Net neutrality regulations
🔹 I. What is Net Neutrality?
Net neutrality is the principle that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must treat all internet data equally, without blocking, throttling, or prioritizing certain content or services for payment.
It aims to preserve an open internet where users have access to all lawful content without ISP interference or discrimination.
🔹 II. Regulatory Background
Key U.S. Regulatory Bodies:
Federal Communications Commission (FCC): Primary federal agency regulating communications, including the internet.
Federal Trade Commission (FTC): Has some role over unfair or deceptive practices by ISPs.
Evolution of Net Neutrality Regulations:
Initially, the FCC tried to regulate ISPs as “information services” (lighter regulation).
Over time, it moved toward classifying broadband under Title II of the Communications Act (common carrier regulations), enabling stronger net neutrality rules.
The regulatory approach has shifted back and forth with changes in administration.
🔹 III. Landmark Case Law on Net Neutrality
1. Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 2014)
Facts:
FCC’s 2010 Open Internet Order imposed net neutrality rules, prohibiting blocking and unreasonable discrimination.
Issue:
Did the FCC have authority to regulate broadband providers as common carriers?
Holding:
The D.C. Circuit vacated parts of the FCC rules, holding that since broadband was classified as an “information service”, the FCC could not impose common carrier-like net neutrality rules under Title II.
The court struck down anti-blocking and anti-discrimination rules.
Significance:
✘ FCC lacked authority to impose strict net neutrality rules without reclassifying broadband.
✔ Led FCC to reconsider classification.
2. FCC v. Verizon, 740 F.3d 623 (2014) (same as above)
Explanation:
This case is often referenced as the primary challenge to the FCC’s 2010 rules, illustrating limits on regulatory authority under the then-current broadband classification.
3. United States Telecom Association v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir. 2016)
Facts:
FCC reclassified broadband as a Title II “telecommunications service” in the 2015 Open Internet Order and imposed stricter net neutrality rules.
Issue:
Was the FCC’s reclassification and net neutrality rules lawful?
Holding:
The D.C. Circuit upheld the FCC’s authority to reclassify broadband under Title II.
It affirmed the FCC’s discretion to adopt net neutrality rules under this classification.
Significance:
✔ Confirmed FCC’s authority to regulate broadband as a common carrier.
✔ Supported robust net neutrality protections.
4. Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, 940 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2019)
Facts:
Following the 2017 repeal of the 2015 net neutrality rules (under the “Restoring Internet Freedom” Order), Mozilla and others challenged the FCC.
Issue:
Was the FCC’s repeal arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)?
Holding:
The court upheld the FCC’s repeal, agreeing that the FCC had the authority to change its policy.
However, it vacated the FCC’s preemption of state net neutrality laws, allowing states to enact their own rules.
Significance:
✔ Affirmed FCC’s power to repeal net neutrality rules.
✔ Opened the door for state-level net neutrality regulations.
5. California v. FCC (2021)
Facts:
After FCC repealed federal net neutrality rules, California enacted its own net neutrality law.
Issue:
Can states impose their own net neutrality regulations, or does FCC preemption prevent this?
Holding:
Courts upheld California’s law against FCC preemption claims, allowing state-level net neutrality protections.
Significance:
✔ States may enact net neutrality laws in absence of federal regulation.
✔ Demonstrates tension between federal and state authority.
6. AT&T v. FCC, 885 F.3d 1236 (D.C. Cir. 2018)
Facts:
Challenged FCC’s authority over “zero-rating” practices (allowing free access to some apps).
Issue:
Does FCC have authority to regulate zero-rating under net neutrality rules?
Holding:
The court upheld FCC’s ability to regulate such practices under Title II classification.
Significance:
✔ Expanded scope of FCC’s regulatory power over ISP practices under net neutrality framework.
7. Berninger v. Federal Communications Commission, 2019 WL 1431216 (D.C. Cir.)
Facts:
Plaintiffs challenged FCC’s 2017 repeal, claiming it violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
Issue:
Was the repeal procedurally and substantively lawful?
Holding:
Court ruled the FCC’s repeal was lawful, noting agency’s broad discretion under the APA.
Significance:
✔ Reiterated FCC’s flexibility in changing net neutrality policies.
🔹 IV. Summary Table: Net Neutrality Case Law
| Case | Year | Key Holding | Impact on Regulation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Verizon v. FCC | 2014 | FCC can’t impose common carrier rules on broadband info svc. | Weakened early net neutrality rules. |
| USTA v. FCC | 2016 | FCC can reclassify broadband under Title II & impose rules. | Strengthened net neutrality enforcement. |
| Mozilla v. FCC | 2019 | FCC repeal lawful; states not preempted. | Allowed state net neutrality laws. |
| California v. FCC | 2021 | States can regulate net neutrality post federal repeal. | Strengthened state authority. |
| AT&T v. FCC | 2018 | FCC can regulate zero-rating under Title II. | Broadened regulatory reach. |
| Berninger v. FCC | 2019 | FCC repeal lawful under APA. | Affirmed agency policy discretion. |
🔹 V. Key Legal and Policy Principles
Classification of broadband:
Determines FCC’s authority—Title II classification enables strong net neutrality rules; “information service” limits regulation.
Agency discretion under APA:
FCC can change net neutrality policy if not arbitrary or capricious.
Federal vs. State authority:
FCC repeal opens door for states to enact their own net neutrality laws; federal preemption has limits.
Scope of net neutrality rules:
Covers blocking, throttling, paid prioritization, and potentially zero-rating.
🔹 VI. Conclusion
Net neutrality remains a dynamic regulatory and legal issue, shaped by ongoing shifts in FCC policy and litigation. Courts have recognized both the FCC’s authority to regulate ISPs under certain classifications and its discretion to repeal or alter those rules. Meanwhile, states have stepped in to fill gaps left by federal deregulation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments