Feds Sue California to Block Sweeping New 'Net Neutrality' Law
"Net neutrality, at its core, is the basic notion that we each get to decide where we go on the Internet, as opposed to having that decision made for us by Internet service provider," California Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, says.
September 30, 2018 at 09:33 PM
4 minute read
Attorney General Jeff Sessions. (Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi / ALM)
Updated 7:22 p.m. PST
Just an hour after California Gov. Jerry Brown on Sunday signed legislation creating the strongest internet access protections in the country, the Trump administration sued to block the law from taking effect.
The California Internet Consumer Protection and Net Neutrality Act seeks to restore many of the anti-throttling and content-blocking rules originally included in a 2015 order by the Obama administration. Those regulations were rescinded last year by the Republican-controlled Federal Communications Commission.
California's new law prohibits, among other things, service providers from “blocking lawful content” and services and from “impairing or degrading lawful Internet traffic.”
“Net neutrality, at its core, is the basic notion that we each get to decide where we go on the Internet, as opposed to having that decision made for us by Internet service provider,” Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, who sponsored the legislation, said Sunday. “It's also about ensuring a level playing field for ideas and for businesses trying to compete. Today marks a true win for the internet and for an open society.”
The U.S. Justice Department on Sunday night filed suit in Sacramento federal court to enjoin the law. The 11-page complaint argues the law is invalid under the Supremacy clause and is preempted by federal law.
California's law “contributes to a patchwork of separate and potentially conflicting requirements from different state and local jurisdictions and thereby impairs the effective provision of broadband services,” DOJ Civil Division lawyers wrote in the complaint.
“Under the Constitution, states do not regulate interstate commerce—the federal government does. Once again the California legislature has enacted an extreme and illegal state law attempting to frustrate federal policy,” U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement.
Wiener responded to the suit in an email Sunday night: “We've been down this road before: when Trump and Sessions sued California and claimed we lacked the power to protect immigrants. California fought Trump and Sessions on their immigration lawsuit—California won—and California will fight this lawsuit as well. I have complete confidence that Attorney General Xavier Becerra will do a great job defending this law.”
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, in a speech earlier this month to the Maine Policy Heritage Center, was also critical of the state's net neutrality bill, calling it an “illegal” pursuit by “nanny-state California legislators.”
“The broader problem is that California's micromanagement poses a risk to the rest of the country,” Pai said. “After all, broadband is an interstate service; Internet traffic doesn't recognize state lines. It follows that only the federal government can set regulatory policy in this area. For if individual states like California regulate the Internet, this will directly impact citizens in other states.”
Pai said in a statement Sunday night:
“Not only is California's Internet regulation law illegal, it also hurts consumers. The law prohibits many free-data plans, which allow consumers to stream video, music, and the like exempt from any data limits. They have proven enormously popular in the marketplace, especially among lower-income Americans. But notwithstanding the consumer benefits, this state law bans them.”
California and attorneys from 21 other states and the District of Columbia sued in January to stop the FCC's recission of the 2015 net neutrality order, arguing the action was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The complaint in United States v. California is posted below:
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 All![Growth of California Firms Exceeded Expectations, Survey of Managing Partners Says Growth of California Firms Exceeded Expectations, Survey of Managing Partners Says](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/93/83/6e669439491e8e50bd4237c2ccb1/wood-azcarate-767x633.jpg)
Growth of California Firms Exceeded Expectations, Survey of Managing Partners Says
5 minute read![Google Makes Appeal to Overturn Jury Verdict Branding the Play Store as an Illegal Monopoly Google Makes Appeal to Overturn Jury Verdict Branding the Play Store as an Illegal Monopoly](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/therecorder/contrib/content/uploads/sites/403/2024/08/Google-Play-App-767x633.jpg)
Google Makes Appeal to Overturn Jury Verdict Branding the Play Store as an Illegal Monopoly
5 minute read![Eight Years On, A&O Shearman’s Fuse Legal Tech Incubator Is Still Evolving Eight Years On, A&O Shearman’s Fuse Legal Tech Incubator Is Still Evolving](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/9e/77/14ee93c8424ea75c9b93861f16d7/shruti-ajitsaria-767x633.jpg)
Eight Years On, A&O Shearman’s Fuse Legal Tech Incubator Is Still Evolving
4 minute read![Chicago Law Requiring Women, Minority Ownership Stake in Casinos Is Unconstitutional, New Suit Claims Chicago Law Requiring Women, Minority Ownership Stake in Casinos Is Unconstitutional, New Suit Claims](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/402/2022/09/Employment-Discrimination-767x633-1.jpg)
Chicago Law Requiring Women, Minority Ownership Stake in Casinos Is Unconstitutional, New Suit Claims
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Rejuvenation of a Sharp Employer Non-Compete Tool: Delaware Supreme Court Reinvigorates the Employee Choice Doctrine
- 2Mastering Litigation in New York’s Commercial Division Part V, Leave It to the Experts: Expert Discovery in the New York Commercial Division
- 3GOP-Led SEC Tightens Control Over Enforcement Investigations, Lawyers Say
- 4Transgender Care Fight Targets More Adults as Georgia, Other States Weigh Laws
- 5Roundup Special Master's Report Recommends Lead Counsel Get $0 in Common Benefit Fees
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