Net neutrality will (sort of) live on. While the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision on Tuesday in the case of Mozilla v. FCC affirming the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) repeal of net neutrality laws, it also gave states the green light to pursue their own.

The ruling means that internet service providers could soon find themselves navigating a variety of conflicting laws with regards to activities like the protection of consumer data or paid prioritization. However, ongoing court battles and a restless political landscape could potentially be the greater long-term threat.

Jarno Vanto, a partner at Crowell & Moring, thinks regulations around ISPs will continue to change, either because the D.C. Circuit's decision is appealed or new blood in the FCC decides to revisit some form of net neutrality.

"I think that this uncertainty is not going to go away," said Vanto. "[ISPs] will continue to experience different levels of regulation."

Even prior to Tuesday's ruling, states have not exactly been shy about expressing their interest in regulating ISPs in the absence of a federal net neutrality law. Last June, Maine enacted a bill that placed stricter consumer privacy protections on ISPs.

California also passed a net neutrality-adjacent law in October 2018 that prohibited ISPs from engaging in blocking or throttling. The law was almost immediately met with lawsuits from the Department of Justice and multiple internet and cable associations, claiming that such an action was preempted by federal law.

Later that month, state authorities agreed to delay the law until the D.C. Circuit Court could reach a decision on the FCC's net neutrality repeal. Now that the road is ostensibly cleared, ISPs may have to adjust to a reality where multiple states have picked up the regulatory baton.

Vanto said a multitude of state net neutrality laws related to handling consumer data could be the most cumbersome for ISPs to successfully manage. However, he believes companies will be able to make such a scenario work given the experience they have balancing U.S. net neutrality laws with competing regulations overseas in places like the EU.

"They do have experience operating in different regulatory environments, and they have compliance teams that are experienced in different regulatory environments," he said.

On the other hand, Lewis Brisbois partner Chris Ballod thinks the situation is going to create "a lot of havoc at the end of the day."

Much of this has to do with complications inherent to the relatively boundless nature of the internet. For example, users could be transmitting data back and forth across state lines, which Ballod indicated could raise questions over what case law applies.

It's not entirely unlike the difficulties faced by companies attempting to comply with different state privacy laws. Out of simplicity, Ballod said many organizations have opted to tailor their compliance postures to the strictest law in the country, the incoming California Consumer Privacy Act.

He believes that ISPs could potentially follow a similar strategy, with California's net neutrality law emerging as the most ambitious benchmark.

"You may see that the strictest state standard applies. California may effectively be setting the federal standard," Ballod said.

Still, there's always the chance that ISPs may embark on one course, only to then have to suddenly change direction.

Mozilla, the web browser behind the net neutrality-centric suit against the FCC that was at the heart of Tuesday's decision, issued a tweet on Tuesday indicating that it was "not done fighting" and that "all must have access to an open internet."

If Tuesday's decision is appealed or elections start a chain reaction that sees a federal net neutrality law reinstated, ISPs could once again find themselves having to adapt their business practices.

Ballod thinks the FCC would mostly likely preempt the states in that event—but maybe it won't be that cut and dried.

"It could be an issue where the courts end up having to decide again to some degree," he said.