- Updating Communications Regulations. The Committee plans to assess whether outdated,
FCC Reportedly Considering Advisory Opinion on Section 230
Recent reports suggest that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) may be considering issuing an advisory opinion on Section 230 of the Communications Act. Section 230, among other things, provides immunity to a provider of an “interactive computer service” from civil liability for third-party content posted on the provider’s site. An advisory opinion could potentially play
Continue Reading FCC Reportedly Considering Advisory Opinion on Section 230Trump Administration Asserts Presidential Authority Over Independent Agencies
Yesterday, the Trump Administration issued an Executive Order titled “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies” (the EO). The EO asserts Presidential authority over independent agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). While the precise impacts remain to be seen, overall the EO will likely result in greater involvement by the White House in policymaking at independent agencies, both in substance and process.
OIRA Review of Agency Regulations. The EO amends the Clinton Administration-era Executive Order 12866, which established a review process for regulations promulgated by executive branch departments and agencies but excluded independent agencies from that process. The process includes requirements that departments and agencies submit “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review before publication in the Federal Register. Executive Order 12866 defines “significant regulatory action” to mean “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may:”Continue Reading Trump Administration Asserts Presidential Authority Over Independent Agencies
FCC to Tackle Robust Agenda at February Open Meeting
Yesterday, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released the agenda for its February Open Meeting, which is scheduled for February 27, 2025. This is the first agenda released by the FCC under new Chairman Brendan Carr. The agenda items on which the commissioners will vote at the meeting will include the following:
- A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking input on proposed updates to 10-year-old service specific AWS-3 bidding rules to fulfill the agency’s “statutory obligation to initiate an auction of licenses for the AWS-3 spectrum in the Commission’s inventory by June 23, 2026.” Proceeds from the auction will support the program that reimburses advanced communications service providers for the cost of removing and replacing Huawei Technologies or ZTE Corporation equipment and services in their networks.
- A Notice of Inquiry seeking comment on the potential for freeing up additional mid-band spectrum in the Upper C-band for new services, including whether authorization and transition mechanisms similar to those used in the successful 3.7 GHz Service transition could be applied. The NOI will solicit comments on the parameters for new opportunities in the Upper C-band, the potential need for amending the U.S. Table, and the current and future needs of existing operators while considering the impact on aviation radio altimeters. It also will invite detailed proposals on transition mechanics and structure, and requests technical and economic data on the costs and benefits of authorizing new services in the Upper C-band.
- A Seventh Report and Order and an Eleventh Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on reducing alert fatigue by giving consumers and emergency managers increased ability to customize Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEAs).
Continue Reading FCC to Tackle Robust Agenda at February Open Meeting
Trump Administration Releases “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” Executive Order
On January 20, 2025, the Trump Administration released a memorandum, “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” to halt agency rulemaking processes (the “EO”).
The EO orders all executive departments and agencies to “not propose or issue any rule in any manner, including by sending a rule to the Office of the Federal Register (the ‘OFR’), until a
Continue Reading Trump Administration Releases “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” Executive OrderAI Accessibility Software Provider Settles FTC Allegations
On January 3, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced that it reached a settlement with accessiBe, a provider of AI-powered web accessibility software, to resolve allegations that the company violated Section 5 of the FTC Act concerning the marketing and stated efficacy of its software. Continue Reading AI Accessibility Software Provider Settles FTC Allegations
U.S. AI Policy Expectations in the Trump Administration, GOP Congress, and the States
The results of the 2024 U.S. election are expected to have significant implications for AI legislation and regulation at both the federal and state level.
Like the first Trump Administration, the second Trump Administration is likely to prioritize AI innovation, R&D, national security uses of AI, and U.S. private sector investment and leadership in AI. Although recent AI model testing and reporting requirements established by the Biden Administration may be halted or revoked, efforts to promote private-sector innovation and competition with China are expected to continue. And while antitrust enforcement involving large technology companies may continue in the Trump Administration, more prescriptive AI rulemaking efforts such as those launched by the current leadership of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) are likely to be curtailed substantially.
In the House and Senate, Republican majorities are likely to adopt priorities similar to those of the Trump Administration, with a continued focus on AI-generated deepfakes and prohibitions on the use of AI for government surveillance and content moderation.
At the state level, legislatures in California, Texas, Colorado, Connecticut, and others likely will advance AI legislation on issues ranging from algorithmic discrimination to digital replicas and generative AI watermarking.
This post covers the effects of the recent U.S. election on these areas and what to expect as we enter 2025. (Click here for our summary of the 2024 election implications on AI-related industrial policy and competition with China.)Continue Reading U.S. AI Policy Expectations in the Trump Administration, GOP Congress, and the States
FTC Settles Case Against Provider of AI-Enabled Security Systems
On Tuesday, November 26, the FTC released a proposed settlement order with Evolv Technologies, a provider of AI-enabled security screening systems. The FTC’s complaint in the matter alleged that Evolv violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by making “false or unsupported claims” about the capabilities of an AI-enabled screening system that it provides to schools and other venues. Specifically, the complaint asserts that Evolv misrepresented “the extent to which the system will detect weapons and ignore harmless items” more accurately and cost-effectively than traditional metal detectors.
The FTC positioned its action against Evolv as a continuation of its work under the previously announced “Operation AI Comply,” which we discussed here, to “ensure that AI marketing is truthful.” The complaint alleges that Evolv made “a very deliberate choice” to market its screening system as involving the use of AI, but that Evolv’s effort to position the screening system as a high-tech “weapons detection” system rather than a metal detector “is solely a marketing distinction, in that the only things that [the screening system’s] scanners detect are metallic, and its alarms can be set off by metallic objects that are not weapons.” Continue Reading FTC Settles Case Against Provider of AI-Enabled Security Systems
IntelliVision Settles FTC Allegations Regarding its Facial Recognition Technology
On December 3, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced that it reached a settlement with IntelliVision Technologies Corp. (“IntelliVision”) to resolve allegations that the company violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by making certain claims concerning its AI-powered facial recognition software.
The FTC’s complaint alleged, among other things, that IntelliVision made certain inaccurate or insufficiently supported claims about its facial recognition software, including with regard to its accuracy as it pertains to gender, race, and ethnicity detection and bias.
To resolve these and other allegations, the FTC and Intellivision entered into a proposed consent order that places restrictions and obligations on IntelliVision with respect to its facial recognition technology.
Among other restrictions, the proposed consent order requires that IntelliVision not make misrepresentations about the accuracy or efficacy of its technology, including concerning “the comparative performance … with respect to individuals of different genders, ethnicities, and skin tones, or reducing or eliminating differential performance based on such factors” and detecting spoofing or determining “Liveness” (defined to mean “that a living subject is present at the point of capture”).Continue Reading IntelliVision Settles FTC Allegations Regarding its Facial Recognition Technology
California PUC Adopts New Rules Implementing Sweeping Changes in Regulation of Interconnected VoIP Providers
Last week, California’s telecommunications regulator, the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), adopted a new regulatory framework for providers of interconnected voice over Internet protocol (“iVoIP”) that marks a significant shift in regulation of a service that has long been lightly regulated both at the state and federal level. Under the new rules adopted at Thursday’s CPUC meeting, iVoIP providers are now subject to registration and licensing requirements in California, which also will require that these companies notify the CPUC of – and in some cases, seek prior approval for – any transfers of control or assignments of their assets.
The new rules could have significant and far-reaching ramifications for carriers providing iVoIP services in the largest market in the United States. For example, because the CPUC’s decision now requires at least some form of filing with the regulator before transfer of control of an iVoIP provider may occur, financial or strategic investors focused on the telecommunications space should take note that regulatory requirements may apply to any acquisition or investment in an iVoIP provider with operations in California. In some circumstances, a transfer of control of a California iVoIP provider or assignment of iVoIP provider assets may require prior approval from the CPUC, a process that tends to be the lengthiest state regulatory approval process for communications transactions that require state review.
Substantively, the CPUC’s order concerns the creation of new utility classifications (and corresponding authorization types) for iVoIP providers, which are subject to different licensing or registration requirements depending on the nature of the iVoIP services they provide. The following is a summary of the three new utility types and the key requirements for each from the CPUC’s order.