed to allege facts sufficient to support punitive damages. On summary judgment, the court ruled that Terpin's negligence claims were barred by the economic loss rule, his breach of contract claim was barred by the limitation of liability clause in the parties' agreement, and his claim under Section 222 of the Federal Communications Act (FCA) failed because the SIM swap did not disclose any information protected under the Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Terpin's fraud claims and punitive damages claim, agreeing that Terpin failed to allege a duty to disclose or an intent not to perform. The court also affirmed the summary judgment on Terpin's breach of contract claim, holding that consequential damages were barred by the limitation of liability clause. The court affirmed the summary judgment on Terpin's negligence claims, finding them foreclosed by the economic loss rule. However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the summary judgment on Terpin's claim under Section 222 of the FCA, holding that Terpin created a triable issue over whether the fraudulent SIM swap gave hackers access to information protected under the Act. The case was remanded for further proceedings on this claim. View "TERPIN V. AT&T MOBILITY LLC" on Justia Law

Reporters from Bloomberg L.P. and Dow Jones & Company, Inc. requested aggregated, anonymized change-of-address (COA) data from the United States Postal Service (USPS) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). They intended to use this data for reporting on population movement trends during the COVID-19 pandemic. USPS denied the requests, citing FOIA Exemption #3, which allows withholding of "information of a commercial nature" under the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970. USPS argued that the data was intended for a commercial product called "Population Mobility Trends."The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of USPS. The court found that the COA data was indeed "information of a commercial nature" and that USPS had met its burden of proof under FOIA Exemption #3. The court noted that USPS had previously provided similar data but had since decided to monetize it through the Population Mobility Trends product.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the COA data was "of a commercial nature" because it had monetary value derived from USPS's core business of delivering mail. The court also found that under good business practice, a private business would not disclose such valuable data for free if it intended to sell it. Therefore, USPS was justified in withholding the data under FOIA Exemption #3 and the Postal Reorganization Act. The court emphasized that Congress had granted USPS broad exemptions to operate more like a business, including the ability to withhold commercially valuable information. View "Bloomberg L.P. v. United States Postal Service" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge by local governments and municipal organizations to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) 2020 Ruling, which interprets and clarifies existing legislative rules from the 2014 Order. These rules implement section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, requiring state and local governments to approve certain wireless network modifications that do not substantially change existing facilities.The petitioners challenged several provisions of the FCC’s 2020 Ruling: the Shot Clock Rule, the Separation Clause, the Equipment Cabinet Provision Clarification, the Concealment and Siting Approval Conditions Provisions, and the Express Evidence Requirement. They argued that these clarifications were either arbitrary and capricious or improperly issued without following the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) notice-and-comment procedures.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the 2020 Ruling’s clarifications of the Shot Clock Rule, the Separation Clause, and the Equipment Cabinet Provision were consistent with the 2014 Order, were interpretive rules, and were not arbitrary or capricious. Therefore, the court denied the petition for review regarding these provisions.However, the court found that the 2020 Ruling’s clarifications of the Concealment and Siting Approval Conditions Provisions were inconsistent with the 2014 Order, making them legislative rules. The FCC’s failure to follow the APA’s procedural requirements in issuing these legislative rules was not harmless. Consequently, the court granted the petition for review concerning these provisions.Finally, the court denied the petition for review regarding the Express Evidence Requirement, concluding that its application would not have a retroactive effect. The court’s decision was to grant the petition in part and deny it in part, affirming some of the FCC’s clarifications while invalidating others. View "League of California Cities v. Federal Communications Commission" on Justia Law

The case involves X Corp., the owner of a large social media platform, challenging California Assembly Bill AB 587. This law requires large social media companies to post their terms of service and submit semiannual reports to the California Attorney General detailing their content-moderation policies and practices, including how they define and address categories like hate speech, extremism, and misinformation. X Corp. sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of AB 587, arguing that it violates free speech and is federally preempted.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied X Corp.'s motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that X Corp. was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its First Amendment claim, applying the Zauderer standard for compelled commercial speech. The court concluded that the law's requirements were purely factual and uncontroversial, and reasonably related to the state's interest in transparency. The court also rejected X Corp.'s preemption argument, stating that AB 587 does not impose liability for content moderation activities but only for failing to make required disclosures.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the Content Category Report provisions of AB 587 likely compel non-commercial speech and are subject to strict scrutiny because they are content-based. The court found that these provisions are not narrowly tailored to serve the state's interest in transparency and therefore likely fail strict scrutiny. The court also determined that the remaining factors for a preliminary injunction weighed in favor of X Corp. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to enter a preliminary injunction consistent with its opinion and to determine whether the Content Category Report provisions are severable from the rest of AB 587. View "X CORP. V. BONTA" on Justia Law

A ten-year-old girl named Nylah Anderson died after attempting the "Blackout Challenge," a dangerous activity promoted in a video recommended to her by TikTok's algorithm. Her mother, Tawainna Anderson, sued TikTok and ByteDance, Inc., alleging that the companies were aware of the challenge, allowed such videos to be posted, and promoted them to minors, including Nylah, through their algorithm.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the complaint, ruling that TikTok was immune under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which protects interactive computer services from liability for content posted by third parties. The court found that TikTok's role in recommending the video fell under this immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the District Court's decision in part, vacated it in part, and remanded the case. The Third Circuit held that TikTok's algorithm, which curates and recommends videos, constitutes TikTok's own expressive activity, or first-party speech. Since Section 230 of the CDA only provides immunity for third-party content, it does not protect TikTok from liability for its own recommendations. Therefore, the court concluded that Anderson's claims were not barred by Section 230, allowing the lawsuit to proceed. View "Anderson v. TikTok Inc" on Justia Law

The case involves the plaintiffs, including the estate of Carson Bride and three minors, who suffered severe harassment and bullying through the YOLO app, leading to emotional distress and, in Carson Bride's case, suicide. YOLO Technologies developed an anonymous messaging app that promised to unmask and ban users who engaged in bullying or harassment but allegedly failed to do so. The plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against YOLO, claiming violations of state tort and product liability laws.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, holding that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) immunized YOLO from liability. The court found that the claims sought to hold YOLO responsible for third-party content posted on its app, which is protected under the CDA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' misrepresentation claims, holding that these claims were based on YOLO's promise to unmask and ban abusive users, not on a failure to moderate content. The court found that the misrepresentation claims were analogous to a breach of promise, which is not protected by Section 230. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' product liability claims, holding that Section 230 precludes liability because these claims attempted to hold YOLO responsible as a publisher of third-party content. The court concluded that the product liability claims were essentially about the failure to moderate content, which is protected under the CDA. View "Estate of Bride v. Yolo Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2016, Unitednet, Ltd., a UK company, entered into an agreement to purchase a fiber-optic telecommunications network from three foreign companies within the Tata Communications conglomerate. Steven Lucero, a New Mexico resident, allegedly conspired with three Tata companies to sabotage the deal so he could purchase the network through his New Mexico-based company, LatinGroup, LLC. After the deal fell apart, Unitednet and its director, Levi Russell, filed a lawsuit in New Mexico federal district court, asserting claims of tortious interference with a contract and related claims against Lucero, LatinGroup, and the Tata companies.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico dismissed the case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, determining that the United Kingdom was a more appropriate forum for the litigation. The court found that foreign law applied to the claims and that the private and public interests favored dismissal. The court conditioned the dismissal on the defendants submitting to jurisdiction in the United Kingdom and waiving any statute-of-limitations defenses.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit agreed that the United Kingdom was an adequate alternative forum and that foreign law governed the dispute. The court found that the district court had appropriately balanced the private and public interest factors, noting that the case had stronger ties to the United Kingdom, which had a greater interest in resolving the dispute. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case for forum non conveniens. View "Unitednet v. Tata Communications America" on Justia Law

A national trade association of online businesses challenged the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (CAADCA), which aims to protect children's online privacy and ensure that online products accessed by children are designed with their needs in mind. The association argued that the CAADCA's requirements, particularly those mandating businesses to assess and mitigate risks of exposing children to harmful content, violated the First Amendment.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a preliminary injunction, finding that the association was likely to succeed in its First Amendment challenge. The court held that the CAADCA's requirements compelled businesses to express opinions on controversial issues and act as censors, which constituted a violation of free speech. The court enjoined the entire law, concluding that the unconstitutional provisions were not severable from the rest of the statute.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court's preliminary injunction. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the CAADCA's requirement for businesses to create Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) reports, which included assessing and mitigating risks of exposing children to harmful content, likely violated the First Amendment. The court affirmed the injunction against these provisions and those not grammatically severable from them.However, the Ninth Circuit vacated the remainder of the preliminary injunction, finding that it was unclear whether other challenged provisions of the CAADCA facially violated the First Amendment. The court noted that further proceedings were necessary to determine the full scope and impact of these provisions. The case was remanded to the district court for further consideration. View "NETCHOICE, LLC V. BONTA" on Justia Law

In late 2019, Verizon Wireless identified a coverage gap in Berlin Township, Ohio, and partnered with TowerCo to construct a cell tower to address this issue. TowerCo secured a lease with the local school district to build the tower on school property. Initially, TowerCo notified local residents as required by zoning regulations but later claimed immunity from these regulations under Ohio's "Brownfield immunity" doctrine, arguing that the project served a public purpose. Despite this claim, the Township insisted on compliance with local zoning laws, leading to a dispute.The Township filed a complaint in the Delaware County Common Pleas Court seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction to halt the tower's construction. TowerCo counterclaimed under the Telecommunications Act (TCA) and removed the case to federal court. After negotiations failed, TowerCo filed a separate federal lawsuit asserting TCA violations and sought a preliminary injunction to continue construction. The district court granted the preliminary injunction, finding that the Township's actions likely violated the TCA by effectively prohibiting wireless services.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's order. The appellate court held that the Township's filing of a state court lawsuit did not constitute a "final action" under the TCA, which is necessary to trigger the Act's remedies. Additionally, TowerCo failed to file its federal TCA claims within the 30-day statutory deadline after the Township's state court filing. The court concluded that TowerCo's claims were not ripe and were time-barred, and thus, TowerCo could not show a likelihood of success on the merits. Consequently, the preliminary injunction was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "TowerCo 2013, LLC v. Berlin Township Board of Trustees" on Justia Law

Adrian Pina was charged with the murder of his brother, Samuel, and the attempted murder of another man. Pina's defense counsel issued subpoenas to Snap, Inc. and Meta Platforms, Inc. to obtain Samuel's social media posts and communications from the two years prior to his death, believing they might show Samuel's violent character. Snap refused to provide the information, and Meta ignored the subpoena. The trial court ordered both companies to comply, prompting them to file motions to quash, citing the Stored Communications Act (SCA). The trial court denied the motions, leading Snap and Meta to petition the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District.The trial court found that Pina had shown good cause for the subpoenas, based on evidence from Samuel's phone and testimony from Samuel's girlfriend. The court determined that the requested material was not available from other sources and that Pina had a plausible justification for seeking it. The court also noted that the material should be produced to the court for in-camera review to determine its relevance to Pina's defense.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case and agreed with the trial court's good cause finding. The court concluded that the business models of Snap and Meta, which involve accessing and using their users' data for business purposes, exclude them from the SCA's limitations on disclosure. The court held that the SCA does not apply to the material sought by Pina because Snap and Meta are not acting solely as providers of electronic communication or remote computing services under the SCA. The court directed the trial court to issue a modified order requiring Snap and Meta to produce the requested material for in-camera review to determine its relevance to Pina's defense. The petitions for writ relief were denied in part and granted in part. View "Snap, Inc. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law