A freshly inked state law exempting streaming TV services from paying franchise fees to local governments in Kansas could upend a city's lawsuit against Hulu and Netflix at a state appeals court. Gov. Laura Kelly (D) signed a bill (SB-144) to carve out satellite and over-the-top video services from the Kansas Video Competition Act (KVCA). The streamers filed briefs last week in the case at the Kansas Court of Appeals (docket 22-125784-A).

District courts have jurisdiction to hear lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of administrative law judge proceedings at the FTC and other federal agencies, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled Friday in dockets 21-86 (see 2211070049) and 21-1239 (see 2211070062).

The FCC misrepresented the Standard/Tegna deal as complex and refused to engage with the broadcasters, and Friday’s Supreme Court opinion on agency adjudications underscores that the hearing process is unconstitutional, said Standard General, Cox Media Group and Tegna in their final response filing supporting their petition for mandamus at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (see 2304110072).

Pro se plaintiff James Linlor filed two motions Wednesday (docket 5:23-cv-00385) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose to add cybersecurity company Musarubra as a second defendant in his cybersquatting complaint against McAfee and to transfer the case to the District of Delaware to “accommodate” the addition because Musarubra is incorporated there. Linlor seeks a May 9 hearing on the motions.

Sixteen U.S. school districts joined the mounting wave of lawsuits against social media platforms Wednesday, as budget-strapped schools seek to hold tech companies responsible for rising costs associated with surging student mental health issues. San Diego-based Frantz Law filed 15 cases for school districts in California, Idaho, Oklahoma, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Utah, charging Facebook and Instagram parent Meta, Google, Snapchat and TikTok with violations of public nuisance laws, negligence and racketeering. A similar complaint was filed in Kentucky.

The March 27 order from U.S. District Judge Manish Shah for Northern Illinois in Chicago denying in part Walmart’s motion to dismiss an FTC enforcement action (see 2304040010) “raises fundamental questions about the FTC’s legal authority and the proper interpretation of key provisions of the FTC Act,” said Walmart. Walmart filed its memorandum of law Wednesday (docket 1:22-cv-03372) in support of its motion to certify the order for interlocutory appeal.

Petitioner Cowin Technology filed a notice of removal (1:23-cv-03054) from New York State Supreme Court to the U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan that seeks to overturn a December arbitration ruling over a seller dispute with Amazon. Howard Reiss, an arbitrator at the American Arbitration Association (AAA), on Dec. 15 denied the Hong Kong-based company’s claims for over $1 million it alleges it’s owed by Amazon, the Wednesday petition said. Amazon withheld payment for violations of its product reviews policy, and Reiss denied all of Cowin’s claims.

Chargebacks911 unfairly thwarted consumers trying to dispute credit card charges, violating the FTC Act and the Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, alleges a lawsuit (docket 8:23-cv-00796) filed by the FTC and Florida Wednesday in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Tampa.

Plaintiffs “failed to establish a single adequate, common question of fact or law applicable to each member of either putative class,” said defendants in a Tuesday response (docket 22-cv-01213) to plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and for leave to file their third amended complaint in Missouri v. Biden. The court should deny both motions, they said.

Amazon wants the U.S. District Court for Southern Indiana in Indianapolis to strike its outside counsel, Robert Cruzen of Klarquist Sparkman, from the plaintiffs' preliminary witness list, said Amazon’s motion Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-02246). Plaintiffs Annie Oakley Enterprises and its owner Renee Gabet allege Amazon ignored the trademark infringement conduct of its third-party sellers (see 2302160029).