President Donald Trump’s lawsuits against Facebook, Google and Twitter (see 2107070065) raise “an interesting argument” about when a private entity becomes a state actor subject to First Amendment restraints, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr said Thursday. Supreme Court precedent establishes that a private entity effectively becomes a state actor when “sufficiently coordinating with government actors,” Carr said during an FCBA event: “We’ll see how that case plays out.” And there are examples of affirmative, anti-discrimination obligations placed on private entities that involve public accommodation law, said Carr. He described a spectrum of speech obligations for cases involving data roaming and cable’s must-carry provisions. It can be argued that social media companies are in the realm of the cable must-carry cases, he said. It’s time for Congress to close the gap between tech platforms’ corporate power and the lack of accountability, he argued. “Reform” for Communications Decency Act Section 230 is one “important piece,” he said, but it’s not sufficient. Big Tech also needs to provide more transparency, he said, voicing support for the Promoting Rights and Online Speech Protections to Ensure Every Consumer is Heard (Pro-Speech) Act (see 2106100070). The bill “pretty much nails it,” Carr said. Congress should also consider methods for banning pretextual content moderation and imposing affirmative, anti-discrimination obligations, he said. Trump’s legal complaints aren’t “frivolous,” said Free State Foundation President Randolph May. He noted Trump’s argument CDA Section 230 immunity “amounts to a delegation of authority by Congress that facilitates the companies’ censorship actions.” If correct, Big Tech companies can’t censor posts, May said, though he’s “not convinced at this point that Section 230’s grant of immunity, standing alone, is sufficient to make the Big Tech social media companies state actors.” It’s possible discovery “could uncover a trove of emails from various congressional officials urging the social media companies to take certain actions which the firms quickly took,” he added.

Global Aluminum Distributor backed Kingtom Aluminio's renewed bid to join a lawsuit over an Enforce and Protect Act investigation that found it helped importers evade antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China, while the original EAPA alleger, Ta Chen International, disputed Kingtom's motion for reconsideration in the case, in briefs filed July 7 (Global Aluminum Distributor LLC v. U.S., CIT #21-00198). Kingtom asks the Court of International Trade to reverse its own June 21 decision that Kingtom can't intervene in the case, brought by the importers found to have evaded AD/CV duties.

President Donald Trump’s lawsuits against Facebook, Google and Twitter (see 2107070065) raise “an interesting argument” about when a private entity becomes a state actor subject to First Amendment restraints, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr said Thursday. Supreme Court precedent establishes that a private entity effectively becomes a state actor when “sufficiently coordinating with government actors,” Carr said during an FCBA event: “We’ll see how that case plays out.” And there are examples of affirmative, anti-discrimination obligations placed on private entities that involve public accommodation law, said Carr. He described a spectrum of speech obligations for cases involving data roaming and cable’s must-carry provisions. It can be argued that social media companies are in the realm of the cable must-carry cases, he said. It’s time for Congress to close the gap between tech platforms’ corporate power and the lack of accountability, he argued. “Reform” for Communications Decency Act Section 230 is one “important piece,” he said, but it’s not sufficient. Big Tech also needs to provide more transparency, he said, voicing support for the Promoting Rights and Online Speech Protections to Ensure Every Consumer is Heard (Pro-Speech) Act (see 2106100070). The bill “pretty much nails it,” Carr said. Congress should also consider methods for banning pretextual content moderation and imposing affirmative, anti-discrimination obligations, he said. Trump’s legal complaints aren’t “frivolous,” said Free State Foundation President Randolph May. He noted Trump’s argument CDA Section 230 immunity “amounts to a delegation of authority by Congress that facilitates the companies’ censorship actions.” If correct, Big Tech companies can’t censor posts, May said, though he’s “not convinced at this point that Section 230’s grant of immunity, standing alone, is sufficient to make the Big Tech social media companies state actors.” It’s possible discovery “could uncover a trove of emails from various congressional officials urging the social media companies to take certain actions which the firms quickly took,” he added.

Tuesday's U.S. Court of International Trade opinion granting Section 301 plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products a preliminary injunction freezing the liquidation of unliquidated Chinese imports with Lists 3 or 4A tariff exposure (see 2107060080) gave the public its first tangible peek into the court's possible thinking about the merits of the importers' unprecedented legal challenge to the Chinese duties.

Among the recent plethora of lawsuits filed in the Court of International Trade challenging the constitutionality of the Enforce and Protect Act process for investigating evasion of antindumping and countervailing duty orders (see 2106070011), at least one invokes the Eighth Amendment, a rarely litigated part of the U.S. Constitution. Filed by trade lawyer David Craven on behalf of Global Aluminum Distributor, the lawsuit challenges EAPA penalties based on the amendment's prohibition on excessive fines.

A draft order tweaking rules of the secure and trusted communications networks reimbursement program, set for a commissioner vote Tuesday (see 2106220060), is expected to get support of all four commissioners. A few slight changes are possible, said industry and agency officials. FCC officials said they are sorting through possible changes, within decisions to be made before the meeting.

The House Judiciary Committee missed an opportunity by marking up six antitrust bills without holding a post-introduction hearing (see 2106250062), an aide for the New Democrat Coalition told us Tuesday. House Antitrust Subcommittee Chairman David Cicilline, D-R.I., told reporters he and ranking member Ken Buck, R-Colo., will continue seeking support from Democratic and Republican members, including the New Democrats and the House Problem Solvers Caucus.

Opponents of the FCC’s order reallocating the 5.9 GHz band raise a novel issue in a spectrum fight at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit -- whether the FCC violated a law requiring the allocation of spectrum for intelligent transportation systems. The FCC moved away from dedicated short-range communications (DSRC), the former allocation for the entire 75 MHz. Instead, the agency divided the band with 45 MHz set aside for Wi-Fi and 30 MHz for cellular vehicle-to-everything technology. Wi-Fi advocates say the court is unlikely to reverse the FCC in favor of the Department of Transportation.

Opponents of the FCC’s order reallocating the 5.9 GHz band raise a novel issue in a spectrum fight at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit -- whether the FCC violated a law requiring the allocation of spectrum for intelligent transportation systems. The FCC moved away from dedicated short-range communications (DSRC), the former allocation for the entire 75 MHz. Instead, the agency divided the band with 45 MHz set aside for Wi-Fi and 30 MHz for cellular vehicle-to-everything technology. Wi-Fi advocates say the court is unlikely to reverse the FCC in favor of the Department of Transportation.

Opponents of the FCC’s order reallocating the 5.9 GHz band raise a novel issue in a spectrum fight at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit -- whether the FCC violated a law requiring the allocation of spectrum for intelligent transportation systems. The FCC moved away from dedicated short-range communications (DSRC), the former allocation for the entire 75 MHz. Instead, the agency divided the band with 45 MHz set aside for Wi-Fi and 30 MHz for cellular vehicle-to-everything technology. Wi-Fi advocates say the court is unlikely to reverse the FCC in favor of the Department of Transportation.