Industry and Consumer Groups Clash on FCC Disparate Impact Framework
The FCC "offers no plausible reason why Congress would have used classic disparate-treatment language to create a disparate-impact regime," a coalition of industry groups said in a reply brief to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Monday. The brief…
explained the Minnesota Telecom Alliance's challenge of the FCC's digital discrimination rules (docket 24-1179). The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, NCTA, Wireless Infrastructure Association National Multifamily Housing Council, ACA Connects, Wireless ISP Association and several state telecom associations also noted that the major questions doctrine "confirms" the commission lacks "the authority to regulate non-ISPs" (see 2407080012). In a separate brief, the Legal Defense Fund, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the American Civil Liberties Union, Communications Workers of America and the United Church of Christ Office of Communication said that the FCC would "fail to achieve Congress's mandate" of facilitating equal access without establishing a disparate-impact liability. Section 1754 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act "also furthers the FCC’s ability to ferret out intentional discrimination," the groups said.