Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile are continuing their fight against fines for selling user location data, with two of the big three carriers submitting new court briefs arguing that the Federal Communications Commission can't punish them.

A Verizon brief filed on November 4 and an AT&T brief on November 1 contest the legal basis for the FCC fines issued in April 2024. T-Mobile also sued the FCC, but briefs haven't been filed yet in that case.

"Verizon's petition for review stems from the multiple and significant errors that the FCC, in purporting to enforce statutory consumer data privacy provisions, made in overstepping its authority," Verizon wrote. "The FCC's Forfeiture Order violated both the Communications Act and the Constitution, while failing to benefit the consumers it purported to protect."

Read full article

Comments

© Getty Images |

The Republican who is likely to lead the Federal Communications Commission under President-elect Donald Trump detailed how he would run the agency when he wrote a chapter for the conservative Heritage Foundation's Project 2025. Carr, a longtime opponent of net neutrality rules and other broadband regulations, has also made his views clear numerous times when opposing rulemakings initiated by the current Democratic majority.

If Trump makes Carr the next FCC chairman after his inauguration, the FCC is likely to ditch consumer protection initiatives, like a recently announced inquiry into data caps, and attempt to regulate Big Tech companies while reducing regulation of Internet service providers. That could include forcing Big Tech companies to pay into a fund that subsidizes ISPs' broadband network construction.

A Carr-led FCC could also try to punish news organizations that are perceived to be anti-Trump. Just before the election, Carr alleged that NBC putting Kamala Harris on Saturday Night Live was "a clear and blatant effort to evade the FCC's Equal Time rule," and that the FCC should consider issuing penalties. Despite Carr's claim, NBC did provide equal time to the Trump campaign.

Read full article

Comments

© Getty Images | Bloomberg

Universal Music Group yesterday sued a music firm that allegedly distributes pirated songs on popular streaming services under misspelled versions of popular artists' names—such as "Kendrik Laamar," "Arriana Gramde," "Jutin Biber," and "Llady Gaga." The UMG Recordings lawsuit against the French company Believe and its US-based subsidiary, TuneCore, alleges that "Believe is fully aware that its business model is fueled by rampant piracy" and "turned a blind eye to the fact that its music catalog was rife with copyright infringing sound recordings."

Believe is a publicly traded company with about 2,020 employees in over 50 countries and reported $518 million (474.1 million euros) in revenue in the first half of 2024. Believe says its "mission is to develop independent artists and labels in the digital world."

UMG alleges that Believe achieved "dramatic growth and profitability in recent years by operating as a hub for the distribution of infringing copies of the world's most popular copyrighted recordings." Believe has licensing deals with online platforms "including TikTok, YouTube, Spotify, Apple Music, Instagram and hundreds of others," the lawsuit said.

Read full article

Comments

© Getty Images | Kevin Mazur

Dropbox is laying off 528 employees in a move that will reduce its global workforce by 20 percent, CEO Drew Houston announced today.

Houston wrote that Dropbox's core file sync and sharing "business has matured, and we've been working to build our next phase of growth with products like Dash," an "AI-powered universal search" product targeted to business customers. The company's "current structure and investment levels" are "no longer sustainable," according to Houston.

"We continue to see softening demand and macro headwinds in our core business," Houston wrote. "But external factors are only part of the story. We've heard from many of you that our organizational structure has become overly complex, with excess layers of management slowing us down."

Read full article

Comments

© Getty Images | Kenneth Cheung

AT&T improperly obtained money from a government-run broadband discount program by submitting duplicate requests and by claiming subsidies for thousands of subscribers who weren't using AT&T's service. AT&T obtained funding based on false certifications it made under penalty of perjury.

AT&T on Friday agreed to pay $2.3 million in a consent decree with the Federal Communications Commission's Enforcement Bureau. That includes a civil penalty of $1,921,068 and a repayment of $378,922 to the US Treasury.

The settlement fully resolves the FCC investigation into AT&T's apparent violations, the consent decree said. "AT&T admits for the purpose of this Consent Decree and for Commission civil enforcement purposes" that the findings described by the FCC "contain a true and accurate description of the facts underlying the Investigation," the document said.

Read full article

Comments

© Getty Images | Tetra Images

Consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge today hailed a decision by the US Copyright Office to "grant an exemption specifically allowing for repair of retail-level food preparation equipment—including soft serve ice cream machines similar to those available at McDonald's."

The group, which teamed with iFixit to request the exemption last year, said the government ruling will "free the McFlurry." Public Knowledge Senior Policy Counsel Meredith Rose called the decision a victory for "franchise owners, independent repair shops, and anyone who's had to bribe their kids with a chilly treat on lengthy road trips."

The change should "spark a flurry of third-party repair activity and enable businesses to better serve their customers," Rose said. "While we are disappointed that the Register recommended a narrower exemption than we had proposed, this does not soften our enthusiasm. We will continue to chip away at half-baked laws blocking the right to repair, sprinkling consumer victories as we go. Today's win may not be parfait, but it's still pretty sweet."

Read full article

Comments

© Getty Images | IndiaPictures

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey said he is investigating Google, claiming that the tech giant censors conservative speech and manipulated search results about Donald Trump.

"BREAKING: I am launching an investigation into Google—the biggest search engine in America—for censoring conservative speech during the most consequential election in our nation's history. Google is waging war on the democratic process. It's time to fight back," Bailey wrote on X, the social network owned by notable Trump supporter Elon Musk.

The New York Post quoted a Bailey spokesperson saying that "evidence has come to light that Google is deemphasizing conservative speech or content—such as putting conservative reporting on Page 11 rather than Page 1—by manipulating search results." The spokesperson said Google "has an obligation to consumers to utilize fair business practice" and that "we will be subpoenaing information on Google's algorithms and other systems to determine whether they are censoring conservative speech."

Read full article

Comments

© Getty Images | Bloomberg

Cable companies, advertising firms, and newspapers are asking courts to block a federal "click-to-cancel" rule that would force businesses to make it easier for consumers to cancel services. Lawsuits were filed yesterday, about a week after the Federal Trade Commission approved a rule that "requires sellers to provide consumers with simple cancellation mechanisms to immediately halt all recurring charges."

Cable lobby group NCTA-The Internet & Television Association and the Interactive Advertising Bureau trade group sued the FTC in the conservative US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The lawsuit claims the 5th Circuit is a proper venue because a third plaintiff, the Electronic Security Association, has its principal offices in Dallas. That group represents security companies such as ADT.

A separate lawsuit was filed against the FTC in the 6th Circuit appeals court by the Michigan Press Association and National Federation of Independent Business. The two lawsuits were apparently coordinated as they both complain about the rule with the following text:

Read full article

Comments

It's been just a week since US telecom regulators announced a formal inquiry into broadband data caps, and the docket is filling up with comments from users who say they shouldn't have to pay overage charges for using their Internet service. The docket has about 190 comments so far, nearly all from individual broadband customers.

Federal Communications Commission dockets are usually populated with filings from telecom companies, advocacy groups, and other organizations, but some attract comments from individual users of telecom services. The data cap docket probably won't break any records given that the FCC has fielded many millions of comments on net neutrality, but it currently tops the agency's list of most active proceedings based on the number of filings in the past 30 days.

"Data caps, especially by providers in markets with no competition, are nothing more than an arbitrary money grab by greedy corporations. They limit and stifle innovation, cause undue stress, and are unnecessary," wrote Lucas Landreth.

Read full article

Comments

© Getty Images | Yuichiro Chino

T-Mobile promised users who bought certain mobile plans that it would never raise their prices for as long as they lived—but then raised their prices this year. So it's no surprise that 2,000 T-Mobile customers complained to the government about a price hike on plans that were advertised as having a lifetime price lock.

"I am still alive and T-Mobile is increasing the price for service by $5 per line. How is this a lifetime price lock?" one customer in Connecticut asked the Federal Communications Commission in a complaint that we obtained through a public records request.

"I am not dead yet," a customer in New York wrote bluntly, saying they had bought a plan with a "guarantee for life."

Read full article

Comments

© Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

Mobile carriers argue that locking devices helps them lower costs. Consumer protection groups see it a little differently.

Police use of automated license-plate reader cameras is being challenged in a lawsuit alleging that the cameras enable warrantless surveillance in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The city of Norfolk, Virginia, was sued yesterday by plaintiffs represented by the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit public-interest law firm.

Norfolk, a city with about 238,000 residents, "has installed a network of cameras that make it functionally impossible for people to drive anywhere without having their movements tracked, photographed, and stored in an AI-assisted database that enables the warrantless surveillance of their every move. This civil rights lawsuit seeks to end this dragnet surveillance program," said the complaint filed in US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Like many other cities, Norfolk uses cameras made by the company Flock Safety. A 404 Media article said Institute for Justice lawyer Robert Frommer "told 404 Media that the lawsuit could have easily been filed in any of the more than 5,000 communities where Flock is active, but that Norfolk made sense because the Fourth Circuit of Appeals—which Norfolk is part of—recently held that persistent, warrantless drone surveillance in Baltimore is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment in a case called Beautiful Struggle v Baltimore Police Department."

Read full article

Comments