Litigation

On January 9, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split over the FCC’s authority to impose monetary forfeiture penalties through its administrative process.  The outcome could have significant implications for the FCC’s ability to pursue civil penalties in its enforcement cases.  For more information on the issues at stake, including background…

Continue Reading Update: Supreme Court Grants Cert in Cases Involving the FCC’s Monetary Penalty Authority

In 2024, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued fines to four major telecommunications carriers—Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile—for allegedly failing to protect the geolocation data of their subscribers, which the FCC claimed violated its Customer Proprietary Network Information (“CPNI”) rules. To challenge the action, all four carriers had to first pay the fines, which they did.  They then petitioned for review of the FCC’s decision in various U.S. courts of appeals, arguing that the FCC’s procedure for adjudicating monetary fines violated their right to a jury trial as guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment. Verizon sought relief in the Second Circuit, T-Mobile (which had merged with Sprint) sought relief in the D.C. Circuit, and AT&T sought relief in the Fifth Circuit.

The Second Circuit and the D.C. Circuit held in favor of the FCC, rejecting the carriers’ argument that the FCC violated their Seventh Amendment rights. But the Fifth Circuit reached a different conclusion, holding that the FCC’s procedure did in fact violate AT&T’s right to a jury trial. The FCC (which lost in the Fifth Circuit) and Verizon (which lost in the Second Circuit) each has filed a petition for certiorari at the Supreme Court.

With a 2-1 federal circuit split and two certiorari petitions pending, some are predicting that there is a good chance that the Supreme Court will decide to consider the appeals. The dispute raises a fundamental question about the FCC’s authority to impose monetary penalties through its in-house administrative enforcement procedures. If the Supreme Court grants certiorari, it will be called upon to determine whether the Communications Act violates the Seventh Amendment by authorizing the FCC to order the payment of monetary penalties for violations of the Act, without guaranteeing the right to a jury trial. The resolution of this dispute thus could have significant implications for how the FCC enforces the law against telecommunications carriers and other entities subject to its jurisdiction.

Both petitions for certiorari have been distributed for a January 9, 2026 conference.

Continue Reading FCC Privacy Enforcement May Face More Constitutional Scrutiny: Supreme Court Review of FCC CPNI Fines Sought Amid Circuit Split

On December 11, President Trump signed an Executive Order on “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence” (“AI Preemption EO”), the culmination of months of efforts by Republican lawmakers to assert federal primacy over AI regulation.  The AI Preemption EO, which follows the release of a draft version in November, states that “[t]o win”…

Continue Reading President Trump Signs Executive Order to Block State AI Laws

According to reports published on November 19, the White House has prepared a draft Executive Order to preempt state AI regulations in lieu of a uniform national legislative framework, marking a significant escalation in federal efforts to assert control over AI regulation.  The draft Executive Order, titled “Eliminating State Law Obstruction of National AI…

Continue Reading White House Drafts Executive Order to Preempt State AI Laws

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

This quarterly update highlights key legislative, regulatory, and litigation developments in the fourth quarter of 2023 and early January 2024 related to technology issues.  These included developments related to artificial intelligence (“AI”), connected and automated vehicles (“CAVs”), data privacy, and cybersecurity.  As noted below, some of these developments provide companies with the opportunity for participation and comment.

Continue Reading U.S. Tech Legislative, Regulatory & Litigation Update – Fourth Quarter 2023

In a new post on the Inside Class Actions blog, we summarize the UK Supreme Court’s recent judgment on litigation funding agreements, which could potentially have significant impact on collective proceedings and other funded cases in the UK. To read the post, please click here.

Continue Reading UK Supreme Court Hands Down Judgment on Litigation Funding Agreements

Today, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Gonzalez v. Google LLC, a case about whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230) protected YouTube’s recommendation algorithms from a claim of secondary liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA). In a short, three-page per curiam opinion, the Court avoided addressing the…

Continue Reading The U.S. Supreme Court Punts on Section 230 in Gonzalez v. Google LLC

Practice and Procedure

The ITC’s Recent Sua Sponte Use of 100-Day Expedited Adjudication Procedure

Over the last few years, the International Trade Commission (“ITC” or “Commission”) has developed procedural mechanisms geared toward identifying potentially dispositive issues for early disposition in its investigations. These procedures are meant to give respondents an opportunity to litigate a dispositive issue before committing the resources necessary to litigate an entire Section 337 investigation.

In 2018, the ITC adopted 19 C.F.R. § 210.10(b)(3), which provides that “[t]he Commission may order the administrative law judge to issue an initial determination within 100 days of institution . . . ruling on a potentially dispositive issue as set forth in the notice of investigation.” Although the ITC denies the majority of requests by respondents to use this procedural mechanism, the ITC has ordered its ALJs to use this program in a handful of investigations to decide, among other things, whether the asserted patents claim patent-eligible subject matter, whether a complainant has standing to sue, whether a complainant can prove economic domestic industry, and whether claim or issue preclusion applies.

Continue Reading Section 337 Developments at the U.S. International Trade Commission

On November 15, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., No. 18-956. The two questions presented before the Court are (1) whether “copyright protection extends to a software interface,” and (2) whether, as the jury found, that Google’s “use of a software interface in the context of a creating a new computer program constitutes fair use.”
Continue Reading Certiorari Granted in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.