Justia Communications Law Opinion Summaries

Telecommunications industry groups and associations challenged a rule issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that imposed new data breach reporting requirements on telecommunications carriers and telecommunications relay service (TRS) providers. The rule expanded the definition of a reportable breach to include inadvertent disclosures of customer information and required notification to customers and government entities when breaches involved either customer proprietary network information (CPNI) or personally identifiable information (PII), such as names, Social Security numbers, and biometric data. The petitioners argued that the FCC exceeded its statutory authority and violated the Congressional Review Act (CRA) by issuing a rule they claimed was substantially the same as a prior rule Congress had disapproved.Previously, the FCC had issued a similar privacy rule in 2016, which Congress disapproved under the CRA in 2017, leading the FCC to revert to its earlier, narrower 2007 rules. In 2023, the FCC proposed and, after notice and comment, adopted the new 2024 rule. Multiple industry groups filed petitions for review in several circuit courts, which were consolidated in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.The Sixth Circuit held that the FCC did not have authority under 47 U.S.C. § 222(a) to regulate PII, as that section’s text and structure did not encompass PII. However, the court found that 47 U.S.C. § 201(b) independently authorized the FCC to regulate unjust or unreasonable practices, including data breach notification requirements for PII, as such practices are directly connected to the provision of communication services. The court also held that the FCC had authority under 47 U.S.C. § 225 to apply these requirements to TRS providers. Addressing the CRA, the court concluded that the 2024 rule was not “substantially the same” as the disapproved 2016 rule and thus did not violate the CRA. The court denied the petitions for review, upholding the FCC’s 2024 rule. View "Ohio Telecom Association v. Federal Communications Commission" 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

Two minor boys, referred to as John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, were coerced by a trafficker into producing pornographic content, which was later posted on Twitter. Despite reporting the content to Twitter, the platform did not immediately remove it, leading to significant views and retweets. The boys and their mother made multiple attempts to have the content removed, but Twitter only acted after being prompted by the Department of Homeland Security.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, primarily based on the immunity provided under § 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. The court found that Twitter was immune from liability for most of the claims, including those under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) and California product-defect claims, as these claims treated Twitter as a publisher of third-party content.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Twitter is immune from liability under § 230 for the TVPRA claim and the California product-defect claim related to the failure to remove posts and the creation of search features that amplify child-pornography posts. However, the court found that the plaintiffs' claims for negligence per se and their product-liability theory based on defective reporting-infrastructure design are not barred by § 230 immunity, as these claims do not arise from Twitter's role as a publisher. Consequently, the court affirmed the dismissal of the TVPRA and certain product-defect claims, reversed the dismissal of the negligence per se and defective reporting-infrastructure design claims, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "DOE 1 V. TWITTER, INC." 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 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

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

Energy Transfer LP, involved in the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) project, filed a lawsuit in North Dakota against Greenpeace International and others, alleging various tort claims related to the 2016 Standing Rock Protests. Unicorn Riot, a Minnesota-based news organization, and its journalist Niko Georgiades, who reported on the protests, were subpoenaed by Energy Transfer for documents and communications related to the protests. Unicorn Riot objected, citing the Minnesota Free Flow of Information Act (MFFIA), which protects newsgatherers from disclosing unpublished information.The Hennepin County District Court denied Energy Transfer's motion to compel Unicorn Riot to produce the requested documents but ordered Unicorn Riot to produce a privilege log. Both parties appealed. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to compel but reversed the order requiring a privilege log, concluding that the MFFIA prohibits such an order.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the MFFIA applies to newsgatherers even if they engage in unlawful or tortious conduct, as long as the conduct does not fall within the statutory exceptions of Minn. Stat. §§ 595.024–.025. The court also held that the MFFIA does not prevent district courts from ordering the production of a privilege log, but district courts should consider whether producing such a log would impose an undue burden on the responding party.The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case to the district court to determine the appropriate scope of the privilege log, considering potential undue burdens. View "Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International" 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