Justia Communications Law Opinion Summaries

A member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives used public funds and the resources of the House Democratic Caucus to send five pre-recorded, automated phone calls to constituents. These calls provided information about public health resources, employment opportunities, and community events. The calls were approved and administered by House staff, who determined that each served a clear legislative purpose and public benefit. The recipient of these calls, Andrew Perrong, filed suit, alleging that the calls violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which generally prohibits automated or pre-recorded calls made by “any person.”The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the legislator’s motion for summary judgment. The court held that the legislator was a “person” under the TCPA and could be sued in his individual capacity, even though the calls were made as part of his official duties. The District Court also found that the suit was not barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, reasoning that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was not the real party in interest, and that qualified immunity did not apply because the statutory prohibition was clear.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the statutory question and the immunity defenses. The Third Circuit held that the TCPA’s use of the term “person” does not clearly and unmistakably include state legislators acting in their official capacity when performing legitimate government functions. The court reasoned that longstanding interpretive presumptions, constitutional federalism principles, and statutory context all support excluding such official acts from the statute’s reach. As a result, the court reversed the District Court’s denial of summary judgment, holding that the TCPA’s robocall restriction does not apply to calls made by state legislators in connection with their legitimate government functions. View "Perrong v. Bradford" on Justia Law

A group of broadband internet providers in Georgia entered into contracts with the Georgia Department of Transportation to install and maintain their equipment along public rights of way. These contracts set annual permit fees and included a clause stating that the contracts would remain in effect until the parties entered into a new agreement. In 2021, the Department amended its rules, increasing permit fees and requiring providers to sign new contracts. The providers refused, and the Department notified them that, absent new agreements, they would be subject to the new rules. The providers then filed suit, seeking a declaratory judgment that their contracts were enforceable, not terminable at will, and that the Department’s actions impaired their contractual rights in violation of the United States and Georgia Constitutions.The Superior Court denied the State’s motion to dismiss, finding that sovereign immunity was waived under Article I, Section II, Paragraph V(b) of the Georgia Constitution because the providers sought declaratory relief from alleged unconstitutional acts. The court granted summary judgment to the providers, holding that the contracts were enforceable and not terminable at will by the Department.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case. The Court agreed with the lower court that sovereign immunity was waived for this declaratory judgment action, as the providers sought relief from acts allegedly violating constitutional provisions. However, the Supreme Court of Georgia disagreed with the trial court’s interpretation of the contracts. It held that the contracts were of indefinite duration and, under longstanding Georgia law, were terminable at will by either party with notice. The Court affirmed the waiver of sovereign immunity but vacated the judgment granting declaratory and injunctive relief, remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "State v. Dovetel Communication, LLC" on Justia Law

California enacted a law aimed at addressing concerns about minors’ addiction to social media by regulating how internet platforms provide personalized content to users under 18. The law restricts minors’ access to algorithmic feeds without parental consent, imposes default settings such as hiding like counts and requiring private accounts, and mandates future age-verification procedures. NetChoice, a trade association representing major internet companies, challenged the law on First Amendment grounds, arguing it unconstitutionally restricts both platforms’ and users’ speech, and that some provisions are unconstitutionally vague.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against two provisions not at issue in this appeal, but otherwise denied NetChoice’s request for broader injunctive relief. The district court found that NetChoice lacked associational standing to challenge the personalized-feed restrictions as applied to its members, that the age-verification requirements were not ripe for review, and that the default settings provisions (including the like-count and private-mode requirements) were constitutional. The court also rejected NetChoice’s vagueness arguments and found that any unconstitutional provisions could be severed from the Act.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed most of the district court’s rulings. The Ninth Circuit agreed that NetChoice lacked associational standing for as-applied challenges to the personalized-feed provisions and that the age-verification requirements were unripe. The court held that the private-mode default setting survived intermediate scrutiny, but found that the like-count default setting was a content-based restriction on speech and failed strict scrutiny. The court determined that the like-count provision was severable and ordered the district court to enjoin its enforcement, while affirming the denial of injunctive relief as to the other challenged provisions. View "NETCHOICE, LLC V. BONTA" on Justia Law

Sprint Corporation and T-Mobile USA, Inc., both wireless carriers, operated programs that sold customer location information (CLI) to third-party aggregators, who then resold the data to other service providers. Although the carriers’ contracts required these third parties to obtain customer consent before accessing CLI, in practice, the carriers did not verify compliance, and several third parties accessed the data without proper consent. After public reports revealed abuses—including unauthorized access by law enforcement and bounty hunters—the carriers terminated some third-party access but continued their programs for months without implementing effective new safeguards.The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) investigated and issued Notices of Apparent Liability (NALs) to both carriers, alleging violations of the Communications Act’s duty to protect the confidentiality of customer proprietary network information (CPNI), which includes CLI. The FCC found that the carriers’ reliance on contractual promises, without independent verification or effective monitoring, was unreasonable. The FCC also concluded that the carriers failed to promptly address their inadequate safeguards after learning of the breaches. The FCC assessed penalties totaling $92 million, calculating separate violations for each third-party relationship that allowed unauthorized access after the carriers were on notice of the problems.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the carriers’ petitions challenging the FCC’s orders. The court held that CLI is CPNI under the Communications Act, that the carriers’ safeguards were inadequate, and that the FCC’s interpretation of the statute was the most natural reading, providing fair notice. The court also found the penalty calculations reasonable and rejected the carriers’ constitutional arguments, including their Seventh Amendment claim, because they had the statutory right to a jury trial but waived it by paying the penalties and seeking direct appellate review. The court denied the petitions for review. View "Sprint Corporation v. FCC" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding a rule requiring broadcasters to disclose if any programming was paid for by a foreign governmental entity. The FCC's 2021 Rule mandated such disclosures and included specific diligence steps for broadcasters to follow. NAB challenged the rule, leading to a court decision that vacated part of the rule requiring broadcasters to search federal databases.The FCC then issued a revised rule in 2024, which retained the core disclosure requirements but modified the diligence steps. The new rule exempted commercial ads and political candidate ads from the disclosure requirement but included paid public service announcements (PSAs) and issue advertisements. NAB challenged the 2024 Rule, arguing it violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the First Amendment, and exceeded the FCC's statutory authority.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the 2024 Rule complied with the APA's notice-and-comment requirements and was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The court also held that the rule did not violate the First Amendment, as it was narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest in preventing foreign influence in U.S. broadcasting. The court further determined that the FCC did not exceed its statutory authority with the reasonable diligence requirements, as the rule did not directly regulate lessees but required broadcasters to seek information from them.Ultimately, the court denied NAB's petition for review, upholding the FCC's 2024 Rule. View "National Association of Broadcasters v. FCC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, including Eugene Volokh and two social media companies, challenged New York's Hateful Conduct Law, which mandates social media networks to provide mechanisms for reporting hateful conduct and to disclose policies on how they address such reports. The law defines hateful conduct as speech that vilifies, humiliates, or incites violence against groups based on protected characteristics. Plaintiffs argued that these requirements compel speech and chill protected speech, violating the First Amendment.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a preliminary injunction, halting the law's enforcement. The court found that the law likely violates the First Amendment by compelling social media networks to engage in speech and by being overly broad and vague, thus chilling users' speech.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that the constitutionality of the Hateful Conduct Law hinges on its interpretation. If the law requires social media networks to adopt the state's definition of hateful conduct, it would be subject to strict scrutiny and likely fail. However, if the law merely requires disclosure of any content moderation policy without specific reference to the state's definition, it might survive under the more relaxed Zauderer standard.The Second Circuit deferred its decision and certified three questions to the New York Court of Appeals: whether the law requires explicit reference to the state's definition of hateful conduct in social media policies, whether the reporting mechanism must specifically address hateful conduct, and whether social media networks must respond to reports of hateful conduct. The answers to these questions will determine the law's constitutionality. View "Volokh v. James" on Justia Law

A Virginia statute established procedures for internet broadband service providers to access railroad property and lay cable across tracks. The Association of American Railroads (AAR) challenged the statute, arguing it was preempted by federal law and violated the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The district court dismissed the case, ruling that AAR lacked standing to bring the claims because they required the participation of individual member railroads.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that AAR lacked associational standing for both its preemption and Takings Clause claims. The court found that the preemption claim required a fact-intensive inquiry into whether the statute unreasonably burdened rail transportation, necessitating individual member participation. Similarly, the Takings Clause claim required individualized proof of inadequate compensation for each crossing, which also required member participation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that AAR had standing to pursue its preemption claims, as these could be litigated without the participation of individual members. The court reasoned that the preemption claims involved general judgments about the statute's nature and operation, not specific operations of individual railroads. However, the court affirmed the district court's ruling on the Takings Clause claim, agreeing that it required individualized proof of compensation for each crossing, necessitating member participation.The Fourth Circuit thus affirmed the district court's judgment in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Association of American Railroads v. Hudson" on Justia Law

The case involves the Stored Communications Act, which allows the government to subpoena electronic communication service providers for user records and seek court orders to prohibit disclosure of such subpoenas. The government requested and obtained a court order allowing it to prohibit disclosure of any subpoena related to a particular investigation for one year, provided the government determined that disclosure would risk one of the harms specified in the Act. The government then served a subpoena on X Corp. with the nondisclosure order attached. X Corp. moved to vacate the nondisclosure order, arguing it did not comply with the Act. The district court denied X Corp.'s motion.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued the nondisclosure order and denied X Corp.'s motion to vacate it. X Corp. appealed the decision, arguing that the order did not comply with the Stored Communications Act and violated the First Amendment. The district court relied on ex parte evidence in its decision, which X Corp. also challenged.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the nondisclosure order did not conform to the Stored Communications Act because the court did not find "reason to believe" that disclosure of the subpoena would risk a statutory harm. The court emphasized that the statute requires the court, not the government, to make this determination. The appellate court did not address X Corp.'s First Amendment argument or the issue of the district court's reliance on ex parte evidence, as the statutory ruling was sufficient to resolve the case. View "In re Sealed Case" on Justia Law

The case involves the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and its universal-service contribution scheme, which requires telecommunications carriers to contribute to a fund that subsidizes communications services for underserved communities. The FCC uses a formula to determine the contribution amount, and the Universal Service Administrative Company, a private entity, assists in managing the fund and projecting financial needs.The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case and found the contribution scheme unconstitutional due to a "double-layered delegation" of authority. The court expressed skepticism about Congress's delegation of power to the FCC and the FCC's delegation to the Administrator, suggesting that the combination of these delegations violated the Constitution's nondelegation doctrine.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and reversed the Fifth Circuit's decision. The Court held that the universal-service contribution scheme does not violate the nondelegation doctrine. It found that Congress provided sufficient guidance to the FCC through the Communications Act of 1934 and its amendments, which set clear policies and boundaries for the FCC's actions. The Court also determined that the FCC retained decision-making authority and that the Administrator's role was advisory, not a delegation of governmental power. The Court rejected the Fifth Circuit's combination theory, stating that the separate delegations did not compound to create a constitutional violation. View "FCC v. Consumers' Research" on Justia Law

Radio Communications Corporation (RCC), a telecommunications and media company, petitioned for review of a final order issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) implementing the Low Power Protection Act (LPPA). The LPPA allows low power television (LPTV) stations to apply for an upgrade to a Class A license if they meet certain criteria, including operating in a Designated Market Area (DMA) with not more than 95,000 television households. The FCC's order adopted this limitation and used Nielsen’s Local TV Report to determine a station’s DMA.RCC operates an LPTV station, W24EZ-D, in Connecticut, which is licensed to serve Allingtown, a neighborhood of West Haven with fewer than 15,000 television households. However, the station is part of the Hartford-New Haven DMA, which has approximately one million television households. RCC challenged the FCC's order, arguing that the size limitation should apply to a station’s community of license, not its DMA. RCC also raised other statutory and constitutional arguments, including claims that the order contravenes section 307(b) of the Communications Act, violates the Commerce Clause, improperly delegates legislative authority to Nielsen, and restricts programming content in violation of the First Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the FCC's order adheres to the best reading of the LPPA, which clearly limits Class A license eligibility to LPTV stations operating in a DMA with not more than 95,000 television households. The court found that the FCC properly defined DMA according to Nielsen’s data, as authorized by Congress, and that the statute does not reference "community of license." The court also rejected RCC's constitutional arguments, finding that the FCC's interpretation did not violate the Commerce Clause or the nondelegation doctrine. Consequently, the court denied RCC's petition for review. View "Radio Communications Corporation v. FCC" on Justia Law