The Court of International Trade held oral arguments on Feb. 7 in the massive litigation over the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs. During the nearly two-hour affair, Judges Mark Barnett, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves probed the parties' positions on whether the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative complied with the Administrative Procedure Act by properly considering comments made on the proposed tariffs when imposing the duties on $500 billion of Chinese goods (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT # 21-00052).

Contrary to how Amazon’s Dec. 6 demurrer “mischaraterizes” California attorney general’s antitrust complaint against the company (see 2212160020), the state has stated “viable claims for violation” of the Cartwright Act and the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), said California’s opposition to the demurrer, dated Jan. 27 and accessed Tuesday (docket CGC-22-601826) in San Francisco County Superior Court.

President Donald Trump legally expanded the Section 232 national security tariffs to include steel and aluminum "derivative" products despite implementing the expansion beyond procedural deadlines laid out in the statute, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a Feb. 7 opinion. Relying on the appellate court's opinion in Transpacific Steel v. U.S., in which the court said that the president can adjust the tariffs beyond these time limits if it relates to the original plan of action laid out in the initial Section 232 tariff action, the Federal Circuit said that the expansion of the tariffs was related to the original plan.

Contrary to T-Mobile and SoftBank's assertions in their Dec. 5 motion to dismiss that the class action to overturn T-Mobile’s Sprint buy “would turn the antitrust laws on their head” (see 2212060052), the case “involves no gymnastics,” said the seven plaintiffs in their memorandum of opposition Friday in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. The litigation “advances claims that go to the heart of the Clayton and Sherman Acts,” they said.

The Court of International Trade held oral arguments on Feb. 7 in the massive litigation over the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs. During the nearly two-hour affair, Judges Mark Barnett, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves probed the parties' positions on whether the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative complied with the Administrative Procedure Act by properly considering comments made on the proposed tariffs when imposing the duties on $500 billion of Chinese goods (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT # 21-00052).

President Donald Trump legally expanded the Section 232 national security tariffs to include steel and aluminum "derivative" products despite implementing the expansion beyond procedural deadlines laid out in the statute, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a Feb. 7 opinion. Relying on the appellate court's opinion in Transpacific Steel v. U.S., in which the court said that the president can adjust the tariffs beyond these time limits if it relates to the original plan of action laid out in the initial Section 232 tariff action, the Federal Circuit said that the expansion of the tariffs was related to the original plan.

The California Privacy Protection Agency voted 4-0 to approve California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) rules Friday. Also at the virtual meeting, the agency agreed to seek comments on a proposed rulemaking on risk assessments, cybersecurity audits and automated decision-making. The privacy agency’s executive director said in December the CPRA rules could take effect in April or later (see 2212160040). The statute took effect Jan. 1.

Securus failed to show that California’s interim cap on incarcerated person calling services (IPCS) intrastate rates must be set aside, the 2nd District California Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday. The court affirmed the California Public Utilities Commission’s 2021 decision to provide interim relief by capping the rate at 7 cents per minute and banning ancillary fees.

Securus failed to show that California’s interim cap on incarcerated person calling services (IPCS) intrastate rates must be set aside, the 2nd District California Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday. The court affirmed the California Public Utilities Commission’s 2021 decision to provide interim relief by capping the rate at 7 cents per minute and banning ancillary fees.

T-Mobile will take California regulators to federal court over a decision to switch state USF contribution to a connections-based mechanism. In a complaint Wednesday against the California Public Utilities Commission (case 3:23-cv-00483), T-Mobile and subsidiaries urged the U.S. District Court of Northern California to preliminarily enjoin a $1.11 monthly per-line fee from taking effect April 1. A consumer advocate scoffed Thursday at T-Mobile’s claim that the order hurts low-income households.