The FTC needs to review past agency antitrust analysis to determine where tools have been misused and what predictions have been incorrect, acting Chair Rebecca Kelly Slaughter told the House Antitrust Subcommittee Thursday. She responded to Chairman David Cicilline, D-R.I., and ranking member Ken Buck, R-Colo. Those lawmakers' opening remarks questioned FTC reported reluctance in 2013 to pursue an antitrust lawsuit against Google, despite a recommendation from agency investigators.
Senate Minority Whip John Thune, R-S.D., and Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, reintroduced legislation Wednesday that would amend Communications Decency Act Section 230 and require online platforms to remove illegal content within days, as expected (see 2102030060). Under the Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency (Pact) Act, platforms would need a “defined complaint system that processes reports and notifies users of moderation decisions within twenty-one days, and allows consumers to appeal.” The bill would make platforms “more accountable for their content moderation policies and providing more tools to protect consumers,” said Schatz. Thune called it a “common-sense legislative approach to preserve user-generated content and free speech on the internet, while increasing consumer transparency and the accountability of big internet platforms.” Public Knowledge said it's “a serious, bipartisan effort to consider content-neutral requirements to provide greater transparency and accountability.” Access Now supports the requirements for platforms to have “content moderation policies, explain their moderation decisions, and have an appeal process.” BSA|The Software Alliance welcomed the effort and wants to “avoid unintended consequences and account for the broader universe of technology companies.” The serious proposal contains a “fatal flaw: by subjecting websites to federal civil liability, the bill is far more radical than it appears and would lead to legitimate speech being removed from the internet as websites take a better-safe-than-sorry approach,” said NetChoice Vice President Carl Szabo.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's rejection of a lawsuit brought by a California pastor and his religious organization claiming discrimination by Vimeo when it deleted a series of the plaintiffs' videos promoting sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE). In a decision Thursday (docket 20-616) by Judges Rosemary Pooler, Richard Wesley and Susan Carney, penned by Pooler, the 2nd Circuit said the video hosting service deletion of the church's account fell squarely in good-faith content policing immunity of Communications Decency Act Section 230. Vimeo "is statutorily entitled to consider SOCE content objectionable and may restrict access to that content as it sees fit," the panel said. Outside counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants didn't comment. Santa Clara University Director-High Tech Law Institute professor Eric Goldman blogged the ruling was a win for internet services, but both Democrats and Republicans have proposed Section 230 amendments that would overturn the ruling. He said the court's reliance on Section 230(c)(2)(A) opens the door for a motion to dismiss.
Increasing resources for antitrust enforcers is one potential area for Senate Judiciary Committee compromise, ranking member Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told us Wednesday. It’s something Senate Antitrust Subcommittee Chair Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., has pushed for along with comprehensive antitrust legislation (see 2102040053). Klobuchar will lead the subcommittee’s first hearing this session Thursday (see 2103040033).
Data portability and interoperability could get early movement as the House Antitrust Subcommittee looks to draft bipartisan bills for its antitrust review, Chairman David Cicilline, D-R.I., and ranking member Ken Buck, R-Colo., told us. At a hearing earlier Thursday, members of both parties showed support for working on portability and interoperability. Buck highlighted both items for potential subcommittee collaboration.
There won’t be legislative announcements from leadership at Thursday’s hearing on tech antitrust, House Antitrust Subcommittee Chair David Cicilline, D-R.I., told us Wednesday. But he expects the conversation to further define specific proposals. Legislative proposals could touch on interoperability, explicit prohibitions on favoring products and services, and nondiscrimination, he said. The hearing focus will be on the power of dominant firms to exclude competitors and favor products and services to make it difficult for entrants to compete, he added.
In his first speech since joining the FCC, Commissioner Nathan Simington told the Free State Foundation via teleconference that he opposes Communications Act Title II net neutrality regulation, indicated he still supports government action to curb non-ISP “gatekeepers,” and seemed optimistic about his ability to influence agency policy while in the minority. "Even commission decisions that don’t command a consensus are formed organically by conversations within the FCC,” Simington said. “The vast majority of decisions are bipartisan.”
House Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, D-N.J., hoped the COVID-19 aid package Democrats are aiming to pass via budget reconciliation includes additional E-rate funding. Pallone emphasized during an Incompas event the committee’s part of the pandemic bill, which it intends to mark up Thursday, is unlikely to address other telecom matters. More broadband money is almost certain to make it into additional economic aid measures and an infrastructure bill targeted for later this year, Pallone said.
Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and others cited the 25th anniversary Monday of the Telecom Act’s signing as a jumping-off point for a range of communications and tech policy proposals for this year, including the need for more broadband funding in coming legislation. Some noted the importance of the ongoing debate over revamping Communications Decency Act Section 230, enacted as part of the 1996 law.
Three Senate Democrats introduced expected legislation Friday (see 2102030060) to weaken Communications Decency Act Section 230 immunity, so victims of discrimination, harassment, cyber-stalking and other behavior could sue online platforms. Introduced by Mark Warner, Va.; Mazie Hirono, Hawaii; and Amy Klobuchar, Minn.; the Safeguarding Against Fraud, Exploitation, Threats, Extremism and Consumer Harms (Safe Tech) Act would let consumers seek court orders “where misuse of a provider’s services is likely to cause irreparable harm” and hold platforms “accountable when they directly enable harmful activity.” Users could sue platforms when they directly contribute to loss of life. “Section 230 has provided a ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ card to the largest platform companies even as their sites are used by scam artists, harassers and violent extremists,” said Warner. The bill will hold platforms “accountable for harmful, often criminal behavior enabled by their platforms to which they have turned a blind eye for too long.” Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., opposed the bill, saying it would effectively repeal the law he co-authored: “Creating liability for all commercial relationships would cause web hosts, cloud storage providers and even paid email services to purge their networks of any controversial speech.” The U.S. Chamber of Commerce urged Congress to be “mindful of the impact of changes in our antitrust laws and to focus on ensuring federal antitrust agencies have the resources to do their job consistent with the law.” Changing merger review legal standards, relying on fines over remedies and expanding private litigation “will not make America’s economy more vibrant and will have far-reaching implications impacting virtually every sector of our economy,” said Executive Vice President Neil Bradley.