Vermont could be the first state to include a private right of action in a comprehensive privacy bill. The Vermont House voted 139-0 Friday to approve H-121, which would allow individuals to sue in privacy cases and give the state's attorney general an enforcement role. The bill will go next to the Senate. Initially, the House Commerce Committee decided not to advance H-121 in 2023 after members determined it needed work (see 2304060060). But on Thursday, lawmakers amended the bill, teeing up H-121 for a Friday vote. The Commerce Committee considered privacy testimony for four years to draft a “protective but largely technology-and industry-neutral proposal,” Rep. Monique Priestley (D) said. The amended bill would align with privacy laws in Connecticut and many other states, taking some features from each, Priestley added. Some would be “unique to Vermont,” including the private right of action and restrictions on “how businesses may use data to what is consistent with the reasonable expectations of consumers,” she said. For the Computer & Communications Industry Association, the “private right of action is our main point of concern with the bill's current language,” said CCIA State Policy Director Khara Boender: “The bill otherwise is largely harmonized with existing privacy frameworks” like Connecticut’s. Private rights of action in state laws such as the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act “have resulted in plaintiffs advancing frivolous claims with little evidence of actual injury,” Boender said. No other comprehensive privacy bill has a broad private right of action, though the California Consumer Privacy Act has a narrower one, said Husch Blackwell privacy attorney David Stauss. Whether it survives the Vermont Senate is an open question, he said. "I certainly expect that there will be significant pushback."
State enforcers of net neutrality report no legal actions against ISPs more than five years after the laws took effect. A Communications Daily public records request showed that Washington state’s attorney general's office received 21 complaints related to net neutrality since enacting its first law in March 2018, but most were resolved informally. Half the states with such laws told us they hadn’t received complaints.
The California Public Utilities Commission scolded Verizon Wireless in an order Thursday for its handling of a case of alleged customer fraud. The CPUC granted relief to a family of complainants through a 4-0 vote on a consent agenda during a Thursday meeting. Verizon could face further sanctions, the agency said. “During the course of this proceeding, Verizon failed to disclose material information concerning the porting and reassignment of at least one of Complainants’ mobile phone numbers,” said the draft decision in docket C.23-12-005. “This proceeding will remain open in order to explore an Order to Show Cause against Verizon for this material omission.” The complainants alleged that, without notice, Verizon terminated service to and locked their five iPhones and associated phone numbers for reasons of fraud. The customers said that, as a result, they had to buy five phones and suffered irreparable injury to their businesses because they couldn’t port their locked numbers to another carrier. Verizon asked to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because its agreement with customers requires arbitration. However, the CPUC said the arbitration clause doesn’t circumvent the commission’s authority. Also, the carrier argued that it may terminate customers’ phone services without notice under its agreement and in exigent circumstances. Verizon argued that it acted after determining that the customers committed fraud. The CPUC agreed that the carrier could terminate customers’ service, but was “not satisfied with the way Verizon's Fraud Department handled this case and the allegations against the Complainants.” Accordingly, the CPUC required that Verizon confidentially “submit a comprehensive report of the procedures and criteria used … to identify and accuse customers of fraud,” with “specific evidence that supported Verizon's claim that the Complainants in this case engaged in fraudulent activity.” Also, the CPUC said the customer agreement “does not authorize Verizon to lock a phone or lock a number associated with a mobile phone.” So, the agency required Verizon to unlock five iPhones and their associated numbers. In addition, the CPUC required the carrier to refund the customers the costs of three of the five locked phones, plus the five replacement phones they bought after their service was terminated. Verizon declined to comment.
The telecom industry continued to raise concerns about a Minnesota broadband safety and workforce bill. SF-4742 would set aside a portion of federal broadband, equity, access and deployment (BEAD) program funding for companies that agree to workforce “best practices” including payment of prevailing wages and annual skills training. At a livestreamed Wednesday meeting, the Minnesota Senate Energy Committee amended the bill and voted 8-6 to advance it to the Agriculture Committee. The committee delayed voting on the bill Monday after multiple senators and the telecom industry raised concerns that it would slow high-speed internet expansion (see 2403180048). Sponsor Sen. Jennifer McEwan (D) said she had “productive” talks with stakeholders during the previous 48 hours, leading to a Wednesday amendment with “more inclusive language.” There still isn't “perfect agreement," said McEwan, but talks will continue. The amendment doesn’t resolve the Minnesota Cable Communications Association’s concerns, testified the association’s counsel, Anthony Mendoza. Then "this bill still has more work to do," responded Sen. Andrew Mathews (R), who voted no on clearing the legislation. Sen. Glenn Gruenhagen (R) also opposed the bill, saying the state should have a “level playing field” when seeking grants. The Wireless ISP Association opposed SF-4742 in a Wednesday letter to the committee. The bill’s proposed changes to state broadband law “will significantly impair WISPA members’ ability to compete for grant dollars, will delay important broadband expansion projects, and will put increased strain on an already challenging workforce availability landscape,” the association wrote.
A Minnesota Senate panel will pause 48 hours to resolve concerns about a broadband safety bill. At a livestreamed hearing Monday, the Energy Committee laid over SF-4742 by Sen. Jennifer McEwan (D) after multiple members expressed misgivings. The committee will resume considering the bill during its next meeting on Wednesday at 12:30 p.m. CDT, said Chair Nick Frentz (D). "I hope this is a hint from the committee that these members here are expecting to see some progress, or it's probably not going to make it out of this committee." McEwan committed to working hard on the bill before the next meeting. SF-4742 would set aside a portion of federal broadband, equity, access and deployment (BEAD) program funding for companies that agree to workforce “best practices” including payment of prevailing wages and annual skills training. It wouldn’t prevent anyone from seeking BEAD funding, stressed McEwan. Pointing to safety problems they’ve seen with broadband construction, the Laborers’ International Union of North America and Minnesota Building and Construction Trades Council supported the bill. But internet providers and telecom construction companies stressed their safety commitment and said the bill could hold back high-speed internet expansion. SF-4742 would put at risk Minnesota’s nearly $652 million BEAD allocation because it doesn’t comply with NTIA’s notice of funding availability or the Minnesota broadband office’s initial plan, said Minnesota Telecom Alliance CEO Brent Christensen.
Lumen’s CenturyLink faced regulatory setbacks at multiple state commissions last week. On Friday, the Utah Public Service Commission denied a CenturyLink petition seeking statewide exemption from carrier of last resort (COLR) requirements for new customers. Earlier in the week, a Minnesota Public Utilities Commission administrative law judge recommended that the commission find the carrier failed to provide adequate service. In addition, the Montana PSC denied a CenturyLink petition and the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission recommended a penalty.
Prepare for more California privacy activity in coming months, California Privacy Protection Agency Senior Privacy Counsel Lisa Kim said Wednesday. Kim previewed CPPA enforcement, rulemaking and legislative work at a virtual FCBA privacy symposium Wednesday. A growing patchwork of state privacy laws makes it difficult for businesses to create a good consumer experience for making privacy choices, said corporate privacy practitioners during a later panel.
The entire Arizona Corporation Commission refused hiking monthly surcharges on customer bills for the state’s high-cost fund, despite projections that the Arizona Universal Service Fund (AUSF) will soon run out of cash. The ACC's lone Democrat joined four Republican commissioners in voting against increased surcharges during a livestreamed meeting Tuesday. Staff warned last month that the AUSF would be depleted by the end of April, meaning no more payments starting May for funding AUSF administrator Solix or Frontier Communications, the only company in the state receiving this high-cost support (see 2402280038). Frontier supported staff’s proposal to increase the monthly surcharge on customer bills. However, Arizona commissioners said during the livestreamed meeting that they preferred addressing the issue through an upcoming Frontier rate case planned for this fall. Commissioner Kevin Thompson (R) can’t support increasing the AUSF fee, he said. “Let’s look at this in the rate case and have a broader discussion on the merits of the AUSF as we go forward.” Arizona commissioners also declined raising AUSF contribution rates in 2022 and 2023 (see 2312050032).
Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee (R) aims to avoid industry litigation that has stymied kids’ social media laws in other states, his aide told a Tennessee House committee during a hearing Tuesday on an administration-sponsored bill requiring parental consent for kids younger than 18 on social networks. But afterward, Computer & Communications Industry Association State Director Kara Boender told us her group “still [has] concerns surrounding the bill's provisions.”
The California Public Utilities Commission received warnings Friday about how the CPUC plans to make a foster-youth pilot a permanent part of the California LifeLine program. IFoster, the pilot’s administrator, said the current draft is “unconscionable” and would create a program “destined to fail.” The CPUC "is about to take a successful Digital Equity program and destroy it while also making ineligible foster youth as they age out of foster care, the very time they need a communications device most to obtain housing, food, and apply for jobs,” the nonprofit iFoster commented in R.20-02-008. Moreover, it said the revised proposal “will result in 12,000 foster youth losing what has been to date a life-saving resource that they describe as a lifeline, a bright spot in their lives, and a necessity for their vital communications.” It's wrong for the CPUC to try to conform the program to the state's “ill-fitting regular LifeLine program,” which “routinely rejects foster youth.” Also, using the traditional LifeLine model would mean removing the mandate for providing a device for foster youth and "no requirements for high speed or unlimited data or hotspot capability,” said iFoster. Neither T-Mobile nor affiliate Assurance Wireless will participate in the proposed permanent program, T-Mobile commented. The revised proposal "still does not address how -- or whether -- current Pilot Program participants will receive service" after the pilot expires July 31, T-Mobile cautioned. Cox supported making the program a permanent part of California LifeLine. But the CPUC shouldn't assign the program its own minimum service standards or specific support amounts, the cable company said. The CPUC had planned to vote Feb. 15 on an earlier proposal but twice postponed the item. The commission now plans voting on the revised proposal at its March 21 meeting (see 2402290056 and 2403050016).