The Supreme Court declined Tuesday to hear Enigma Software v. Malwarebytes, which alleges anticompetitive behavior by a cybersecurity rival (see 2006150054). Justice Clarence Thomas issued a statement in agreement, saying the high court should consider reviewing Communications Decency Act Section 230’s language in an “appropriate case.” Malwarebytes claimed Section 230 immunity after Enigma sued. Enigma alleged Malwarebytes “engaged in anticompetitive conduct by reconfiguring its products to make it difficult for consumers to download and use Enigma products.” Thomas noted SCOTUS hasn’t interpreted Section 230 in the 24 years since its enactment: “Many courts have construed the law broadly to confer sweeping immunity on some of the largest companies.” He argued justices “should consider whether the text of this increasingly important statute aligns with the current state of immunity enjoyed by Internet platforms.” Extending the immunity “beyond the natural reading of the text can have serious consequences,” Thomas wrote. Before allowing immunity from civil claims for “knowingly hosting illegal child pornography” or “for race discrimination,” the court should “be certain that is what the law demands.” FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr said Thomas’ statement “strengthens the case for reform,” tweeting that it “explains how a couple of sweeping and questionable court decisions have expanded Big Tech’s protections far beyond the terms of Section 230 itself.” Attorneys for the companies didn’t comment.
Karl Herchenroeder
Karl Herchenroeder, Associate Editor, is a technology policy journalist for publications including Communications Daily. Born in Rockville, Maryland, he joined the Warren Communications News staff in 2018. He began his journalism career in 2012 at the Aspen Times in Aspen, Colorado, where he covered city government. After that, he covered the nuclear industry for ExchangeMonitor in Washington. You can follow Herchenroeder on Twitter: @karlherk
Expect antitrust legislation to be introduced in the “late days of this Congress” to curb Big Tech’s dominance, House Antitrust Subcommittee Chairman David Cicilline, D-R.I., said Friday, discussing his panel’s recent report (see 2010070067). Regulation is on the agenda for this and next Congress, said during a Public Knowledge event, calling the report “just the beginning.”
The Supreme Court met arguments from Google and Oracle with skepticism Wednesday in a case that could decide whether programming code is copyrightable (see 2008070054). Oracle sued Google for its use of Java programming code. Google has a right to provide a “certain functionality to make a computer do something” under Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act, argued Google attorney Thomas Goldstein. If there were alternatives, that would be “another matter,” he said, but because there’s only one way, there’s no copyright protection.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should grant the FTC’s request for en banc review in its antitrust case against Qualcomm (see 2009250068), tech groups, auto manufacturers, consumers and scholars told the court in briefs filed through Tuesday (in Pacer). The agency is appealing a three-judge panel’s decision in favor of Qualcomm (see 2008190043).
Congress should consider legislation including structural separation and line of business restrictions to address abuse of market power in the digital economy, House Antitrust Subcommittee Democratic staff recommended in a long-awaited report Tuesday. Republicans didn’t sign on but released their own report. Recommendations include prohibition of self-preferencing, portability requirements, mandating that platforms provide due process before taking action against market participants, and amendments to the Clayton, Sherman and FTC acts.
Momentum is building in both chambers for a Digital Millennium Copyright Act update as stakeholders remain at odds if a new DMCA is necessary or beneficial. Experts offered varying predictions in interviews about proposals to the Senate IP Subcommittee and House Judiciary Committee (see 2009300068).
The Senate Commerce Committee unanimously voted Thursday to issue subpoenas to Facebook, Google and Twitter for testimony from CEOs Mark Zuckerberg, Sundar Pichai and Jack Dorsey (see 2009250037). The vote was a “big, bipartisan signal to Big Tech,” Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., told us, saying there’s agreement that Communications Decency Act Section 230 is “overdue for a makeover.” During Thursday’s executive session, Democrats suggested the hearing be held after the November election to avoid any influence over platform election content.
Expect the House Antitrust Subcommittee to release its report on Big Tech next week, Chairman David Cicilline, D-R.I., told us after Thursday’s final hearing on the matter. House Judiciary Committee Republicans planned to introduce legislation to amend Section 230 and limit liability protections for platforms making “editorial decisions,” ranking member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, announced at the hearing.
The House Judiciary Committee is “quite possibly” exploring legislation to update Digital Millennium Copyright Act Section 512 (see 2006090063), Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., told us Wednesday. “It’s not clear what the end game is,” Nadler said. “We’re undertaking a major review of it, and we’ll see” what develops. He hadn’t had direct conversations with ranking member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, though staffs may have been in touch. “It’s a nonpartisan issue,” added Nadler.
A bipartisan pair of senators introduced legislation Tuesday to amend Communications Decency Act Section 230 and require platforms to report illegal drug sales and other illicit activity. Tech industry and privacy advocates oppose the bill. Experts raised issues with proposals aimed at amending industry’s liability shield, in interviews.