Washington state senators’ privacy bill lacks teeth and should have a private right of action, said the state attorney general’s office at a Senate Environment and Technology Committee hearing. Microsoft supported the bill, and other tech and internet companies said they are almost on board. The American Civil Liberties Union raised concerns, including on facial recognition bias and no private right of action. Also Wednesday, facial identification also got a U.S. House Oversight Committee hearing (see 2001150035).

FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel warned the Senate Commerce Committee Wednesday the U.S. isn’t leading the world on 5G and can’t without more mid-band spectrum. Rosenworcel asked the committee to develop C-band legislation. Commissioner Mike O’Rielly said the FCC isn’t necessarily behind, though a winner won’t be known for some time.

Washington state senators’ privacy bill lacks teeth and should have a private right of action, said the state attorney general’s office at a Senate Environment and Technology Committee hearing. Microsoft supported the bill, and other tech and internet companies said they are almost on board. The American Civil Liberties Union raised concerns, including on facial recognition bias and no private right of action. Also Wednesday, facial identification also got a U.S. House Oversight Committee hearing (see 2001150035).

A Supreme Court decision to hear a challenge by the American Association of Political Consultants questioning a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in a key Telephone Consumer Protection Act case could have much bigger implications, TCPA lawyers told us Monday. DOJ also asked the court to hear the case. AAPC sought to have the entire ban thrown out on constitutional grounds, in Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, docket 19-631. The high court granted cert Friday.

T-Mobile and states opposing the carrier’s Sprint buy re-emphasized their positions, before closing argument Wednesday at U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Arguing (in Pacer) plaintiffs don’t have to prove anticompetitive intentions, states highlighted companies’ internal documents cited at trial as showing such motives, including a 2011 Deutsche Telekom slide deck saying one transaction benefit is a "rule of three" that would reduce price competition (see 1912100029). States questioned Dish Chairman Charlie Ergen’s credibility: "There is considerable reason for this Court to doubt whether DISH will build the promised network; and, even if it does, DISH’s most optimistic projections still fall well short of being timely, likely, or sufficient to replace the lost competition that Sprint has long provided.” States rejected (in Pacer) DOJ and the FCC urging the court defer to federal agencies’ conditional OKs (see 1912200043). "States are independent enforcers of the antitrust laws, and it is the role of the Court -- not any federal agency -- to decide the lawfulness of the merger," they said. “A prosecutorial decision by” DOJ “not to challenge a transaction is not a determination that the proposed merger is lawful under the Clayton Act,” and the same goes for a commission OK, the plaintiffs said. T-Mobile said (in Pacer) DOJ and the FCC agree the deal will mean lower prices, better wireless service and increased competition: “Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden to prove that the world with this merger is likely to be substantially less competitive than the world without it." If not allowed, T-Mobile and Sprint will suffer and Dish won’t enter the market, they said. It's false to say the biggest U.S. carriers welcome the takeover, defendants said. “AT&T has been working with third parties to thwart the merger,” said T-Mobile, citing a July 17, 2018, email from AT&T Executive Vice President-Regulatory and State External Affairs Joan Marsh to Communications Workers of America Telecom Policy Director Debbie Goldman. Marsh wrote that she “wanted you to be aware of potential [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)] issues that some are raising.” The attachment raises possible national security concerns, including T-Mobile and Sprint using Chinese equipment, Softbank’s relationships with Chinese companies, and a foreign-owned company potentially holding more spectrum than U.S. carriers. "As far as I know, AT&T has not taken a position on the merger," a CWA spokesperson emailed: The union opposes the deal "because it would hurt working people." AT&T didn’t comment. A settlement between states and the carriers is deemed unlikely (see 1912300033).

T-Mobile and states opposing the carrier’s Sprint buy re-emphasized their positions, before closing argument Wednesday at U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Arguing (in Pacer) plaintiffs don’t have to prove anticompetitive intentions, states highlighted companies’ internal documents cited at trial as showing such motives, including a 2011 Deutsche Telekom slide deck saying one transaction benefit is a "rule of three" that would reduce price competition (see 1912100029). States questioned Dish Chairman Charlie Ergen’s credibility: "There is considerable reason for this Court to doubt whether DISH will build the promised network; and, even if it does, DISH’s most optimistic projections still fall well short of being timely, likely, or sufficient to replace the lost competition that Sprint has long provided.” States rejected (in Pacer) DOJ and the FCC urging the court defer to federal agencies’ conditional OKs (see 1912200043). "States are independent enforcers of the antitrust laws, and it is the role of the Court -- not any federal agency -- to decide the lawfulness of the merger," they said. “A prosecutorial decision by” DOJ “not to challenge a transaction is not a determination that the proposed merger is lawful under the Clayton Act,” and the same goes for a commission OK, the plaintiffs said. T-Mobile said (in Pacer) DOJ and the FCC agree the deal will mean lower prices, better wireless service and increased competition: “Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden to prove that the world with this merger is likely to be substantially less competitive than the world without it." If not allowed, T-Mobile and Sprint will suffer and Dish won’t enter the market, they said. It's false to say the biggest U.S. carriers welcome the takeover, defendants said. “AT&T has been working with third parties to thwart the merger,” said T-Mobile, citing a July 17, 2018, email from AT&T Executive Vice President-Regulatory and State External Affairs Joan Marsh to Communications Workers of America Telecom Policy Director Debbie Goldman. Marsh wrote that she “wanted you to be aware of potential [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)] issues that some are raising.” The attachment raises possible national security concerns, including T-Mobile and Sprint using Chinese equipment, Softbank’s relationships with Chinese companies, and a foreign-owned company potentially holding more spectrum than U.S. carriers. "As far as I know, AT&T has not taken a position on the merger," a CWA spokesperson emailed: The union opposes the deal "because it would hurt working people." AT&T didn’t comment. A settlement between states and the carriers is deemed unlikely (see 1912300033).

Efforts to end 911 fee diversion face more headwinds in four states that the FCC found continued the practice in 2018 (see 1912190077), 911 advocates said in interviews. Commissioner Mike O’Rielly told us he’s following up with West Virginia, which hasn’t acted despite a 2018 promise by Gov. Jim Justice (R), and Rhode Island, which last year addressed the practice in a way he called problematic.

If Congress legislatively tackles contentious issues raised in the FCC's cable TV local franchise authority order (see 1908010011), it might want to address how Cable Act Section 622 defines franchise fees and whether that includes cable-related in-kind expenses such as public, educational and governmental channels, reported the Congressional Research Service Friday. Lawmakers could look at whether the act pre-empts state and local governments from regulating non-cable service provided by cable operators, plus the federalism implications, CRS said: Legislators could avoid anti-commandeering issues of direct orders to states by setting federal standards for regulation of ancillary non-cable services instead of prohibiting such state regulation.

The FCC is moving forward to clear spectrum in the 3.7-4.2 GHz C band for 5G and to take other actions to speed deployment, as leadership changes at other agencies raise questions about whether spectrum policy disarray continues elsewhere in President Donald Trump's administration. Trump recently moved Robert Blair from the State Department to oversee the administration’s 5G push under National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow (see 1912240015). Blair is the latest in a line of advisers to fill that role.

Leaders of the House and Senate Commerce committees remain interested in continuing to pursue a broad media policy legislative revamp in 2020, after negotiations on Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act reauthorization language resulted in a skinny renewal measure that addressed few additional issues (see 1912190068). President Donald Trump signed the FY 2020 federal appropriations minibus bill (HR-1865) two weeks ago that contained the STELA renewal language (see 1912240001).