Areas of Law – Page 9

House Votes to Overturn FCC’s Net Neutrality Order

Apr 08 2011

In a setback to one of the FCC’s key policy proposals, the House of Representative today voted in favor of a Resolution of Disapproval under the Congressional Review Act aimed at invalidating the Commission’s Net Neutrality Order adopted late last year. The vote follows months of heated industry and Congressional debate, including sharply partisan debate about the Resolution’s merits, court challenges brought by wireless carriers, and procedural delays in bringing the Resolution to the House floor. While the Resolution seeks to overturn the FCC’s new anti-blocking, network management transparency, and traffic discrimination rules, it faces an uphill battle to become law. The Resolution would need to get passed by the Democrat-controlled Senate and get signed by the President. The White House recently said it plans to veto any measure overturning the FCC’s Net Neutrality Order.

FTC Continues to Flex Its Enforcement Muscle With Regard to Social Media Promotional Activity

Apr 07 2011

by Ann M. Begley, Lawrence C. Lanpher and Carolina M. Heavner

The Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) recent action against a company and its owner in connection with the allegedly deceptive promotion of music teaching tools signals FTC’s continued intention to keep social media promotional activity as an enforcement priority. In its third public investigation and second enforcement action since issuing its revised Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising[1] (hereafter, FTC Endorsement/Testimonial Guides) in December 2009, FTC continues to expand advertisers’ responsibility to monitor third party interactive media communications containing endorsements of advertisers’ products.

In finding the advertiser and its owner, an individual, responsible for assuring that endorsers adequately disclose any material connections with the advertiser, FTC states that an advertiser agreement that requires endorsers to comply with FTC guidelines and disclosures is insufficient in the absence of an advertiser monitoring program that ensures clear and prominent disclosure of the relationship with the advertiser.[2]

Thus, in addition to a $250,000 penalty against the company and its owner, FTC has required a far-reaching monitoring program – a potentially expensive and burdensome commitment for the future.

Court Dismisses Appeal Against FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules

Apr 04 2011

Today the FCC prevailed in the continuing skirmish over Net Neutrality in Washington. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dismissed the lawsuits filed last January by Verizon and Metro PCS seeking to overturn the FCC’s Net Neutrality order adopted in December. The court found that the two wireless carriers filed their challenges too early and should have waited until the Net Neutrality order was published in the Federal Register. Both wireless carriers have indicated they will re-file their appeals.

Doing Business in Mexico? It’s Time to Revise Your Privacy Practices

Mar 22 2011

By Holly K. Towle, Henry L. Judy, Samuel R. Castic

On July 6, 2010, Mexico’s “Law on the Protection of Personal Data Held by Private Parties” took effect, and some of the most stringent requirements are currently scheduled to take effect in July 2011. Accordingly, the time for companies that are covered by the law to adjust their privacy policies and business practices is today, not mañana.[1] In many ways, this law is more robust than approaches taken to data protection in the United States. It brings Mexican privacy law far closer to, or goes beyond, the concepts and structure of the European Data Protection Directive (“EU Directive”)[2] or other approaches such as the Canadian Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.[3] The law also seems to approximate the European Union approach of treating data protection as a basic right.[4] This Alert discusses some of the key provisions of Mexico’s new law.

House E&C Committee Schedules Markup of Resolution to Reject FCC’s Net Neutrality

Mar 10 2011

Yesterday the Communications and Technology Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce adopted a disapproval resolution (H.J. Res. 37) of the FCC’s 2010 Net Neutrality Order by a party-line vote. Today, the Energy and Commerce Committee issued a markup notice for the disapproval resolution of Monday, March 14 at 3:00 p.m. Assuming it is approved that same day (a likely outcome), it could be ready for House floor action fairly quickly (depending on the legislative priorities of the House majority leadership).

Net Neutrality Supporters Delay House Subcommittee Vote to Reverse FCC Rules [UPDATED: 3/7/11]

Mar 07 2011

In response to a request by House Democratic supporters of the Federal Communications Commission’s Open Internet (or Net Neutrality) order, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommitee on Communications and Technology has postponed its vote, scheduled for this morning, on the resolution to reverse the FCC order. Although no new date has been announced, we understand that a hearing will likely be scheduled for next week.

Yesterday, Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA), the ranking member on the Communications and Technology Subcommittee, wrote to Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR) urging him to first hold hearings on the proposed resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act in which supporters of the FCC’s order could be heard before having the vote. Note that even if the House approves the resolution of disapproval, it must still pass the Senate and survive a presidential veto to successfully reverse the FCC’s order.

UPDATE: A hearing has been scheduled for March 9, at 10:30 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.

SECOND UPDATE (3/7/11): Representatives Waxman and Eshoo sent a letter on behalf of a group of net neutrality supporters in the House asking Chairman Walden and Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, to allow lawmakers to offer amendments to the resolution of disapproval. The Democrats requested the Chairmen bring the disapproval measure as a regular House Resolution instead of under the Congressional Review Act.

High Court to AT&T: Don’t Take It Personally, But You Have No “Personal Privacy”

Mar 04 2011

By Bruce Nielson.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that AT&T and other corporations do not have “personal privacy” for purposes of an exemption from the information disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). In its unanimous opinion in FCC v. AT&T Inc., the court rejected “the argument that because ‘person’ is defined for purposes of FOIA to include a corporation, the phrase ‘personal privacy’ in [FOIA] Exemption 7(C) reaches corporations.” The court held: “The protection in FOIA against disclosure of law enforcement information on the ground that it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy does not extend to corporations.”

The AT&T case arose in connection with an FCC investigation into whether AT&T overcharged the government for services rendered in connection with an FCC-administered program designed to enhance access to information and telecommunications services by schools and libraries. During the investigation, AT&T provided documents to the FCC that included information about employees involved in the program and invoices and emails with pricing and billing information. The FCC and AT&T resolved the matter in 2004.

States Support Additional Federal Consumer Information Privacy Protections

Feb 28 2011

By Bruce Nielson and Samuel Castic

Fifteen state attorneys general recently sent a letter to the FTC supporting its recent proposal for a federal regulatory framework to protect the privacy and security of consumer information. The letter also recommends additional consumer information privacy and security protections that go beyond the FTC’s proposal. The FTC’s proposal, in the form of a preliminary FTC Staff Report entitled “Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: A Proposed Framework for Businesses and Policymakers” (the “Report”) was released on December 1, 2010 and is described in more detail in a prior blog entry.

The 15 state attorneys general – from Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia and Washington (the “States”) – make the following points in their February 18, 2011 letter to the FTC:

The Comcast/NBCU Merger Conditions: Hedges Against an Uncertain Future

Feb 28 2011

On January 18, 2011, the Federal Communications Commission granted its approval to the acquisition by Comcast, the nation’s largest cable service operator and cable modem Internet access provider, of NBC Universal, Inc. (NBCU), the owner of the broadcast television network, several cable networks, Internet websites, and a leading Hollywood studio. The merger should fundamentally affect the businesses of programming, production and distribution across many platforms, including broadcast television, cable, online, and film. With significant control over both content and its distribution, the Comcast/NBCU merger created a potential incentive for the combined firm to raise prices and limit access to its programming to the disadvantage of its broadcast and online rivals. Working in coordination with the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the FCC imposed a number of “targeted” conditions aimed at ameliorating the merger’s potential harms and quashing impending antitrust suits from states such as California. The Commission highlighted four key conditions to the government’s approval:

The FCC’s Net Neutrality Order: Substance and Status for Mobile Wireless Broadband

Feb 26 2011

On December 21, 2010, a divided Federal Communications Commission adopted its long-awaited, but highly controversial, Preserving the Open Internet order (“Order”), which requires broadband service providers to treat all web traffic equally and protect open access to the Internet for web consumers and other stakeholders. While Congressional and industry opposition continues to ferment, a closer look at the Order reveals that mobile wireless broadband providers will retain considerable flexibility in how they manage their networks when compared to their fixed provider counterparts.

The Order focused on three primary goals underpinning the Commission’s net neutrality policy: 1) transparency 2) no blocking and 3) no unreasonable discrimination. For “transparency,” both fixed and mobile providers must publicly disclose the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of their broadband services. By contrast, the application of the “no blocking” condition differs depending on the type of provider. Fixed providers are subject to a broad obligation to not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices. Mobile wireless providers are subject to a narrower obligation to not block lawful websites and applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services. Most importantly, the Order’s “no unreasonable discrimination” provision applies solely to fixed providers, leaving mobile operators free to favor or disfavor certain types of network traffic. According to the Commission, these new rules for mobile wireless providers will not harm customers because most consumers have more choices for mobile wireless service than for fixed broadband. The Commission also noted favorably the mobile industry’s recent moves towards openness, including the introduction of open operating systems like Android. As a result, when the rules finally go into effect, mobile wireless broadband providers will be exempt from the obligation to manage network traffic in a nondiscriminatory manner.

Catagory:Areas of Law