Welcome back for another week of What's Next, where we report on the intersection of law and technology. And boy, what a week it's been. Here's what we've got for you today:

>> Crisis forces courts to get high-tech … well … for the courts.

>> Where will TCPA relief come from in 2020?

>> Judge allows an ADA complaint to move forward against Uber.

Let's chat: Email me at [email protected] and follow me on Twitter at @a_lancaster.

Courts Get Down With Digital Hearings

As courts close to the public and limit in-person appearances, a sometimes technically malnourished judiciary is being forced to adopt the shiny, state-of-the-art innovations of telephone and video conferencing. As companies discover just how much work can be done remotely during these strange times, courts might similarly have their own revelations about when lawyers need to suit up and head into court.

Courts across the country, including California, Georgia, Texas, Michigan and the District of Columbia, are among those turning to remote technology to continue proceedings.

On Monday, Chief Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the Northern District of California announced that folks would only be admitted into the closed down courthouse with authorization. For civil matters, the court is trying to decide cases on the papers. But for the civil and criminal issues that require hearings, the court is attempting to use phone and video technology.

The only problem is that the court isn't necessarily hooked up to accommodate shifting to a predominantly online process.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Perkins Coie are representing Uber Technologies Inc. in a 2015 suit against an unnamed bad actor who allegedly hacked the company's confidential files. In a clerk's notice, U.S. District Judge Laurel Beeler alerted the parties that the court will not have in-person civil case-management hearings through at least April 17, and Hamilton's order clarified that no civil appearances will occur until May 1. "For motions hearings, the court is open to hearings by Skype for Business or Google Hangouts (because for now, the court cannot host conferences by Zoom.) (This latter approach requires IT staff to provide the court with a web cam so there may be some delay,)" according to the notice.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is also closing its doors to the public during non-court weeks and offering livestreaming arguments. Katherine M. Rodriguez, the court's communications administrator for the Office of the Circuit Executive, said the court will allow telephone and video conferencing more broadly during the health emergency. "The court will be communicating with counsel in advance of each sitting to discuss options," she said in an email last week.

The Ninth Circuit pitched the remote communication in a filing Thursday in a fraud and breach of contract case against Oculus VR and its founder Palmer Luckey. An order from U.S. District Judge Terrence Berg of the Eastern District of Michigan said judges and lawyers could video conference in, with the court providing "technical information about arranging for a video conference" once they opt in.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court postponed its March oral argument calendar. A bill sponsored by Reps. Hank Johnson, Mike Quigley, and Jerry Nadler would require the high court to start offering live audio of oral arguments within two years.

Could this national crisis be what finally forces the U.S. Supreme Court to livestream?

Will Courts Clear up Cloudy TCPA?

This year, the courts might provide some answers on the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and just what the heck an automatic telephone dialing system is, and if the law provides an exception over government loans.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuit Courts have determined that an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) uses a random sequential number generator to catalog or save peoples' digits, contrary to the Ninth Circuit's broader definition of the device.

When asked if those unresolved aspects of the law will finally come to a close in 2020, Lewis Wiener of Eversheds Sutherland in Washington, D.C., said he was hopeful, but admitted he's also an optimist.

"I'm really surprised they weren't addressed in 2019," he said. "I'm not optimistic that Congress is going to change the law especially in an election year. I think that will remain untouched by Congress. It's time for the [Federal Communications Commission] to regulate."

In lieu of agency intervention, Wiener is also keeping his eye on a couple cases that could provide more clarity on the TCPA.

To cement the crucial definition of an ATDS, Wiener is looking to Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, Inc., which SCOTUS has agreed to hear. Latham & Watkins will be leading the argument for the petitioner on the constitutionality of a TCPA carve-out for government loans. The case was set for argument on April 22, but could likely be pushed back given the court's coronavirus delays.

Eversheds' head of the firm's domestic TCPA counseling and defense group is also waiting to see if the Supreme Court will hear Facebook v. Duguid, which raises the definitional ATDS issue. Latham, again, and Kirkland & Ellis filed Facebook's cert petition in that case.

For lawyers set to argue TCPA cases this year, Wiener has a word of caution: Don't forget, judges have phones.

"When you have companies that call individuals in excess of 100, 300, 500 times, it's tough to defend those cases," he said.

Although the FCC needs to act, defendants need to show restraint and look at their own practices, he said.

"Don't keep dipping your toe in the water and complain when you get bit," he said.

Uber Can't Dodge ADA Complaint

A federal judge didn't quite bite on Uber's arguments that it is not a transportation company in an Americans With Disabilities Act complaint.

On Friday, Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of California said two New Orleans' residents have grounds to sue the ridesharing company over its failure to extend its UberWAV service in their home city. The service allows users to call for a wheelchair-accessible vehicle (WAV).

UberWAV is already offered in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Portland, Oregon, and Washington, D.C. But Uber's Morgan, Lewis & Bockius attorneys argued that providing the service fell outside of the company's "area of specialization," and that the company rightfully referred the plaintiffs to other WAV services.

Since plaintiffs are asking the company to provide an identical service it already provides in other areas, it does not lie outside its area of specialization, Seeborg wrote.

"Defendants, however, refer plaintiffs to other transportation providers not because they would do the same for non-disabled riders, but because they simply do not want to accept the logistical and financial cost of serving them," Seeborg wrote. "A cardiologist may not send a disabled patient with a heart murmur to an orthopedist, and Uber cannot refer plaintiffs to other transportation companies."

The judge said Uber's claim "that it is 'not a transportation company' strains credulity, given the company advertises itself as a 'transportation system.'"

On the Radar

France Takes a $1.2B Bite Out of Apple France's antitrust body has set a new record with a $1.2 billion fine against Apple Inc. The French authority found that Apple's agreements with two wholesalers "somewhat 'sterilized' the wholesale market for Apple products, freezing market share and preventing competition between the different distribution channels." The fine, which is triple the amount of a prior record-setting fine handed down from the agency, comes as a European techlash continues to thrash the sector. Read more from Anne Bagamery here.

Is Cybersharing Caring? As a competitive advantage, companies tend to keep their cybersecurity infrastructure proprietary. But some experts are finding more openness in the industry among peers. Debevoise & Plimpton cybersecurity and litigation partner Avi Gesser said he's noticing that more companies are trading "threat-sharing intelligence" in groups to discuss moving cybersecurity targets. Although he still sees some companies locking away their "special sauce," Gesser said he thinks "companies have made sense of what they can share, and there's definitely things you can share without much risk." Read more from Victoria Hudgins here.

Keeping Cybercriminals Out of Remote Work Coronavirus has transformed many members of the American workforce into remote employees, and there's a bigger threat prowling than cats sitting on keyboards. Cybercriminals are leveraging the volatility of the times to prey on workers, some even invoking the coronavirus in their attack. Yet creating a business continuity plan, VPN best practices and prohibiting workers from setting up shop in public locations can help shore up vulnerabilities. Read more from Mark Sangster here.

Thanks for reading. We will be back next week with more What's Next. Stay safe and healthy, everyone.