Justia Communications Law Opinion Summaries

Congress passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which included the Digital Equity Act of 2021, allocating $65 billion to expand affordable, high-speed broadband access across the United States, especially in underserved areas. The Act directed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to adopt rules to “facilitate equal access to broadband” and prevent “digital discrimination of access” based on characteristics such as income, race, and national origin. In response, the FCC adopted a final rule that prohibited both intentional discrimination (disparate treatment) and unintentional discrimination with disproportionate effects (disparate impact), applied to a broad range of entities influencing broadband access—not just internet service providers.Numerous telecommunications and broadband industry groups challenged this rule in several federal appellate courts. These cases were consolidated in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The industry petitioners argued that the statute did not authorize the FCC to impose liability based on disparate impact, nor to regulate entities beyond broadband providers. Public interest groups intervened to defend the rule, but also argued it did not go far enough.The Eighth Circuit reviewed the FCC’s rule under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court applied the Supreme Court’s most recent guidance on agency deference and statutory interpretation, emphasizing that courts must independently interpret statutes. It found that the statutory text did not authorize disparate impact liability and that the FCC exceeded its authority by applying the rule to entities other than broadband providers. As a result, the court held that the FCC’s rule was not in accordance with law and vacated the rule in its entirety. The court granted in part the industry petitioners’ request, denied the public interest groups’ petition, and left the FCC with the ongoing obligation to adopt lawful rules facilitating equal broadband access. View "Minnesota Telecom Alliance v. FCC" 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 company operating movie theaters in several Midwestern states offered free movie trailers on its website to attract customers. After a website visitor viewed these trailers, she began to receive targeted advertisements on her Facebook page. She alleged that the company had installed a program, Meta Pixel, which tracked her activity and shared her personal information with Meta (Facebook’s parent company). She claimed that the company, as a “video tape service provider,” had a duty under the Video Privacy Protection Act not to disclose her personally identifiable information without consent.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed the complaint. The district court found that the company was not a “video tape service provider” as defined by the statute, because it was not engaged in the business of renting, selling, or delivering prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials. As a result, the court concluded that the company had no statutory obligation to withhold the plaintiff’s personal information under the Act.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The appellate court agreed with the district court, holding that movie theaters are not “engaged in the business” of renting, selling, or delivering prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials. The court reasoned that the statutory definition requires a physical medium similar to video cassette tapes, which does not include theatrical screenings or free online trailers. The court further determined that offering trailers online did not constitute a separate business of delivering audio visual materials for livelihood or gain. Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Christopherson v. Cinema Entertainment Corp." on Justia Law

A group of television and radio broadcasters challenged the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) 2023 Order, which retained all existing media ownership rules and tightened one of them following the 2018 Quadrennial Review. The broadcasters argued that the FCC erred by defining the relevant video and audio markets too narrowly, retaining all parts of the radio and television ownership rules, and tightening Note 11 of the television ownership rule.The FCC's 2023 Order was issued after the 2018 Quadrennial Review, which included a notice of proposed rulemaking and a public comment period. The FCC retained the Local Radio Ownership Rule and the Local Television Ownership Rule, defining the markets narrowly to exclude non-broadcast sources. The FCC justified its decision by emphasizing the unique aspects of broadcast sources and the need to prevent excessive consolidation. The FCC also modified Note 11 to prevent circumvention of the Top-Four Prohibition by including low-power TV stations and multicast streams.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the FCC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in retaining the Top-Four Prohibition part of the television ownership rule and improperly tightened Note 11. The court vacated and remanded the Top-Four Prohibition and the amendment to Note 11 but withheld the issuance of the mandate for 90 days to allow the FCC an opportunity to provide adequate justification. The court denied the remainder of the petition, upholding the FCC's market definitions and retention of the Local Radio Ownership Rule and the Two-Station Limit. View "Zimmer Radio of Mid-Missouri, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission" on Justia Law

The district court found third-party plaintiff Qwest failed to prove its claims for intentional interference with a business relationship, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment against third-party defendant FC. The court agreed with the district court that FC did not act with an improper purpose when it contracted with Sancom, a local exchange carrier (LEC), because FC was simply attempting to take advantage of the uncertain regulatory scheme at the time; FC had a legitimate argument that it could be considered an “end user,” and thus Sancom could bill Qwest under its tariff for calls delivered to FC’s call bridges; and thus the district court did not err in finding for FC on Qwest's claim for intentional interference with a business relationship. The court predicted that the South Dakota Supreme Court would not recognize a tort of unfair competition under these circumstances, and found that the district court properly rejected this new tort. The court concluded, however, that the district court incorrectly found FC’s conduct was “neither illegal nor inequitable” because it was simply taking advantage of a loophole until the loophole closed, and the district court improperly considered Sancom’s settlement payments to Qwest when it found FC was not unjustly enriched. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded for reconsideration of whether FC was unjustly enriched. View "Qwest v. Free Conferencing Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Charter, alleging that Charter retained his personally identifiable information in violation of a section of the Cable Communications Policy Act, 47 U.S.C. 551(e). The district court granted Charter's motion to dismiss. The court concluded that plaintiff's notice of appeal was timely where plaintiff filed his notice of appeal thirty-seven days after the district court’s judgment dismissing the case was entered in the docket, well before the district court’s judgment was deemed “entered” and the time for filing a notice of appeal began to run. With the benefit of Spokeo v. Robin's guidance, the court concluded that plaintiff has not alleged an injury in fact as required by Article III. In Spokeo, the Supreme Court explained that Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation. In this case, plaintiff failed to allege a concrete harm and failed to allege an economic injury. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Braitberg v. Charter Communications" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sell technology that permits computers to identify license-plate numbers in digital photographs taken by cameras mounted on vehicles. The cameras automatically photograph everything the vehicles encounter, with GPS coordinates; software provides notice if a photographed vehicle is subject to repossession. The information is sold to clients, including automobile finance and insurance companies and law enforcement. Arkansas’s Automatic License Plate Reader System Act prohibits use of automatic license plate reader systems and permits any person claiming harm from a violation to seek damages from the violator. Vigilant and its affiliates sued, arguing that “use of [automatic license plate reader] systems to collect and create information” and dissemination of the information constitutes speech and that the Act impermissibly restricts this speech based on content—license-plate data—and on the identity of the speaker, because it exempts some entities, such as law enforcement agencies. The district court dismissed, ruling that state officials were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed on the ground that the plaintiffs lack standing, so there is no Article III case or controversy. State officials do not have authority to enforce the Act, so they do not cause injury; the Act provides for enforcement only through private actions for damages. View "Digital Recognition Network, Inc. v. Hutchinson" on Justia Law