Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday February 27 2018, @10:42AM   Printer-friendly
from the uncommon-carrier dept.

AT&T has been involved in a long-running battle with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). In 2014, the agency sued AT&T for throttling its customers' unlimited mobile data plans while not properly informing them it would be doing so. A few months later, the company claimed that its common carrier status meant it wasn't under the jurisdiction of the FTC and it asked a court to dismiss the agency's suit. In 2015, a judge rejected the carrier's claim, but in 2016, a three-member Ninth Circuit appeals court tossed out that ruling and the FTC's lawsuit saying that AT&T's common carrier status did indeed exempt it from the FTC's regulatory jurisdiction. And that brings us to today. As the Wall Street Journal reports, a federal appeals court has ruled that the FTC can proceed with its lawsuit, rejecting the Ninth Circuit court's earlier decision.

The ruling of the full-panel Ninth Circuit appeals court backs the FTC's original argument, which says that because the services in question weren't part of the those that fall under AT&T's common carrier status, its lawsuit is valid.

[...] FTC Chair Maureen Ohlhausen said in a statement, "I welcome the Ninth Circuit's ruling as good news for consumers. It ensures that the FTC can and will continue to play its vital role in safeguarding consumer interests including privacy protection, as well as stopping anticompetitive market behavior."

[...] An AT&T spokesperson told Reuters, "Today's decision on jurisdiction does not address the merits of the case. We are reviewing the opinion and continue to believe we ultimately will prevail."

Source:
https://www.engadget.com/2018/02/26/court-rules-ftc-lawsuit-att-proceed/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by requerdanos on Wednesday February 28 2018, @12:23AM (1 child)

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 28 2018, @12:23AM (#644890) Journal

    [T]he Federal Trade Commission (FTC). In 2014, the agency sued AT&T for throttling its customers' unlimited mobile data plans... [AT&T] claimed that its common carrier status meant it wasn't under the jurisdiction of the FTC...

    The ruling of the full-panel Ninth Circuit appeals court backs the FTC's original argument, which says that because the services in question weren't part of the those that fall under AT&T's common carrier status, its lawsuit is valid.

    Here's what's ironic. Net Neutrality protections that the FCC, under the leadership of ISP lobbyist Ajit "screw the consumer" Pai, recently decided to do away with, were part and parcel of extending common carrier status (and common carrier protection) to ISPs, who in return, as common carriers, would respect net neutrality.

    AT&T claiming that common carrier status (which they still enjoy as a phone carrier) gives them the ability to throttle certain customers at their whim with impunity is the opposite of the point. I hope they lose in a big way.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday February 28 2018, @05:23AM

    by frojack (1554) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @05:23AM (#644979) Journal

    BUT you know this suit is with the FTC right?

    There's a significant school of thought that the consumer protections that net neutrality represents actually belong in the agency responsible for consumers protection.

    Maybe this is a good turn?

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.