Legislators, broadcasters, cable groups, the Heritage Foundation and civil rights groups disagree on whether the FCC can or should require disclosures for political ads created with generative AI, according to comments filed in docket 24-211 by Thursday’s deadline.
The FCC urged that the 5th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court reject Maurine and Matthew Molak's challenge of the commission’s October declaratory ruling clarifying that the use of Wi-Fi on school buses is an educational purpose and eligible for E-rate funding (see 2408300027). In a brief Wednesday, the agency argued the Molaks lack standing to bring the challenge and the agency acted within the law when it addressed school bus Wi-Fi.
The FCC defended its decision to reclassify broadband as a Title II telecom service under the Communications Act in a reply brief to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Wednesday (docket 24-7000). It argued the court's decision staying the order pending review was done "without showing adequate statutory support." Moreover, the motions panel lacked "the benefit of the full briefing presented here" (see 2408130001).
The Congressional Research Service predicts the U.S. Supreme Court’s June Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo ruling (see 2406280043) and “uncertainty about the scope of the FCC’s authority and ability to adopt regulations in the public interest” could prompt congressional legislation "to clarify the agency’s statutory authority.” Conversely, lawmakers could also maintain “the status quo and let ambiguities regarding the FCC’s rulemaking authority be resolved by the courts,” CRS said in a Wednesday report. “There are also questions on whether the FCC may alter its rulemaking efforts in response to Loper Bright, as well as how such alterations might affect interest in legislation.” The FCC’s July FCC order that lets schools and libraries obtain E-rate support for off-premises Wi-Fi hot spots and wireless internet services (see 2407180024), April net neutrality rules and a 2023 digital discrimination order “illustrate the types of rules that might be challenged as exceeding FCC authority under Loper Bright or the major questions doctrine,” researchers said. Maurine and Matthew Molak petitioned the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week to review the E-rate Wi-Fi order (see 2408300027). The Molaks, whose 16-year-old son died by suicide after he was cyberbullied, say that ruling would give children and teenagers unsupervised social media access. Numerous FCC rules even before Loper Bright "were being contested by affected parties, including” the 5G Fund and next-generation 911 transition, “in both of which the FCC cites its public interest mandate,” CRS said. Researchers also noted the FCC’s 2022 notice of inquiry about ways to aid nascent in-space servicing, assembly and manufacturing companies (see 2208050023) “has come under scrutiny from interested parties.”
The ultimate makeup of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel that hears the review of the FCC’s net neutrality order may not make much difference, some legal experts told us, in the wake of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions. They doubted that the panel (docket 24-7000) will delve deeply into case law, instead simply deciding that going forward it's Congress, not the FCC, that must address any case that raises "major questions." Oral argument is scheduled for Oct. 31.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (see 2406280043) doesn’t foreclose the FCC's ability to act on net neutrality and other important public issues, Stephanie Joyce, senior vice president-chief of staff at the Computer & Communications Industry Association, said during a Broadband Breakfast webinar Wednesday.
It's "astonishing that the FCC is once again seeking to impose heavy-handed regulation on internet access," TechFreedom and the Washington Legal Foundation told the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Wednesday. The groups urged the court in an amicus brief Wednesday that it should reverse the commission's order restoring Title II classification of broadband (see 2408130001). Their brief said the "only question for this court" is whether the FCC has the statutory authority to act (docket 24-7000), arguing the order is a violation of the major questions doctrine.
The FCC "must point to clear congressional authorization" before claiming it can reclassify broadband as a Title II telecom service under the Communications Act, a coalition of industry groups told the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in its challenge of the commission's net neutrality rules. The court granted a temporary stay of the rules earlier this month (see 2408010066). The petitioners -- ACA Connects, CTIA, NCTA, USTelecom, the Wireless ISP Association and several state telecom associations -- said in their opening brief filed late Monday (docket 24-7000) that the "best reading of the federal communications laws forecloses the commission’s reclassification."
FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel vowed she will continue fighting for the commission's net neutrality order following the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision that stayed the rules Thursday (see 2408010065). "The American public wants an internet that is fast, open and fair," and Thursday's decision "is a setback, but we will not give up the fight for net neutrality," Rosenworcel said.
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.