The California Senate Judiciary Committee supported carving out employers from the California Consumer Privacy Act, but at a Tuesday hearing amended AB-25 to sunset that exemption Jan. 1, 2021. The amendment means “a more narrowly tailored response is necessary within the next year otherwise the law reverts back to its current form,” said committee bill analysis dated Monday. The Assembly-passed bill had enough votes to clear the committee and would go next to Senate Appropriations. The committee decided not to weigh AB-1416, which would allow companies to override consumers’ requests to opt out of sale of their data if it’s for government and fraud-detection purposes. The Judiciary hearing continued into early evening. Consumer privacy groups lined up Monday against AB-25, AB-1416 and three other industry-backed CCPA changes that were up for vote in the committee (see 1907080047). Privacy advocates “beat the odds” when CCPA passed last year, Californians for Consumer Privacy Chair Alastair Mactaggart said Monday. “But make no mistake: last year’s David-versus-Goliath fight for consumer privacy rights continues.”
Consumer privacy groups lined up against five industry-backed bills advancing through the California legislature to tweak the California Consumer Privacy Act. In a Monday media teleconference, officials including from Consumers Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union and Common Sense Kids Action, said they oppose AB-25, AB-846, AB-873, AB-1416 and AB-1564, bills scheduled for a key hearing Tuesday in the Senate Judiciary Committee. If the panel clears the Assembly-passed bills, they would head to the Senate floor. None of the bills that the privacy groups supported earlier this session, including Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s (D) bill to expand protections and add a private right of action, are moving forward, said Common Sense Vice President Elizabeth Galicia: “All the CCPA-related bills that would actually strengthen rights are not being negotiated currently.” The worst bill is AB-1416, which would allow companies to ignore consumers requests to opt out of sale of their data if it’s for government and fraud-detection purposes, said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Lee Tien. The exemption is too broad, making the bill “harmful and unnecessary,” he said. AB-873, modifying definitions of “personal information” and “de-identified,” looks like technical edits but it’s a “Trojan horse” depriving consumers of control over their personal data, said Jacob Snow, ACLU Northern California Technology and Civil Liberties attorney. People can be identified even from anonymized data, and it will get easier over time with the rise of machine learning, he said. Workers need “at least as much” protection as consumers, but AB-25’s exemption for employers would take that away from current and former employees, contractors and job applicants, said Mitch Steiger, legislative advocate for the California Labor Federation. That bill has become a “grab bag” that's under negotiation and could be further amended, said Common Sense Senior Counsel-Policy and Privacy Ariel Fox Johnson. AB-846 goes beyond its stated purpose of allowing loyalty programs by permitting companies to charge more if someone opts out of the program, said Justin Brookman, Consumer Reports director-consumer privacy and technology policy. AB-1564 hurts groups without internet access, including seniors and those with low income or education, by removing a requirement that companies list a phone number for opt-out requests, said Privacy Rights Clearinghouse Policy Counsel Emory Roane.
FCC preliminary numbers show about 12 percent of Lifeline subscribers de-enrolled in states where the national verifier is reaching final steps in the reverification process. Lifeline providers saw many Lifeline de-enrollments in recent weeks in some of the first states where the NV launched, but carrier application program interface remains unavailable and Universal Service Administrative Co. still lacks access to many state databases or the national Medicaid database, said John Heitmann of Kelley Drye, counsel to the National Lifeline Association. At least 2 million could be de-enrolled due to difficulties verifying, he said.
The Supreme Court need not review a VoIP classification decision by the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals deciding interconnected IP-based voice is an information service exempt from state regulation, Charter Communications said in a Wednesday brief in case 18-1386. “That decision does not conflict with the decisions of any other court,” is “consistent with the views of the FCC,” doesn’t “implicate any issue of national importance,” and is “a straightforward application of the plain terms of the 1996 Act,” the company said. The operator disagreed the decision conflicts with the Vermont Supreme Court's 2013 opinion that some but not all state regulation of information services is pre-empted, as argued by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission in its petition for writ of certiorari (see 1905010191). The decision doesn't frustrate universal service programs, the MVPD responded to NARUC's June 3 amicus brief. “As the FCC has held and the Tenth Circuit has recognized, designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier turns on whether the provider offers any service on a common carrier basis," Charter said. "Provisioning interconnected VoIP services (irrespective of how they are classified) generally still involves wholesale telecommunications services upstream from the consumer-facing offering, such as those relating to network access and interconnection, meaning that VoIP providers or their affiliates can be common carriers for reasons other than their consumer-facing voice services.” The Voice on the Net Coalition, supporting Charter, expects a cert decision by the first week of October, Executive Director Glenn Richards told us Friday.
The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals again upheld an RF safety law in Berkeley, California, that requires the wireless industry to provide a warning about possible dangers of too much exposure to wireless frequencies. The Supreme Court had required the appeals court to revisit its 2017 decision, appealed by CTIA, because of SCOTUS’ 2018 decision rejecting a California disclosure law in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra (see 1809070041). Dissenting Judge Michelle Friedland would have preliminarily enjoined the law for unconstitutionally forcing businesses to make false or misleading statements. The ruling gives some leeway for localities to address constituents' RF concerns, said Best Best local lawyer Gail Karish.
California regulators should pause reviewing T-Mobile/Sprint until a federal court decides on the state attorneys general lawsuit to block the deal, said Communications Workers of America. CWA met Thursday with Commissioner Martha Guzman Aceves, said a Monday filing in docket A18-07-011 at the California Public Utilities Commission. “The case is scheduled to begin in October and last a few weeks,” CWA said: “If the court blocks the merger, there would be no need for a Commission decision on this very controversial merger.” The CPUC must issue proposed decisions 30 days before they can be voted upon at a meeting, so Tuesday is the deadline to get a T-Mobile/Sprint item on the Aug. 1 meeting agenda. The following two CPUC meetings are Aug. 15 and Sept. 12. “I would be surprised if a proposed decision approving the deal was issued this week,” Tellus Venture Associates President Steve Blum emailed Monday. “Under normal circumstances, i.e. the facts are known and the record is closed, I'd be expecting a proposed decision from the ALJ anytime now,” but deal parameters are in flux and California AG Xavier Becerra (D) opposes it, said the local government consultant. The AG suit “changes the dynamics and speaks volumes about how this Commission should move forward,” The Utility Reform Network (TURN) Managing Director-San Diego Christine Mailloux emailed Friday. If a proposed decision or ruling on the carriers’ motion on FCC commitments doesn't come soon (see 1905210001), TURN “will consider further action to request to put more detail into the record in response to any new information presented by the carriers,” she said. Some expect Becerra and other AGs’ suit to mean more scrutiny by California commissioners (see 1906200015). T-Mobile declined comment Monday.
A California Senate panel delayed considering a bill to extend state VoIP deregulation another 10 years after the California Public Utilities Commission took the uncommon step of voting to strongly oppose the measure. Continuing deregulation under the Assembly-passed AB-1366 would undermine public safety and carrier-of-last-resort obligations, delay commission proceedings, contradict CPUC responsibilities and allow companies to disregard other state laws, the CPUC said in a position paper adopted unanimously Thursday.
Pole riders sought revamped Connecticut pole attachment rules to deal with a rush of attachment applications. The state Public Utility Regulatory Authority (PURA) asked for feedback by Wednesday on a United Illuminating proposal to revise PURA's temporary attachment guidelines, but CenturyLink and the New England Cable and Telecommunications Association (NECTA) suggested in comments in docket 19-01-52 that the pole owner’s plan doesn’t address the full problem. Meanwhile, Connecticut legislators’ failure to pass a municipal broadband bill sent debate over a pole space reserved for municipal use back to court.
Texas cities soon plan to revise their lawsuit contesting the state’s 2017 small-cells law to additionally challenge a law signed June 14 related to local telecom fees, an attorney for the suit’s lead plaintiff told us this week. McAllen and the other cities take a risk combining the cases, said Ewell Brown's David Brown. Florida cities are deciding whether to amend their own lawsuit against that state’s small-cells law after Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) Tuesday signed a wireless bill tightening restrictions on cities.
Colorado municipalities are trying to work with the wireless industry on 5G infrastructure rollout despite shot-clock concerns and apparent differences between a 2017 state small-cells law and last summer’s FCC order, said local government representatives Tuesday at the livestreamed Mountain Connect conference in Dillon. It shouldn't be "us against them," said Scott Harry, Crown Castle government affairs manager, Rocky Mountain region. “We want to create an environment of collaboration."