Court Rejects Comcast Free-Speech Claim in Vermont; Federal Pre-Emption, State Law Counts Allowed
Comcast failed to make a “plausible” claim that its free speech right was violated when the Vermont Public Utility Commission required the company to expand cable TV services, a judge said last week in an order (in Pacer) issued at…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
U.S. District Court in Rutland. The court allowed Comcast’s federal pre-emption claims under the Cable Act and didn’t let the VPUC claim sovereign immunity to other counts. Comcast said the VPUC exceeded authority by requiring the company in a cable franchise agreement to build 550 miles of new cable and enhance support for public, educational and government channels (see 1712190036). The company argued that violated the First Amendment. Chief Judge Geoffrey Crawford disagreed: “Even giving Comcast the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences ... Comcast has failed to plausibly allege that the line extension conditions are a means of exercising a content preference." Requiring Comcast to extend cable deployment doesn’t “favor or disfavor any particular message or view,” Crawford said. Vermont has an important interest -- expanding cable TV services -- unrelated to speech suppression, he wrote. Even if right that the expansion requirements impose bigger burdens on its speech than on other operators, “none of Comcast's allegations plausibly suggest that the burdens are substantially greater than necessary to further Vermont's important interests.” He allowed Comcast federal pre-emption claims, saying it may have statutory cause of action under the judicial review provision of the Cable Act. "Vermont has waived any sovereign immunity that the VPUC might enjoy when acting as the franchising authority for cable television,” Crawford wrote. “Judicial review in state or federal court is an essential part of the package of state regulation conducted pursuant to federal legislation. Vermont voluntarily accepted the offer by electing to regulate under the Cable Act.” A Comcast spokesperson praised “the thoroughness of the Court’s ruling, which only dismisses a single count and allows Comcast to proceed on its challenges to all of the disputed franchise conditions under the remaining eight counts.” The VPUC didn’t comment.