Net neutrality litigation
Net Neutrality Litigation: Overview
What is Net Neutrality?
Net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers (ISPs) must treat all internet traffic equally without blocking, throttling, or prioritizing certain content or services.
It aims to ensure a free and open internet, preventing ISPs from discriminating against content or charging for preferential treatment.
Regulatory Background
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates net neutrality in the U.S.
Under different administrations, FCC’s stance on net neutrality has shifted, resulting in several rounds of rulemaking and litigation.
Central to the litigation is whether the FCC has authority to regulate broadband providers under Title II of the Communications Act (common carrier rules) or under Title I (information services).
Key Litigation Cases
1. Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 2014)
Facts: After the FCC’s 2010 Open Internet Order established net neutrality rules prohibiting blocking and unreasonable discrimination, Verizon challenged the rules.
Issue: Whether the FCC had statutory authority to impose net neutrality rules on broadband providers classified as “information services” under Title I.
Holding: The D.C. Circuit struck down the FCC’s anti-blocking and anti-discrimination rules, holding that the FCC lacked authority over broadband providers without reclassifying them under Title II.
Significance: The court ruled that the FCC’s 2010 rules were invalid because broadband was classified as an information service, limiting the FCC’s regulatory reach.
2. United States Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir. 2016)
Facts: After the Verizon ruling, the FCC reclassified broadband under Title II in its 2015 Open Internet Order to impose stronger net neutrality protections.
Issue: Whether the FCC had authority to reclassify broadband and impose net neutrality rules under Title II.
Holding: The court upheld the FCC’s Title II reclassification and net neutrality rules, including transparency, no blocking, and no unreasonable discrimination rules.
Significance: Confirmed the FCC’s authority to regulate broadband providers as common carriers and enforce net neutrality.
3. Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, 940 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2019)
Facts: Following a 2017 FCC order repealing the 2015 net neutrality rules (the "Restoring Internet Freedom" order), Mozilla and other petitioners challenged the repeal.
Issue: Whether the FCC’s repeal was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and whether the FCC had authority to preempt state net neutrality laws.
Holding: The court upheld the FCC’s repeal but ruled that the FCC could not preempt state laws attempting to enforce net neutrality.
Significance: The ruling allowed states to enact their own net neutrality regulations, complicating the regulatory landscape.
4. California v. FCC, 921 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2019)
Facts: California passed its own net neutrality law after the FCC repeal, which was challenged by industry groups and the FCC.
Issue: Whether California’s net neutrality law was preempted by federal law.
Holding: The Ninth Circuit upheld California’s law, finding that the FCC’s 2017 order did not expressly preempt state net neutrality regulations.
Significance: Reinforced the ability of states to protect net neutrality in the absence of federal rules.
5. Save the Internet Coalition v. FCC (pending and ongoing)
Facts: Multiple groups continue to litigate and petition for reinstatement or stronger net neutrality protections.
Issue: Whether the FCC should reinstate Title II classification and net neutrality protections.
Status: This litigation continues amid shifting political and regulatory dynamics.
Summary Table of Major Cases
| Case | Holding | Key Legal Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Verizon v. FCC (2014) | FCC lacked authority under Title I to impose net neutrality rules | FCC must reclassify broadband under Title II for strong regulation |
| United States Telecom Ass’n v. FCC (2016) | Upheld FCC’s Title II reclassification and net neutrality rules | FCC has authority to classify broadband as Title II common carrier |
| Mozilla v. FCC (2019) | Upheld FCC repeal but struck down preemption of state laws | States may enact their own net neutrality laws |
| California v. FCC (2019) | Upheld California’s net neutrality law | Federal preemption does not bar state regulations |
Legal and Policy Implications
Authority to regulate: Courts have emphasized that the FCC’s authority depends on how broadband services are classified.
State vs federal regulation: With federal repeal, states have stepped in, leading to a patchwork of laws.
Administrative Procedure Act (APA): The FCC’s rulemakings and repeals have been scrutinized for compliance with APA standards.
Industry vs consumer interests: Litigation reflects a broader debate over ISP power and internet openness.
Conclusion
Net neutrality litigation reveals the evolving tension between agency authority, technological innovation, and consumer protection. Key cases have shaped how and whether the FCC can enforce net neutrality, while also carving out a role for states in the absence of federal regulation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments