The thousands of complaints seeking to vacate the List 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods and get the duties refunded (see 2009220027) warrant the U.S. Court of International Trade assigning the litigation to a three-judge panel instead of a single judge, motioned (login required) Akin Gump Wednesday on behalf of importers HMTX Industries and Jasco Products. DOJ told Akin Gump it opposes the motion and will file a response, the firm said.

The thousands of complaints seeking to vacate the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods and have the duties refunded warrant the Court of International Trade assigning the litigation to a three-judge panel instead of a single judge, Akin Gump said Sept. 30 on behalf of importers HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, in a court filing. The Department of Justice told Akin Gump it opposes the motion and will file a response, it said.

DOJ’s motion for case management procedures to navigate the thousands of Section 301 tariff complaints before the U.S. Court of International Trade (see 2009240040) was “procedurally defective” because it wasn’t served on any other plaintiffs who filed cases involving the original HMTX Industries lawsuit (see 2009110041), said an opposition (in Pacer) Monday from Paulsen Vandevert, lawyer for importers GHSP and Brose North America. The more than 3,400 complaints seek to have the Lists 3 and 4A tariff rulemakings vacated and the paid duties refunded. GHSP, a supplier of electromechanical systems to the automotive industry, and Brose, a distributor of mechatronic parts for motorized car seats, are in “full agreement” with DOJ that the many complaints will require case management procedures, said Vandevert. But his clients “strongly object” to designating the three “first-filed” complaints as test cases, he said. The first three complaints were filed Sept. 10 and Sept.16. Vandevert filed for GHSP (in Pacer) Sept. 18 and for Brose (in Pacer) Sept. 22. “To determine which case or cases should be designated as the lead or test cases, the Court and all counsel involved must identify the cases that best represent all of the issues raised by all plaintiffs that would support invalidating the List 3 and 4A duties and justify their refund,” said Vandevert. “At this time it cannot be known with any certainty which cases, if any, do that.” DOJ didn't respond to questions Tuesday. Virtually all the suits we examined allege the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative overstepped its authority under the 1974 Trade Act when it imposed Lists 3 and 4A as retaliatory strikes against China. They also allege USTR violated the Administrative Procedure Act by running rulemakings that were sloppy and lacked transparency. Vandevert's complaints on behalf of GHSP and Brose were among the few to layer on the additional argument that Lists 3 and 4A were unlawful and unconstitutional forms of federal “revenue collection,” well beyond the "scope of actions USTR was authorized to take" under the Trade Act (see 2009230023). Only Congress has the “constitutional power” to impose taxes, said both complaints.

The Department of Justice motion for case management procedures to navigate the thousands of Section 301 tariff complaints before the Court of International Trade (see 2009240026) was “procedurally defective” because it wasn’t served on any other plaintiffs who filed cases involving the original HMTX Industries lawsuit, said an opposition Sept. 28 from Paulsen Vandevert, lawyer for importers GHSP and Brose North America. The more than 3,400 complaints seek to have the lists 3 and 4A tariff rulemakings vacated and the paid duties refunded. GHSP, a supplier of electromechanical systems to the automotive industry, and Brose, a distributor of mechatronic parts for motorized car seats, are in “full agreement” with DOJ that the many complaints will require case management procedures, Vandevert said. But his clients “strongly object” to designating the three “first-filed” complaints as test cases, he said.

A bipartisan pair of senators introduced legislation Tuesday to amend Communications Decency Act Section 230 and require platforms to report illegal drug sales and other illicit activity. Tech industry and privacy advocates oppose the bill. Experts raised issues with proposals aimed at amending industry’s liability shield, in interviews.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said that a bill that overwhelmingly passed the House last week that would change the presumption of guilt for goods coming from China's Xinjiang region may not get a vote in the Senate this year. “They haven't been moving much legislation,” he told International Trade Today during a phone call with reporters Sept. 30. “We'll see when we get to the lame duck, what the status of that is.”

A bipartisan pair of senators introduced legislation Tuesday to amend Communications Decency Act Section 230 and require platforms to report illegal drug sales and other illicit activity. Tech industry and privacy advocates oppose the bill. Experts raised issues with proposals aimed at amending industry’s liability shield, in interviews.

The California Public Utilities Commission should pump the brakes on state LifeLine changes until the FCC resolves federal Lifeline minimum service standards (MSS), the National Lifeline Association commented Thursday in CPUC docket R.20-02-008. Many at the federal agency seek to freeze MSS at 3 GB and oppose an FCC plan to raise MSS to 4.5 GB monthly; it would increase to 11.75 GB on Dec. 1 otherwise (see 2009150072). NaLA raised legal concerns with the CPUC’s proposal, saying it’s “likely to be challenged in federal court because it breaks with the Commission’s own precedent and mandates that the wireless Basic and Standard Plans be provided to California LifeLine participants for free in violation of Section 332(c)(3) of the Communications Act.” Federal law bans state commissions from setting wireless Lifeline co-payments, TracFone commented. Requiring free services is prohibited rate regulation, said the company, being bought by Verizon. The CPUC Public Advocates Office praised the agency’s plan to include wireline broadband service in LifeLine. "Given more than six months have passed since the start of the pandemic and many Californians may be in need of affordable broadband options to perform these essential activities, Cal Advocates urges the Commission to implement the [proposed decision's] interim rules swiftly and with urgency.” The California Emergency Technology Fund agreed. Frontier Communications raised concerns the proposal recommends replacing only $2 of a $4 monthly federal funding reduction coming in December. “This proposal will result in rate increases of up to $2.00 and harm low-income consumers at a time when they are most vulnerable from the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing financial crisis.”

The California Public Utilities Commission should pump the brakes on state LifeLine changes until the FCC resolves federal Lifeline minimum service standards (MSS), the National Lifeline Association commented Thursday in CPUC docket R.20-02-008. Many at the federal agency seek to freeze MSS at 3 GB and oppose an FCC plan to raise MSS to 4.5 GB monthly; it would increase to 11.75 GB on Dec. 1 otherwise (see 2009150072). NaLA raised legal concerns with the CPUC’s proposal, saying it’s “likely to be challenged in federal court because it breaks with the Commission’s own precedent and mandates that the wireless Basic and Standard Plans be provided to California LifeLine participants for free in violation of Section 332(c)(3) of the Communications Act.” Federal law bans state commissions from setting wireless Lifeline co-payments, TracFone commented. Requiring free services is prohibited rate regulation, said the company, being bought by Verizon. The CPUC Public Advocates Office praised the agency’s plan to include wireline broadband service in LifeLine. "Given more than six months have passed since the start of the pandemic and many Californians may be in need of affordable broadband options to perform these essential activities, Cal Advocates urges the Commission to implement the [proposed decision's] interim rules swiftly and with urgency.” The California Emergency Technology Fund agreed. Frontier Communications raised concerns the proposal recommends replacing only $2 of a $4 monthly federal funding reduction coming in December. “This proposal will result in rate increases of up to $2.00 and harm low-income consumers at a time when they are most vulnerable from the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing financial crisis.”

Draft legislation will be circulated this week that would “fundamentally alter” tech companies' business models, House Consumer Protection Subcommittee Chair Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., said during a hearing. Her draft bill will be aimed at giving regulators and consumers recourse when companies fail to deliver basic, stated commitments, she said. Reached after the hearing, Schakowsky wouldn’t say whether the draft bill directly targets Communications Decency Act Section 230.