California Won't Enforce Net Neutrality Law as Related Appeal Plays Out
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai: "Indeed, California's agreement not to enforce these regulations will allow Californians to continue to enjoy free-data plans that have proven to be popular among consumers."
October 26, 2018 at 03:32 PM
3 minute read
California leaders have agreed not to enforce the state's new net neutrality law while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit considers a multi-state challenge to the Federal Communications Commission's repeal of Obama-era internet access rules.
Responding to the announcement, the U.S. Department of Justice, American Cable Association and other plaintiffs representing telecommunications groups have withdrawn their request for an injunction that would have blocked California's law, SB 822, from taking effect in January.
The stipulation by all parties to the two suits challenging the new state law was filed in the U.S. District for California's Eastern District. The state's response to the U.S. Justice Department's complaint had been due today.
“Of course, I very much want to see California's net neutrality law go into effect immediately, in order to protect access to the internet,” the legislation's author, Sen. Scott Weiner, D-San Francisco, said in a prepared statement. “Yet, I also understand and support the attorney general's rationale for allowing the D.C. Circuit appeal to be resolved before we move forward to defend our net neutrality law in court.”
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 Those regulations were rescinded last year by the Republican-controlled Federal Communications Commission.
Friday's agreement among the parties says the pause in litigation and enforcement of the net neutrality law will remain in place until the D.C. Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court either denies any petitions for rehearing or certiorari in the FCC challenge or issues a final decision.
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai called California's decision to pause enforcement a “substantial concession.”
The temporary freeze on enforcing the state law “demonstrates, contrary to the claims of the law's supporters, that there is no urgent problem that these regulations are needed to address,” Pai said. “Indeed, California's agreement not to enforce these regulations will allow Californians to continue to enjoy free-data plans that have proven to be popular among consumers.”
The Trump administration sued to block California's internet access protection law, the strongest in the country, just an hour after Gov. Jerry Brown signed it into law. Attorneys from Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick; Molo Lamken; Lewis & Llewellyn; and Latham & Watkins representing internet and cable associations filed a similar suit just three days later.
The future of those suits will now turn on the challenge to the FCC's rescission filed in January by attorneys general from 20 states and the District of Columbia.
Read more:
Telecoms' Big Firms Urge Judge to Throttle California's Net Neutrality Law
Feds Sue California to Block Sweeping New 'Net Neutrality' Law
In-House Tech Lawyers on Why They're Taking FCC to Court on Net Neutrality
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 asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All9th Circuit Drills Down on Venue Issue in Privacy Suit Against E-Commerce Platform
Appeals Court Upholds Ruling That an Online Archive's Book Sharing Violated Copyright Law
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Bill Would Consolidate Antitrust Enforcement Under DOJ
- 2Cornell Tech Expands Law, Technology and Entrepreneurship Masters of Law Program to Part Time Format
- 3Divided Eighth Circuit Sides With GE's Timely Removal of Indemnification Action to Federal Court
- 4Former U.S. Dept. of Education Attorney Suspended for Failure to Complete CLE Credits
- 5ArentFox Schiff Adds Global Complex Litigation Partner in Los Angeles
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