Precedent Clear on Preempting State Consumer Protections, Maine Tells Court
If there's any doubt about the meaning of Section 543 of the Cable Act, barring state or federal cable rate regulation, the court should narrowly construe the provision against preemption, because the Supreme Court has historically been quite clear on…
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.
that point, Maine told U.S. District Court in Bangor Tuesday in a reply in support of its motion to dismiss (in Pacer, docket 20-cv-00168). It said Charter Communications, challenging the state requiring prorated refunds when cable customers end service partway through a billing cycle (see 2005210004), hasn't shown the state law in any way alters the rate structure of cable services being provided. Charter didn't comment Wednesday.