Arlington v. FCC did not hold that an agency is always entitled to deference in its interpretation of the statutes it relies on, Verizon told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a filing Monday. Verizon was responding to an FCC argument that Arlington bolstered its arguments in the court challenge to the net neutrality rules (CD May 24 p1). The Arlington decision, Verizon said, simply held that under the established Chevron framework, deference only applies when it resolves “'a statutory ambiguity’ that constitutes an implicit delegation to gap-fill.” And according to D.C. Circuit precedent, whether ambiguity exists is not a question that agencies get deference on, Verizon said. Congress declined to grant specific authority over the Internet, instead creating a distinct regulatory scheme for information services and expressly directing that the Internet remain “unfettered” by regulation, Verizon said, quoting Section 230 of the Telecom Act. “There is no gap to fill."
Section 230
Monday’s Supreme Court decision that the FCC is entitled to deference in interpreting ambiguous statutes about its jurisdiction (CD May 21 p1) bolsters the commission’s position in the net neutrality court battle, the FCC said in a letter filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Thursday. Attorneys and law professors we spoke to agree that the decision in the case, Arlington v. FCC, could help the commission -- but only if the court thinks the statutes in question are ambiguous in the first place. A Verizon spokesman said the company will file a response with the D.C. Circuit.
A New Jersey woman claiming that Apple failed to stop third-party applications from uploading users’ personal and device information without permission will get a second bite at Apple. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, Calif., granted Apple’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit seeking class-action status while also granting Maria Pirozzi leave to amend her claims. The suit faults Apple for allegedly not enforcing its terms of service for app developers, letting developers upload “private address book information (including names and contact information of users’ contacts), location data, private photographs and videos without the users’ knowledge or consent when a user agrees to allow an app to access the user’s then current locations.” The Path app, for example, was caught uploading address book and calendar data without user consent in February, the suit said. Pirozzi claimed she was “induced” to buy an unidentified Apple device in September 2011, and download paid apps to it, based on Apple’s terms and promises regarding app consent rules, Rogers said. But it’s not clear from Pirozzi’s complaint whether any apps “actually uploaded” her information, the judge said (http://xrl.us/bn8b2j). “Overpaying for goods or purchasing goods a person otherwise would not have purchased based upon alleged misrepresentations by the manufacturer would satisfy the injury-in-fact and causation requirements” for standing to sue, but because Pirozzi didn’t “allege specifically which statements she found material to her decision to purchase” the device or any apps, she hasn’t suffered injury-in-fact through Apple’s alleged conduct, Rogers said. Pirozzi similarly didn’t allege that an app “actually misappropriated” her information, only that it was at “greater risk” of misappropriation through Apple’s negligence, the judge said. The plaintiff will have to provide specifics, including what harm she suffered from unauthorized tracking and whether Apple even received her information and thus profited from it, to show her standing, Rogers said, giving Pirozzi leave to amend her claims. Rogers also pooh-poohed Apple’s reliance on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) as a shield for Pirozzi’s claims. Apple said it can’t be held responsible for exercising editorial discretion over which apps it approves and distributes through the App Store. But Pirozzi didn’t “solely” fault Apple for choosing which apps to distribute -- rather she wants to hold it liable for its own representations as an “information content provider,” Rogers said: The record is too “scant” to decide whether Apple is shielded by the CDA. The judge gave Pirozzi until Jan. 22 to file an amended complaint.
The FCC offers a strong economic defense for its net neutrality rules in a filing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, made late Monday, countering Verizon and MetroPCS’s legal challenges to the December 2010 rules (CD Sept 11 p1). The FCC’s economic argument is that rather than discourage investment, the rules have had a stimulative effect. The commission also argues that Section 706 of the Communications Act, which directs the FCC to “encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans,” gives the commission authority to pass net neutrality rules. That, along with an order that explicitly tied its authority to specific statutes, make this more than simply a “rerun of Comcast,” the pleading said.
Those who post content on social media and similar platforms should be liable for proper disclosures and the FTC shouldn’t assign liability to the host of the user-generated content, NetChoice said. In comments for the agency’s May 30 workshop to explore online and mobile media advertising disclosures, the association said the FTC should acknowledge that hosts of content posted by third parties aren’t liable for “improper disclosure by these third-parties.” The FTC’s limiting the liability of the host of content from the actions of a third party “makes sense under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that protects such intermediaries,” it said. For mobile ads, the FTC should allow clickthrough for notice and choice, as in the Digital Advertising Alliance’s self-regulatory program, NetChoice said. The agency has noted on several occasions that disclosures via mobile apps are limited by screen size, the association said. “To help alleviate this problem, we recommend the FTC find that ads on mobile devices can off-load these disclosures via a click-through to another screen or application.” For location-based mobile ads, the FTC should incorporate clickthrough and consent mechanisms, it said. The agency should avoid addressing privacy disclosures in the proposed update to the Dot Com Disclosures because they are “outside the scope of the original guidelines and may impede the greater goal of the update,” NetChoice said.
The Obama administration believes it’s “critical to find a smart innovation-leaning balance” to cybersecurity legislation, said Danny Weitzner, White House deputy chief technology officer for Internet policy. And part of the balance is for the government to have authority to ensure that companies that have “our critical infrastructure are engaging in adequate security practices,” he said at the Computer & Communications Industry Association’s Washington caucus.
Whether the FCC should promulgate rules for TV antennas came up in several filings, posted to docket 10-235, on a rulemaking notice setting the stage for the agency to hold incentive auctions if it gets congressional authority. The NAB and Association for Maximum Service Television said the regulator ought to look into requiring antennas to carry labels outlining their performance. That filing and others said labeling won’t overcome technical hurdles (CD March 11 p6)to designing antennas so portable devices can get mobile DTV in the VHF band, where the commission seeks to voluntarily move some stations. Consumer electronics industry filings said the FCC lacks authority to take any action on antennas.
CTIA urged the FCC to rely on a collaborative process for developing requirements for hearing-aid compatible (HAC) handsets based on new technologies that go beyond CMRS. But two groups representing the hearing impaired said the FCC should adopt strong requirements that are of maximum benefit for those with hearing loss. Comments were due this week on a rulemaking approved by the commission at its Aug. 5 meeting.
Companies large and small, public interest groups and trade associations offered a divided FCC very different takes on whether proposed net neutrality rules would stifle or spur competition, in replies in the net neutrality proceeding. The biggest change from the first comment round, in January, is that many filers focused on the Comcast decision and the complicated question of whether the FCC has authority to proceed with new net neutrality rules or first would have to change the way broadband is classified to gain clear authority.
The FCC is likely to change its approach to net neutrality after losing a case Tuesday where enforcement of 2005 principles of ISP conduct was at issue, advocates for and opponents of new mandates told us. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the commission lacked ancillary authority to censure Comcast’s network management practice of blocking peer-to-peer transmissions, as was expected (CD Feb 3 p2). The D.C. Circuit said it was unpersuaded by commission arguments that Sections 1, 230(b), 623, 706 and other parts of the Communications Act made the 2008 order within the scope of its congressional authority. Congress’ role is to facilitate “fresh” discussion on net neutrality, get consensus among all stakeholders and write a law, said House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher, D-Va.