UPM “fraudulently tapped” into its roaming agreements with U.S. mobile carriers, “surreptitiously routing calls to Digicel Haiti’s home network from third parties who are not Digicel Haiti customers,” Digicel Haiti said, responding to UPM’s Feb. 21 complaint alleging it violated the Communications Act by banning resale of UPM’s telecommunications service (see 2302270073). Its answer was posted Friday (docket 23-64) at the FCC Enforcement Bureau.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Consumers' Research's challenge of the FCC's method for funding the USF under the nondelegation doctrine, in a ruling Friday (see 2212060070). The FCC "has not violated the private nondelegation doctrine because it wholly subordinates" the Universal Service Administrative Co., the court said, noting Congress "supplied the FCC with intelligible principles when it tasked the agency with overseeing" USF.

In more than four hours of questioning during a hearing March 24 before the House Ways and Means Committee, no member of Congress advocated for lessening tariffs on Chinese goods under Section 301, or for reopening exclusions applications.

Almost five years after the first round of 25% tariffs were put on Chinese imports, it was trade irritants with Mexico and India, as well as concerns about tariff preference programs and the lack of a market-opening strategy, that senators dwelled on during the U.S. Trade Representative's appearance in front of the Finance Committee.

Importers in the massive litigation over President Donald Trump's Section 301 action on China will appeal Court of International Trade rulings upholding the tariffs. Pratik Shah, counsel for lead plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, said he believes the importers' arguments are strong.

Grande Communications’ renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), or a new trial, filed last month in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in Austin, has “no valid basis to upend the jury’s verdict,” said Universal Music Group and other music label plaintiffs Monday in a memorandum of law (docket 1:17-cv-00365) opposing the internet service provider’s motion. Most of Grande’s arguments in the renewed motion for JMOL aren’t based on the “legal sufficiency of the evidence at trial, but rather seek to re-litigate nearly a dozen issues of law” that the court has already considered and resolved in plaintiffs’ favor, said the memorandum. The proper forum to raise challenges is the 5th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court, where the music labels filed notice last week of a conditional cross-appeal of the final judgment entered Jan. 30 in their favor by U.S. District Judge David Ezra (see 2303160029). Grande’s “implicit request” that the district court “act as its own appellate panel and reverse its prior legal rulings is improper in a motion for JMOL and should be summarily rejected,” plaintiffs said. The jury found in plaintiffs’ favor “on every issue it was asked to resolved,” which is “why the Court denied Grande’s request for JMOL the first time it raised it,” said the memorandum: “Nothing has changed since then.” Grande’s request for a new trial should be denied because the only basis the ISP asserts for its entitlement to relief is its disagreement with some of the court’s evidentiary rulings during the trial, and its attempt to relitigate those rulings through Rule 59 “is improper.” Plaintiffs alleged Grande induced or caused the direct infringement of copyright by not terminating accounts of repeat infringing subscribers. The jury concluded that Grande was liable for contributory copyright infringement and had willfully infringed plaintiffs’ copyrights and that plaintiffs should be awarded $46.8 million in statutory damages. Grande said last week in an opposing motion the court should reject the music labels’ request for an additional $13 million recovery.

The top trade official in the EU, European Commission Executive Vice President Valdis Dombrovskis, said a critical minerals agreement that would secure "FTA-equivalent treatment" under the Inflation Reduction Act incentives could happen within "a few months."

Despite the opposition of pro se plaintiff Bryan Reo, a practicing Ohio attorney (see 2303060003), Allstate stands by its Feb. 28 motion to dismiss the counts of his Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint that allege the insurer also violated Ohio’s Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA) and Telephone Solicitation Sales Act (TSSA), said Allstate’s reply brief Friday (docket 1:23-cv-00329) in U.S. District Court for Northern Ohio in Cleveland. Reo’s March 3 opposition brief “ignores the well settled law in Ohio,” and attempts to modify the allegations in his complaint to “avoid dismissal,” it said. A review of the relevant Ohio statutes makes clear that Reo can’t sustain “cognizable claims for violations of these statutes,” it said. It’s also improper to use his opposition brief to amend his complaint, it said. Reo’s DPPA, CSPA and TSSA claims fail as a matter of law, it said. Reo seeks leave to file a sur reply brief because Allstate's reply brief "raises new arguments," cites cases "not previously cited" and attempts to raise "new issues with these new arguments," said his motion Saturday. Reo think Allstate's reply brief "is an imprudent and inefficient use of judicial resources," it said.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered consolidation of Hikvision USA’s petition (docket 23-1032) with that of Dahua Technology USA (docket 23-1073) to review the FCC’s Nov. 25 order barring the authorization of network equipment considered a threat to U.S. national security, said a clerk’s entry Friday. It ordered Dahua to file by March 31 its docketing statement form and statement of issues to be raised. Both petitions allege the order violates the Communications Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, that it was arbitrary and capricious, and that it wasn’t supported by substantial evidence (see 2303160043)

There’s little relevance to plaintiff Jazmine Harris’ Video Privacy Protection Act claims against PBS in the recent decision in Goldstein v. Fandango Media denying a motion to dismiss a complaint asserting VPPA violations, said PBS Thursday (docket 1:22-cv-02456) in U.S. District Court for Northern Georgia in Atlanta. PBS seeks leave to respond to Harris’ notice of supplemental authority in which she said Goldstein involved “similar claims and factual allegations” to those she’s asserting against PBS (see 2303140019).