Updated July 15, 2024.  Originally posted July 11, 2024.

On July 8, 2024, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and a group of Internet Service Providers, represented by national and regional trade associations, filed supplemental briefs with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in In re MCP NO. 185. On July 15, the Sixth Circuit granted an administrative stay until August 15, 2024 “[t]o provide sufficient opportunity to consider the merits of the motion.”

The Sixth Circuit is considering challenges to the FCC’s Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet Order (Open Internet Order), which reclassified broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.  The Order was scheduled to take effect on July 22, 2024, but the ISP representatives asked for a stay.  The Sixth Circuit requested that the parties address the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Chevron Doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo for the petitioners’ motion to stay enforcement.Continue Reading Industry Groups and FCC File Briefs in Net Neutrality Case Following Loper Bright

With most state legislative sessions across the country adjourned or winding down without enacting significant artificial intelligence legislation, Colorado and California continue their steady drive to adopt comprehensive legislation regulating the development and deployment of AI systems. 

Colorado

Although Colorado’s AI law (SB 205), which Governor Jared Polis (D) signed into law in May, does not take effect until February 1, 2026, lawmakers have already begun a process for refining the nation’s first comprehensive AI law.  As we described here, the new law will require developers and deployers of “high-risk” AI systems to comply with certain requirements in order to mitigate risks of algorithmic discrimination. 

On June 13, Governor Polis, Attorney General Phil Weiser (D), and Senate Majority Leader Robert Rodriguez (D) issued a public letter announcing a “process to revise” the new law before it even takes effect, and “minimize unintended consequences associated with its implementation.”  The revision process will address concerns that the high cost of compliance will adversely affect “home grown businesses” in Colorado, including through “barriers to growth and product development, job losses, and a diminished capacity to raise capital.”Continue Reading Colorado and California Continue to Refine AI Legislation as Legislative Sessions Wane

Last month, the European Commission published a draft Implementing Regulation (“IR”) under the EU’s revised Network and Information Systems Directive (“NIS2”). The draft IR applies to entities in the digital infrastructure sector, ICT service management and digital service providers (e.g., cloud computing providers, online marketplaces, and online social networks). It sets out further detail on (i) the specific cybersecurity risk-management measures those entities must implement; and (ii) when an incident affecting those entities is considered to be “significant”. Once finalized, it will apply from October 18, 2024.

Many companies may be taken aback by the granular nature of some of the technical measures listed and the criteria to determine if an incident is significant and reportable – especially coming so close to the October deadline for Member States to start applying their national transpositions of NIS2.

The IR is open for feedback via the Commission’s Have Your Say portal until July 25.Continue Reading NIS2: Commission Publishes Long-Awaited Draft Implementing Regulation On Technical And Methodological Requirements And Significant Incidents

On May 30, 2024, the Court of Justice of the EU (“CJEU”) handed down its rulings in several cases (C-665/22, Joined Cases C‑664/22 and C‑666/22, C‑663/22, and Joined Cases C‑662/22 and C‑667/22) concerning the compatibility with EU law of certain Italian measures imposing obligations on providers of online platforms and search engines.  In doing so, the CJEU upheld the so-called “country-of-origin” principle, established in the EU’s e-Commerce Directive and based on the EU Treaties principle of free movement of services.  The country-of-origin principle gives the Member State where an online service provider is established exclusive authority (“competence”) to regulate access to, and exercise of, the provider’s services and prevents other Member States from imposing additional requirements.

We provide below an overview of Court’s key findings.Continue Reading CJEU Upholds Country-of-Origin Principle for Online Service Providers in the EU

On June 10, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in Consumers’ Research et al. v. Federal Communications Commission et al.  In its petition, the advocacy group Consumers’ Research, along with a small carrier and a five individuals, sought the Supreme Court’s review of the constitutionality of

Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Review Constitutional Challenges to Federal Universal Service Fund Program

Earlier this week, the FCC released a Second Report and Order revising and expanding requirements to identify and disclose whether any “leased” broadcast program is sponsored by an agent of a foreign government.  The new order followed a decision in 2022 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to strike down a component of the original rule adopted by the FCC.  The new rule was adopted on a 3-to-2 vote, with the FCC’s two Republican members dissenting.  While the FCC has underscored that these rules are intended to provide broadcasters with flexible and simple options for compliance, failure to comply with these new information gathering and retention requirements could lead to enforcement action, including monetary forfeitures. Continue Reading FCC Adopts Revised Foreign Sponsorship Disclosure Requirements

A.    Starting point in Germany

Why is the classification of employees relevant? In Germany, this has considerable consequences: These range from the applicability of employee protection standards (the classic: protection against dismissal) to potential criminal law consequences for the client who turns out to be the employer and has not paid social security contributions. Compliance

Continue Reading EU rules on platform work (“crowdwork directive”) – who is an employee?

Tomorrow, the Federal Senate of the Brazilian National Congress may have its first vote on the country’s new artificial intelligence (AI) legal framework, which takes a human rights, risk management, and transparency approach.

The bill, to be marked-up by the Senate Temporary Committee on Artificial Intelligence (“CTIA”), creates a broad and detailed legal framework. It contains rules on the rights of affected persons and groups, risk categorization and management, governance of AI systems, civil liability, penalties for non-compliance, and copyright protection. It also includes specific provisions for government use of AI, best practices and self-regulation, and communication of serious security incidents. Finally, it establishes an inter-agency regulatory system at the federal government level, whose main regulator will be chosen by the executive branch.Continue Reading Key Vote Expected on Brazil’s Artificial Intelligence Legal Framework

This year, the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) is set to gain a range of new enforcement powers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers (“DMCC”) Act (the final text is now available here). The DMCC Act received Royal Assent on 24 May 2024. However, with certain exceptions, the Act’s provisions will not come into force until secondary legislation is passed. The CMA initially expected its new responsibilities to become operational in the Autumn, but this timeline may be delayed due to the UK’s election on 4th July. On the same day as the DMCC Act became law, the CMA published for consultation its new Digital Markets Competition Regime Guidance.

An outline of the key provisions of the DMCC Act can be found here. As the CMA sets the groundwork for exercising its powers under this new regime, this blog post considers five practical considerations for firms active in the UK.

Key takeaways:

  1. The CMA will administer the new regime through a specialist Digital Markets Unit, which was established over three years ago.
  2. The DMCC Act may diverge from the EU’s Digital Markets Act, both in the companies being designated, and the obligations imposed on designated companies.
  3. The interplay between the DMCC regime and existing regulatory obligations – particularly the GDPR – is likely to raise practical challenges.
  4. We expect the CMA to exercise its powers under the digital markets regime alongside existing antitrust tools (which the DMCC Act amends).
  5. The CMA’s jurisdictional thresholds to review mergers under the UK’s merger control regime will change as a result of the DMCC Act.

Continue Reading The UK’s New Digital Markets Regime: Some Key Takeaways