DOJ and 11 Republican state attorneys general sued Google Tuesday for its alleged monopoly in general search services and search advertising. Senior Vice President Kent Walker called the lawsuit “deeply flawed,” saying consumers choose to use Google, “not because they're forced to or because they can't find alternatives.” New York Attorney General Letitia James and six other Democratic state AGs announced they’re continuing a parallel investigation and could potentially consolidate the case with DOJ in coming weeks. Industry groups condemned the suit; reaction from consumer advocates varied.
Section 230
Congress authorized the FCC to interpret “all provisions” of the Communications Act, including amendments like Section 230, so the agency has the authority to issue a rulemaking clarifying the immunity shield’s scope, General Counsel Tom Johnson blogged Wednesday.
The FCC doesn’t have the authority to “rewrite” Communications Decency Act Section 230, Michael Petricone, CTA senior vice president-government and regulatory affairs, said Monday. He called the rulemaking announcement (see 2010150057) disappointing. The agency lacks authority to “impose new, heavy-handed disclosure requirements on online platforms -- a fact the FCC itself recognized in 2017,” he said. House Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, D-N.J., and House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Mike Doyle, D-Pa., called the proposed rulemaking a “blatant attempt” to help President Donald Trump: “The timing and hurried nature of this decision makes clear it’s being done to influence social media companies’ behavior leading up to an election, and it is shocking to watch this supposedly independent regulatory agency jump at the opportunity to become a political appendage of President Trump’s campaign.” The commission didn’t comment.
Putting the question of broadcast ownership diversity in the hands of the Supreme Court could have consequences for minorities, said Diane Holland, aide to FCC Commissioner Geoffrey Starks, and National Association of Black-Owned Broadcasters President Jim Winston during a NABOB conference (see 2010020059) panel Friday. The matter going before “the very conservative” court could “do some damage,” Holland said. Court rulings that eliminate the FCC obligation to consider diversity or make efforts to examine the effects of the agency's decisions on diversity unconstitutional could make efforts to address ownership inequality more difficult, she said.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Google CEO Sundar Pichai are to testify remotely at an Oct. 28 Senate Commerce Committee hearing on Section 230, the committee announced Friday. A day earlier, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said the agency will begin a rulemaking on Communications Decency Act Section 230 (see 2010150057). The agency will soon release a blog post about FCC authority to interpret the statute, General Counsel Tom Johnson tweeted Friday. Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., welcomed the FCC decision, saying the committee will get more information directly from the CEOs at the Oct. 28 hearing, set for 10 a.m. in G50 Dirksen.
The FCC intends to move forward with a rulemaking to clarify the meaning of Communications Decency Act Section 230, Chairman Ajit Pai said Thursday (see 2010150067). He said the FCC’s general counsel told him the agency has the “legal authority to interpret Section 230.” The announcement drew backlash from Democratic commissioners and praise from NTIA and Commissioner Brendan Carr. Republicans on Capitol Hill welcomed a potential rulemaking.
The FCC’s website was down for about an hour Thursday starting soon after the 2:30 p.m. EDT release of Chairman Ajit Pai’s announcement of action to come on Communications Decency Act Section 230 (see 2010150057). Multiple users, including FCC officials, said they received only an error message when going to FCC.gov. The message said “an unexpected error had occurred." By 4:30 p.m., the site appeared to be restored. The FCC didn’t comment.
Several members of the Senate Commerce and Judiciary committees face tough reelection fights, elections experts told us. Most of the vulnerable lawmakers are Republicans, including Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Judiciary Intellectual Property Subcommittee Chairman Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Commerce Security Subcommittee Chairman Dan Sullivan of Alaska. Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan is the only Democrat on either committee who faces similarly long odds. The House Commerce and Judiciary panels face far less potential turnover among incumbents seeking to return in the next Congress.
Exactly a week after the presidential and congressional elections, the government official who would replace outgoing FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly would get a nominations hearing. The announcement came about three hours after the agency said it would push forward on an NPRM on clarifying the meaning of Communications Decency Act Section 230, as we reported in an earlier news bulletin. O'Rielly's renomination was withdrawn after he voiced some concern about any FCC ability to reinterpret the section.
Twitter’s alleged censoring of a New York Post article on Hunter Biden is “unusual intervention that is not universally applied,” Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., wrote CEO Jack Dorsey Wednesday. "I find this behavior stunning but not surprising from a platform that has censored the President of the United States,” he wrote, saying it raises questions “about the applicability” of Twitter policy. Twitter didn’t comment by our deadline. Hawley also cited Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ recent statement urging the high court to consider reviewing Communications Decency Act Section 230’s language (see 2010130044), during SCOTUS nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s Wednesday confirmation hearing session. The Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on Barrett, which began Monday, hasn’t touched much on telecom and tech issues. Hawley’s Section 230 citation came as a reference in a question about courts’ authority to expand statute. Hawley noted Thomas’ assertion that courts had dramatically rewritten Section 230 in decisions since 1996. Barrett noted she hadn’t ruled on any Section 230 cases but said generally she sees a “danger” in courts substituting their own judgment in place of statutory language, which would subvert “the will of the people.” Hawley said he believes that's what courts have done in the case of Section 230.