Proposed conclusions in the draft of the FCC's annual report to Congress about the state of broadband deployment and competition raised eyebrows among industry groups, with some calling for the commission to consider additional data. The FCC also defended proposing higher broadband speed goals in the draft report. Commissioners will consider the item, required by Section 706 of the Telecom Act, Thursday during their open meeting (see 2402220059).
When 23andMe made several announcements about a data breach in October, it didn’t disclose that hackers who infiltrated its computer network “were after the personal information of Jewish and Chinese customers,” alleged a class action Friday (docket 3:24-cv-01418) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. 23andMe customer Rudy Thompson filed the complaint.
If ever there were a petition for rehearing en banc that should be granted, it's Cox Communications’ petition in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said Frontier Communications’ amicus brief Monday (docket 21-1168) in support.
Crown Castle co-founder Ted Miller’s complaint to invalidate the “cooperation agreement” the Crown Castle board entered into with “activist” investor Elliott Investment Management (see 2402290063) “is without merit,” said the answer Thursday (docket 2024-0176) from 12 defendants, including Crown Castle Chair Robert Bartolo, to the Feb. 27 lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court.
An FCC proposal requiring that MVPDs reimburse customers for programming affected by retransmission consent blackouts (see 2401170072) is outside the agency’s authority, unworkable, and would lead to higher prices for subscribers, said MVPDs and MVPD trade groups in comments filed in docket 24-20 by Friday’s deadline. The rebate proposal would be an “unnecessary government intrusion into already difficult negotiations” and “disrupt the marketplace by placing the government’s thumb on the scale to the detriment of cable subscribers,” said NCTA.
The plaintiffs in a fraud suit against Amazon didn’t receive the benefit of their bargain when the company hiked prices for its Prime Video subscription service in January, alleged their class action Thursday (docket 2:24-cv-00309) in U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Seattle.
Corporate officers can’t be held liable for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, said defendant Michael Lansky, president of Avid Telecom, Tuesday in a defendants’ supplement (docket 4:23-cv-00233) to their motion to dismiss a robocall case brought in May by the attorneys general of 48 states (see 2305240010). The complaint alleged Avid Telecom and executives Michael Lansky and Stacey Reeves facilitated robocalls or helped others make them. It alleged the defendants received 329 notifications from the USTelecom-led Industry Traceback Group, putting them “on notice” that Avid was transmitting illegal robocalls. The AGs seek a permanent injunction preventing defendants from initiating or transmitting illegal robocalls to U.S. consumers and from transmitting calls that violate the TSR, plus an award of damages of $1,500 per Title 47 violation, civil penalties of $10,000 and state penalties. Referencing what he called a “growing trend of caselaw,” Lansky noted Perrong v. Chase Data, in which the 3rd U.S. Circuit Appeals Court, citing City Select Auto Sales v. David Randall Associates, dismissed all TCPA claims vs. an individual business owner, raising doubt as to whether “common-law-personal participation liability is available against corporate officers under the TCPA.” Since the City Select ruling, courts in the 3rd Circuit have found that "a corporate officer is not liable under the TCPA common law personal liability principles,” said the supplement, noting KHS Corp. v. Singer Financial Corp. The defendants “acknowledge that the Perrong case is not binding precedent” on the court, but said the legal analysis it contains “is sound and reflects the growing view in courts across the country that the TCPA does not and cannot create personal liability in corporate officers for the allegedly illegal conduct of the company,” it said. The defendants request that claims against each of them in their individual capacities should be dismissed with prejudice.
USTelecom asked the FCC to grant broadband providers forbearance from Communications Act Section 214 requirements if it reclassifies broadband as a Title II service, meeting separately with aides to Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel and Commissioners Nathan Simington and Brendan Carr. Imposing Section 214 requirements on broadband providers would "undermine innovation and investment in the broadband marketplace," the group said in an ex parte filing posted Thursday in docket 23-320. While USTelecom continued opposing the commission's proceeding on Title II reclassification, it also asked that the FCC limit any obligations to "requiring broadband providers to have an international Section 214 authorization to enter the marketplace" (see 2310190020). Verizon raised similar concerns in a meeting with staff of the Wireline Bureau, Wireless Bureau, Office of International Affairs, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, and Office of General Counsel.
Democrats that represent Michigan and Ohio, where Big 3 automakers' plants are concentrated, are asking that the Section 301 review hike tariffs on Chinese automakers. Section 301 tariffs already apply a 25% tariff, making the total duty for a Chinese auto 27.5%.
Industry groups are backing calls that would refine the FCC's challenge processes for the national broadband map and broadband serviceable location fabric, they said in reply comments posted Wednesday in docket 19-195 (see 2402200073). Many seek changes that would improve the challenge process for mobile service and increase transparency in how disputes are adjudicated within the commission.