Ending Net Neutrality Is a Business Risk, Netflix Says
"Changes in laws or regulations that adversely affect the growth, popularity or use of the internet, including laws impacting net neutrality, could decrease the demand for our service and increase our cost of doing business," the company said in its newly released annual report.
January 30, 2018 at 05:59 PM
3 minute read
The end of net neutrality could slow down more than internet speeds, according to Netflix Inc.'s annual report. The 10-K report, released Monday afternoon, lists changes in net neutrality laws as a risk to the media streaming company's business.
“Changes in laws or regulations that adversely affect the growth, popularity or use of the internet, including laws impacting net neutrality, could decrease the demand for our service and increase our cost of doing business,” the report states.
“Given uncertainty around these rules,” the report said, “including changing interpretations, amendments or repeal, coupled with potentially significant political and economic power of local network operators, we could experience discriminatory or anti-competitive practices that could impede our growth, cause us to incur additional expense or otherwise negatively affect our business.”
A Netfilx representative declined to disclose the outside firms that had worked with the company to draft the 10-K report.
The annual report isn't the first time the Los Gatos-based company has publicly defended net neutrality. It's been mentioned in previous reports before the protections were officially repealed.
On Dec. 14, the day the Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 to remove the Obama-era regulations that prevent internet service providers from favoring or blocking certain sites, Netflix tweeted the decision was ”the beginning of a longer legal battle.” Earlier this year, the company tweeted, “In 2018, the Internet is united in defense of # NetNeutrality. As for the FCC, we will see you in court.”
And Netflix isn't the only company worrying about the end of net neutrality in its annual report. Twitter Inc. listed “laws or practices limiting Internet neutrality” as a business risk in its recently filed 2017 annual report, noting the repeal of such laws could decrease site popularity or increase the company's operating costs.
“If we or our users experience disruptions in Internet service or if Internet service providers are able to block, degrade or charge for access to our products and services, we could incur additional expenses and the loss of users and advertisers,” Twitter's 10-K stated.
Twitter and Netflix haven't laid out company-specific plans to fight the FCC in court, but both are members of the Internet Association. The IA, an internet lobbying group for some of tech's biggest names, told Recode in early January it planned to join a lawsuit against the FCC as an intervening party, but that it wouldn't be filing its own.
But fellow IA member and e-commerce company Etsy Inc. has already announced it plans to separately sue the FCC as an individual company. Etsy also listed the end of net neutrality as a potential risk to business in an earlier annual report released in February 2017.
“In 2015, rules approved by the Federal Communications Commission went into effect that prohibit internet service providers from charging content providers higher rates in order to deliver their content over certain 'fast traffic' lanes; however, the rules are subject to pending legal challenges and if they are overturned, or if the current Federal Communications Commission revokes or changes the rules, our business could be adversely impacted,” the company's 10-K stated.
It's currently unclear whether any other IA companies will follow Etsy and separately sue the FCC and who might represent them in these suits. The Netflix representative said in an email Tuesday that the company will not pursue its own separate legal action.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLaw Firms Expand Scope of Immigration Expertise Amid Blitz of Trump Orders
6 minute readMeta’s New Content Guidelines May Result in Increased Defamation Lawsuits Among Users
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250