NTIA awarded digital equity capacity grants to four more states Friday. The money comes from the $1.44 billion state digital equity capacity grant program. NTIA approved Alabama’s application to access $13 million and Utah’s request for $7 million to implement their digital equity plans, the federal agency said in a news release. West Virginia may access its $9 million allocation, a second NTIA release said. And NTIA awarded Wisconsin’s application for $13 million, according to a third release. NTIA approved New York state’s application Thursday, amid a flurry of such announcements (see 2410310029).

In the aftermath of Hurricane Helene, North Carolina extended deadlines for NTIA’s broadband equity, access and deployment (BEAD) program, the North Carolina Department of Information Technology (NCDIT) said Friday. NTIA granted the state permission to extend the previous Oct. 3 deadline for challenges regarding eligible locations until Jan. 8, said NCDIT. ISPs can submit rebuttals Jan. 21-Feb. 20 and NCDIT’s broadband division will make final determinations about eligible locations Feb. 21-March 22, the department said. Also, ISPs now have until Feb. 3 to prequalify to participate in BEAD. The deadline was Nov. 1 previously. The state has received more than 23,000 local challenges since opening the process on Sept. 3, said the department.

The tech industry renewed its fight against a Florida social media law in district court Friday following a remand from the U.S. Supreme Court (see 2407010053). The law’s challenged provisions are “facially unconstitutional,” NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association said in an amended complaint at the U.S. District Court for Northern Florida (case 4:21-cv-00220). The 2021 Florida law “seeks to punish select private parties for exercising editorial discretion in ways the state disfavors,” said the tech groups’ amended complaint. While Florida had defended the law “on the theory that websites like Facebook and YouTube do not engage in First Amendment activity when they make decisions about what content to disseminate and how to arrange and organize it,” the Supreme Court “laid that argument to rest,” they said. While the state may criticize websites’ moderation decisions, “the First Amendment prohibits the state from overriding those editorial judgments and substituting its own,” NetChoice and CCIA said. “Florida has identified no other interest that could justify [the social media law], and the provisions of the law at issue here are not remotely tailored to any interest it might come up with.”

The 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should reverse a district court decision supporting a state tax on digital ads, urged the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and two tech industry groups in a court brief Thursday. The Chamber, NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association are appealing a July decision of the U.S. District Court for Maryland dismissing the litigation (see 2407050012). The case (docket 22-2275) concerns a Maryland law that imposes a tax on digital ads and bars companies from directly passing along the additional cost to purchasers of digital advertising through separate fees or surcharges. The matter went back and forth between the two courts previously (see 2407050012). "If the power to tax truly is the power to destroy," wrote the industry challengers, "then it is most pernicious when the State is allowed to hide that it is exercising the power in the first place.” The state tax will force businesses to raise prices, but Maryland included a pass-through ban to prohibit companies from disclosing to customers that a state tax is the reason, they said. "Appellants’ members wish to convey to their customers that prices are rising in Maryland because their elected representatives have enacted this tax, and not because digital advertising companies are seeking additional profit.” However, "evidently wishing to avoid political responsibility for rising prices attributable to their ill-conceived tax policy," state lawmakers imposed a "presumptively unlawful content-based speech ban.” Maryland’s response brief is due Jan. 10.

Florida urged a federal court to quickly issue a permanent injunction against Smartbiz Telecom to stop scam calls. Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) filed the motion Wednesday at the U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in case 1:22-cv-23945. Last month, the court partly granted Florida’s request for summary judgment, ruling that Smartbiz may be held liable for illegal robocalls transmitted over its network under the Truth in Caller ID Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (see 2409200034). However, the court said it would move to trial on the state’s additional counts alleging Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) violations. “Defendant is actively transmitting high volumes of fraudulent and otherwise illegal robocalls into the United States,” said Moody. “Entry of a permanent injunction as soon as possible and prior to the final disposition of this action will prevent avoidable fraud losses caused by the scam calls Defendant continues to transmit to consumers.” Enjoining Smartbiz would be appropriate regardless of whether the AG succeeds in trial on the TCPA counts, added the Florida AG. Given the company’s “intentional, repeated illegal conduct and dishonesty,” the court should “cut Defendant off from the United States telephone network,” said Moody: That would be “the least restrictive measure that will still end Defendant’s dangerous and illegal conduct.”

Telecom companies balked at consumer advocates’ call to apply California carrier of last resort (COLR) obligations to broadband. The California Public Utilities Commission posted reply comments Thursday in a rulemaking about how to update the state’s 30-year-old COLR rules (docket R.24-06-012). In initial comments last month, carriers subject to COLR requirements asked that the CPUC shed those obligations in many parts of the state, while consumer advocates said COLR obligations remain necessary and should be updated to include high-speed internet service, not just voice (see 2410020037). Frontier Communications replied Wednesday that it opposes expanding the proceeding to do “a complex, controversial evaluation of legal and policy matters pertaining to the Commission’s potential regulation of broadband services.” Likewise, Consolidated Communications said the CPUC should "decline the invitation to undertake a substantial review of its regulatory jurisdiction over broadband services.” TDS protested that the consumer groups "seek to greatly expand this OIR beyond its intended purpose” without providing factual or legal reasons. Don’t let public advocates "transform this … into a generic telecommunications industry reexamination docket,” said a coalition of small rural local exchange carriers. Representing cable companies, the California Broadband and Video Association warned that adding broadband to the definition of a basic service or extending COLR obligations to broadband providers would be federally preempted. Meanwhile, the CPUC’s independent Public Advocates Office pushed back on companies that said COLR obligations are outdated and should be eliminated. "In reality, the COLR concept remains essential to the guarantee of universal service, but must be updated to reflect the state’s transformed telecommunications landscape,” PAO said. AT&T disagreed. "Maintaining COLR obligations where they are superfluous would divert resources from vital broadband investments to outdated [time division multiplexed] networks, which are increasingly unwanted by consumers,” the carrier said. “It would not only stifle competition by arbitrarily constraining ILECs alone but also result in unnecessary operational costs and increased environmental harm due to prolonged use of copper networks.”

NTIA approved New York’s application to access $36 million to implement the state’s digital equity plan, the federal agency said Thursday. The money comes from the $1.44 billion state digital equity capacity grant program. Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) said, “These funds will empower our communities with the skills, devices, and connectivity they need to thrive in today’s digital world -- whether it’s accessing critical health care resources, expanding job opportunities, or enhancing educational tools for our students.”

The California Privacy Protection Agency will conduct an investigative sweep of data broker registration compliance under the state’s Delete Act, the CPPA said Wednesday. The law requires data brokers to register with the CPPA and pay an annual fee. Starting in 2026, data brokers must honor consumer requests to delete all their personal information.

New England next year might become the first U.S. region where all states have comprehensive privacy laws, a Computer & Communications Industry Association official said Wednesday as CCIA released a report on state privacy. “Much of the activity around new privacy protections took place in northeastern states this year with New Hampshire and Rhode Island passing privacy bills, while Maine and Vermont failed to get data privacy laws across the finish line,” said Alex Spyropoulos, CCIA Northeast regional policy manager. CCIA will be watching the latter two states and Massachusetts to pass bills next year, he said. “Some of the conflicts within states that didn’t ultimately pass bills were due to disagreements over standards or definitions and trying to match those with Europe’s privacy laws.” CCIA State Policy Manager Jordan Rodell urges states considering comprehensive privacy bills in 2025 to prioritize aligning their policies with other states’ laws. The CCIA report noted that many states have harmonized definitions and business requirements, but Maryland last year diverged from the pack with strict data minimization rules. “This approach could inadvertently stifle innovation and business activity within the state by limiting the flexibility of covered entities to leverage collected data for new and potentially beneficial purposes.”

The U.S. Supreme Court distributed for the justices’ Nov. 15 conference a petition for writ of certiorari by ISP groups challenging the New York Affordable Broadband Act, said a text-only docket entry Wednesday (docket 24-161). In a reply brief the same day, the New York State Telecommunications Association and other telecom industry petitioners argued the court should take the case. Litigation has kept New York state from enforcing the 2021 law requiring $15 monthly plans with 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload speeds for qualifying low-income households. Uncertainty over whether broadband is a Title I or Title II service under the Communications Act has complicated the case, with some arguing for delaying the New York case until the courts resolve that issue (see 2410160036). NYSTA and the other ISP groups argued that SCOTUS should take the case because it “presents questions of national importance … and requires review to remedy serious legal error.” If the high court has any doubts, it should ask the U.S. solicitor general to weigh in, they added.