Case Law U.S. Telecom Ass'n v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n

U.S. Telecom Ass'n v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n

Document Cited Authorities (110) Cited in (180) Related (5)

Peter D. Keisler argued the cause for petitioners United States Telecom Association, et al. With him on the joint briefs were Michael K. Kellogg, Scott H. Angstreich, Miguel A. Estrada, Theodore B. Olson, Jonathan C. Bond, Stephen E. Coran, S. Jenell Trigg, Jeffrey A. Lamken, Washington, DC, David H. Solomon, Russell P. Hanser, Rick C. Chessen, Neal M. Goldberg, Chicago, IL, Michael S. Schooler, Matthew A. Brill, Matthew T. Murchison, Jonathan Y. Ellis, Helgi C. Walker, Michael R. Huston, Kathleen M. Sullivan, James P. Young, C. Frederick Beckner III, Washington, DC, David L. Lawson, Gary L. Phillips, Gadsden, AL, and Christopher M. Heimann. Dennis Corbett, Washington, DC, and Kellam M. Conover entered appearances.

Brett A. Shumate argued the cause for petitioners Alamo Broadband Inc. and Daniel Berninger. With him on the briefs were Andrew G. McBride, Eve Klindera Reed, Richard E. Wiley, and Bennett L. Ross, Washington, DC.

Earl W. Comstock argued the cause for petitioners Full Service Network, et al. With him on the briefs were Robert J. Gastner and Michael A. Graziano, Washington, DC.

Bryan N. Tramont and Craig E. Gilmore, Washington, DC, were on the briefs for amicus curiae Mobile Future in support of petitioners CTIA-The Wireless Association and AT&T Inc.

Bryan N. Tramont, was on the brief for amicus curiae Telecommunications Industry Association in support of petitioners. Russell P. Hanser, Washington, DC, entered an appearance.

William S. Consovoy, Thomas R. McCarthy and J. Michael Connolly, Arlington, VA, were on the brief for amicus curiae Center for Boundless Innovation in support of petitioners United States Telecom Association, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, CTIA-The Wireless Association, American Cable Association, Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, AT&T Inc., CenturyLink, Alamo Broadband Inc., and Daniel Berninger.

Thomas R. McCarthy, William S. Consovoy, and J. Michael Connolly, Arlington, VA, were on the brief for amici curiae Members of Congress in support of petitioners United States Telecom Association, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, CTIA-The Wireless Association, American Cable Association, Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, AT&T Inc., CenturyLink, Alamo Broadband Inc., and Daniel Berninger.

R. Benjamin Sperry was on the brief for amici curiae International Center for Law & Economics and Administrative Law Scholars in support of petitioners United States Telecom Association, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, CTIA–The Wireless Association, American Cable Association, Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, AT&T Inc., CenturyLink, Alamo Broadband Inc., and Daniel Berninger.

David A. Balto, Washington, DC, was on the brief for amicus curiae Richard Bennett in support of petitioners United States Telecom Association, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, CTIA-The Wireless Association, AT&T Inc., American Cable Association, CenturyLink, Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, Alamo Broadband Inc., and Daniel Berninger.

David A. Balto, Washington, DC, was on the brief for amici curiae Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy and Thirteen Prominent Economists and Scholars in support of petitioners United States Telecom Association, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, CTIA-The Wireless Association, AT&T Inc., American Cable Association, CenturyLink, Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, Alamo Broadband Inc., and Daniel Berninger.

John P. Elwood, Kate Comerford Todd, and Steven P. Lehotsky, Washington, DC, were on the brief for amici curiae The National Association of Manufacturers, et al. in support of petitioners.

Christopher S. Yoo was on the brief for amicus curiae Christopher S. Yoo in support of petitioners.

Cory L. Andrews was on the brief for amici curiae Former FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth and Washington Legal Foundation in support of petitioners. Richard A. Samp entered an appearance.

Hans Bader, Sam Kazman, Washington, DC, and Russell D. Lukas, McLean, VA, were on the brief for amicus curiae Competitive Enterprise Institute in support of petitioners.

Kim M. Keenan and David Honig were on the brief for amicus curiae Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council in support of petitioners.

Lawrence J. Spiwak was on the brief for amicus curiae Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies in support of petitioners.

William J. Kirsch was on the briefs for amicus curiae William J. Kirsch in support of petitioners.

C. Boyden Gray, Washington, DC, Adam J. White, Winder, GA, and Adam R.F. Gustafson were on the briefs for intervenors TechFreedom, et al. in support of United States Telecom Association, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, CTIA-The Wireless Association, American Cable Association, Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, AT&T Inc., CenturyLink, Alamo Broadband Inc., and Daniel Berninger. Bradley A. Benbrook, Sacramento, CA, entered an appearance.

Jonathan B. Sallet, General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, and Jacob M. Lewis, Associate General Counsel, argued the causes for respondents. With them on the brief were William J. Baer, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, David I. Gelfand, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Kristen C. Limarzi, Robert J. Wiggers, Nickolai G. Levin, Attorneys, David M. Gossett, Deputy General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, James M. Carr, Matthew J. Dunne, and Scott M. Noveck, Counsel. Richard K. Welch, Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, entered an appearance.

Kevin Russell and Pantelis Michalopoulos, Washington, DC, argued the cause for intervenors, Cogent Communications, Inc., et al. in support of respondents. With them on the joint brief were Markham C. Erickson, Stephanie A. Roy, Andrew W. Guhr, Robert M. Cooper, Scott E. Gant, Hershel A. Wancjer, Christopher J. Wright, Scott Blake Harris, Russell M. Blau, Joshua M. Bobeck, Washington, DC, Sarah J. Morris, Kevin S. Bankston, San Francisco, CA, Seth D. Greenstein, Robert S. Schwartz, Marvin Ammori, Michael A. Cheah, Deepak Gupta, Erik Stallman, Matthew F. Wood, James Bradford Ramsay, Jennifer Murphy, Harold Jay Feld, Washington, DC, David Bergmann, and Colleen L. Boothby. Hamish Hume and Patrick J. Whittle, Washington, DC, entered appearances.

Michael K. Kellogg, Scott H. Angstreich, Miguel A. Estrada, Theodore B. Olson, Jonathan C. Bond, Stephen E. Coran, S. Jenell Trigg, Jeffrey A. Lamken, Matthew A. Brill, Matthew T. Murchison, Jonathan Y. Ellis, Helgi C. Walker, and Michael R. Huston, Washington, DC, were on the joint brief for intervenors AT&T Inc., et al. in support of respondents in case no. 15-1151.

Christopher Jon Sprigman was on the brief for amici curiae Members of Congress in support of respondents.

Gregory A. Beck, North Canton, OH, was on the brief for First Amendment Scholars as amici curiae in support of respondents.

Michael J. Burstein was on the brief for Professors of Administrative Law as amici curiae in support of respondents.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman was on the brief for amicus curiae Tim Wu in support of respondents.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, Washington, DC, was on the brief for amicus curiae Open Internet Civil Rights Coalition in support of respondents.

Joseph C. Gratz and Alexandra H. Moss, San Francisco, CA, were on the brief for amici curiae Automattic Inc., et al. in support of respondents.

Markham C. Erickson and Andrew W. Guhr, Washington, DC, were on the brief for amicus curiae Internet Association in support of respondents.

J. Carl Cecere and David T. Goldberg were on the brief for amici curiae Reed Hundt, et al. in support of respondents.

Anthony P. Schoenberg, San Francisco, CA, and Deepak Gupta, Washington, DC, were on the brief for amici curiae Engine Advocacy, et al. in support of respondents.

Anthony R. Segall, Pasadena, CA, was on the brief for amici curiae Writers Guild of America, et al. in support of respondents.

Allen Hammond, Jonesboro, GA, was on the brief for amici curiae The Broadband Institute of California and The Media Alliance in support of respondents.

Corynne McSherry and Arthur B. Spitzer, Washington, DC, were on the brief for amici curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation, et al. in support of respondents.

Eric G. Null was on the brief for amicus curiae Consumer Union of the U.S., Inc. in support of respondents.

Alexandra Sternburg and Henry Goldberg, Washington, DC, were on the brief for amici curiae Computer & Communications Industry and Mozilla in support of respondents.

Krista L. Cox was on the brief for amici curiae American Library Association, et al. in support of respondents.

Phillip R. Malone, Cambridge, MA, and Jeffrey T. Pearlman were on the brief for amici curiae Sascha Meinrath, Zephyr Teachout and 45,707 Users of the Internet in support of respondents.

Before: Tatel and Srinivasan, Circuit Judges, and William s, Senior Circuit Judge.

Tatel and Srinivasan, Circuit Judges:

For the third time in seven years, we confront an effort by the Federal Communications Commission to compel internet openness—commonly known as net neutrality—the principle that broadband providers must treat all internet traffic the same regardless of source. In our first decision, Comcast Corp. v. FCC , 600 F.3d 642 (D.C. Cir. 2010), we held that the Commission had failed to cite any statutory authority that would justify its order compelling a broadband provider to adhere to certain open internet practices. In...

5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California – 2016
Prime Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. Harris
"...the civil context and where the law does not inhibit the exercise of constitutionally protected rights. See UnitedStates Telecom Ass'n v. F.C.C. , 825 F.3d 674, 736 (D.C. Cir. 2016) ; Vill. of Hoffman Estates , 455 U.S. at 498–99, 102 S.Ct. 1186. "The degree of vagueness tolerated in a stat..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2021
Price v. Barr
"...he may rely upon the "conventional background expectation that the government will enforce the law." United States Telecom Ass'n v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n , 825 F.3d 674, 739 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (quotation omitted). This is particularly true in the First Amendment context, where the willingness ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2022
Mahoney v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd.
"...Due Process Clause ‘requires the invalidation of laws [or regulations] that are impermissibly vague.’ " U.S. Telecom Ass'n v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674, 734 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (quoting FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239, 253, 132 S.Ct. 2307, 183 L.Ed.2d 234 (2012) ). That requirement ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2019
Green v. U.S. Dep't of Justice
"...the "somewhat more" was required in the First Amendment context. The D.C. Circuit's more recent decision in United States Telecom Association v. FCC , 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir. 2016) seems to confirm that the "somewhat more" is not required, as it cited ANSWER solely for the proposition that ..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit – 2022
Netchoice, LLC v. Attorney Gen.
"...requirement to hold oneself out to serve the public indiscriminately." Br. of Appellants at 35 (quoting U.S. Telecom. Ass'n v. FCC , 825 F.3d 674, 740 (D.C. Cir. 2016) ); see Knight , 141 S. Ct. at 1223 (Thomas, J., concurring). The problem, as we've explained, is that social-media platform..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
5 books and journal articles
Document | Telecom Antitrust Handbook. Third Edition – 2019
Regulation of and Monopolization in Telecom and Media Markets
"...]. 116. In re Second Computer Inquiry, 77 F.C.C.2d 384 (1980) [hereinafter Computer II ]. 117. See United States Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674, 690 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (describing the history of the telecommunications versus information services distinction as tracing to the Computer II r..."
Document | Telecom Antitrust Handbook. Third Edition – 2019
Table of Cases
"...v. FCC, 290 F.3d 415 (2002), 89 United States Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir. 2004), 90 United States Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir. 2016), 93, 105 United States Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 855 F.3d 381 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (per curiam), 109 United States v. Abitibi-Conso..."
Document | Vol. 24 Núm. 1, September 2020 – 2020
REASONABLE TAX RULES: ADVANCING PROCESS VALUES WITH REMEDIAL RESTRAINT.
"...lack of disruption due to vacatur). (166.) Cf. Bagley, Remedial Restraint, supra note 22, at 317. (167.) See U.S. Telecom Ass'n v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674, 689, 725-26 (D.C. Cir. 2016); Bagley, Remedial Restraint, supra note 22, at (168.) See United States v. Johnson, 632 F.3d 912, 930-33 (5th Ci..."
Document | Antitrust Law Developments (Ninth Edition) - Volume II – 2022
Regulated Industries
"...The D.C. Circuit upheld the 2015 Open Internet Order as a valid exercise of the FCC’s rulemaking authority. U.S. Telecom Ass’n. v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 476 (2018). 301. Restoring Internet Freedom, 32 FCC Rcd. 4434, 4435-41 (2017). 302. Restoring Inter..."
Document | Núm. 11-3, January 2021 – 2021
Building Cyber Walls: Executive Emergency Powers in Cyberspace
"...degree of control the Executive should be empowered to assert over it.”180 At the time, the Child 174. United States Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir. 2016). 175. See Fed. Restoring Internet Freedom, 82 Fed. Reg. 25568 (June 2, 2017). 176. Fed. Restoring Internet Freedom, FCC Rc..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
5 firm's commentaries
Document | JD Supra United States – 2018
Restoring Internet Freedom: FCC Eliminates Common Carrier Regulation of Broadband Providers
"...15 Id. ¶¶ 239-45. 16 47 U.S.C. § 257(a). 17 Id. § 257(c). 18 Order ¶¶ 232-33. 19 Id. 20 Id. 21 Id. ¶ 267. 22 See United States Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir 2016); Verizon, 740 F.3d at 635-42. 23 Order ¶¶ 267-83. 24 Id. 25 Id. ¶¶ 194-95. 26 Id. ¶ 195. 27 Id. ¶ 196. 28 Id. ¶ 1..."
Document | Mondaq United States – 2020
Beyond The Headlines: Analysis Of The Executive Order On Preventing Online Censorship And The Potential Impact On Section 230 Policy
"...Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30 FCC Rcd. 5601, 5724-25 ' 283-87, 5757-90 ' 355-408 (2015), aff'd sub nom. U.S. Telecom Ass'n v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir. 10. 15 U.S.C. ' 45(b). 11. 15 U.S.C. ' 45(n) (The "Commission shall have no authority . . . to declare unlawful an act or practice o..."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2018
Net Neutrality Order Deep - Dive: Open Internet Rules Repealed, Transparency Requirements Remain, FTC Role over Broadband Privacy Restored ...For Now
"...the operation of the communications service, but excluding dial-up Internet access service.” 13 The Internet 10 United States Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (USTelecom). Restoring Internet Freedom, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 4434 (2017) (Internet Freedom ..."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2016
What to Expect From the Trump FCC
"...Krevor Michael Sherling Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 2014), which the D.C. Circuit affirmed in United States Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Moreover, the decision was supported by more than four million public comments—a record number in a “notice and commen..."
Document | Mondaq United States – 2025
Sixth Circuit, Applying Loper Bright, Rejects FCC's Net Neutrality Regulations
"...Footnotes 1. In re MCP No. 185, No. 24-3449, 2025 WL 16388,slip op. at 6 (6th Cir. Jan. 2, 2025). 2. Id. at 6-7. 3. U.S. Telecom Ass'n v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir. 2016). 4. Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, 940 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 5. In re MCP No. 185,slip op. at 8. 6. Id. at 10. 7. Id. at 6. 8. Lope..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 books and journal articles
Document | Telecom Antitrust Handbook. Third Edition – 2019
Regulation of and Monopolization in Telecom and Media Markets
"...]. 116. In re Second Computer Inquiry, 77 F.C.C.2d 384 (1980) [hereinafter Computer II ]. 117. See United States Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674, 690 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (describing the history of the telecommunications versus information services distinction as tracing to the Computer II r..."
Document | Telecom Antitrust Handbook. Third Edition – 2019
Table of Cases
"...v. FCC, 290 F.3d 415 (2002), 89 United States Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir. 2004), 90 United States Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir. 2016), 93, 105 United States Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 855 F.3d 381 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (per curiam), 109 United States v. Abitibi-Conso..."
Document | Vol. 24 Núm. 1, September 2020 – 2020
REASONABLE TAX RULES: ADVANCING PROCESS VALUES WITH REMEDIAL RESTRAINT.
"...lack of disruption due to vacatur). (166.) Cf. Bagley, Remedial Restraint, supra note 22, at 317. (167.) See U.S. Telecom Ass'n v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674, 689, 725-26 (D.C. Cir. 2016); Bagley, Remedial Restraint, supra note 22, at (168.) See United States v. Johnson, 632 F.3d 912, 930-33 (5th Ci..."
Document | Antitrust Law Developments (Ninth Edition) - Volume II – 2022
Regulated Industries
"...The D.C. Circuit upheld the 2015 Open Internet Order as a valid exercise of the FCC’s rulemaking authority. U.S. Telecom Ass’n. v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 476 (2018). 301. Restoring Internet Freedom, 32 FCC Rcd. 4434, 4435-41 (2017). 302. Restoring Inter..."
Document | Núm. 11-3, January 2021 – 2021
Building Cyber Walls: Executive Emergency Powers in Cyberspace
"...degree of control the Executive should be empowered to assert over it.”180 At the time, the Child 174. United States Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir. 2016). 175. See Fed. Restoring Internet Freedom, 82 Fed. Reg. 25568 (June 2, 2017). 176. Fed. Restoring Internet Freedom, FCC Rc..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California – 2016
Prime Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. Harris
"...the civil context and where the law does not inhibit the exercise of constitutionally protected rights. See UnitedStates Telecom Ass'n v. F.C.C. , 825 F.3d 674, 736 (D.C. Cir. 2016) ; Vill. of Hoffman Estates , 455 U.S. at 498–99, 102 S.Ct. 1186. "The degree of vagueness tolerated in a stat..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2021
Price v. Barr
"...he may rely upon the "conventional background expectation that the government will enforce the law." United States Telecom Ass'n v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n , 825 F.3d 674, 739 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (quotation omitted). This is particularly true in the First Amendment context, where the willingness ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2022
Mahoney v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd.
"...Due Process Clause ‘requires the invalidation of laws [or regulations] that are impermissibly vague.’ " U.S. Telecom Ass'n v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674, 734 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (quoting FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239, 253, 132 S.Ct. 2307, 183 L.Ed.2d 234 (2012) ). That requirement ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2019
Green v. U.S. Dep't of Justice
"...the "somewhat more" was required in the First Amendment context. The D.C. Circuit's more recent decision in United States Telecom Association v. FCC , 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir. 2016) seems to confirm that the "somewhat more" is not required, as it cited ANSWER solely for the proposition that ..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit – 2022
Netchoice, LLC v. Attorney Gen.
"...requirement to hold oneself out to serve the public indiscriminately." Br. of Appellants at 35 (quoting U.S. Telecom. Ass'n v. FCC , 825 F.3d 674, 740 (D.C. Cir. 2016) ); see Knight , 141 S. Ct. at 1223 (Thomas, J., concurring). The problem, as we've explained, is that social-media platform..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 firm's commentaries
Document | JD Supra United States – 2018
Restoring Internet Freedom: FCC Eliminates Common Carrier Regulation of Broadband Providers
"...15 Id. ¶¶ 239-45. 16 47 U.S.C. § 257(a). 17 Id. § 257(c). 18 Order ¶¶ 232-33. 19 Id. 20 Id. 21 Id. ¶ 267. 22 See United States Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir 2016); Verizon, 740 F.3d at 635-42. 23 Order ¶¶ 267-83. 24 Id. 25 Id. ¶¶ 194-95. 26 Id. ¶ 195. 27 Id. ¶ 196. 28 Id. ¶ 1..."
Document | Mondaq United States – 2020
Beyond The Headlines: Analysis Of The Executive Order On Preventing Online Censorship And The Potential Impact On Section 230 Policy
"...Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30 FCC Rcd. 5601, 5724-25 ' 283-87, 5757-90 ' 355-408 (2015), aff'd sub nom. U.S. Telecom Ass'n v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir. 10. 15 U.S.C. ' 45(b). 11. 15 U.S.C. ' 45(n) (The "Commission shall have no authority . . . to declare unlawful an act or practice o..."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2018
Net Neutrality Order Deep - Dive: Open Internet Rules Repealed, Transparency Requirements Remain, FTC Role over Broadband Privacy Restored ...For Now
"...the operation of the communications service, but excluding dial-up Internet access service.” 13 The Internet 10 United States Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (USTelecom). Restoring Internet Freedom, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 4434 (2017) (Internet Freedom ..."
Document | JD Supra United States – 2016
What to Expect From the Trump FCC
"...Krevor Michael Sherling Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 2014), which the D.C. Circuit affirmed in United States Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Moreover, the decision was supported by more than four million public comments—a record number in a “notice and commen..."
Document | Mondaq United States – 2025
Sixth Circuit, Applying Loper Bright, Rejects FCC's Net Neutrality Regulations
"...Footnotes 1. In re MCP No. 185, No. 24-3449, 2025 WL 16388,slip op. at 6 (6th Cir. Jan. 2, 2025). 2. Id. at 6-7. 3. U.S. Telecom Ass'n v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir. 2016). 4. Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, 940 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 5. In re MCP No. 185,slip op. at 8. 6. Id. at 10. 7. Id. at 6. 8. Lope..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial