Short video featuring Richard A. Samp discussing Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez Richard A. Samp October 09, 2015
Advertising agency Campbell-Ewald sent recruitment texts to Jose Gomez on behalf of the US Navy, violating a little-known law. When Mr. Gomez sued, Campbell-Ewald offered to pay the statutory damages in full. In this upcoming case, the Supreme Court will consider whether or not Mr. Gomez has Article III standing: is there still a controversy since an offer for complete relief has been made?
Washington Legal Foundation Attorney Chief Counsel Richard A. Samp previews the case being argued October 14. Mr. Samp clarifies that although the Supreme Court will decide whether or not Mr. Gomez has standing to sue, the underlying issue involves the possibility of a Class Action lawsuit against Campbell-Ewald.
Mr. Samp authored the Washington Legal Foundation amicus curiae brief in support of petitioner Campbell-Ewald Company. Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group Podcast
The First Amendment reads, in part, "Congress shall make no law . . .abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ." Are there, and should there be, different levels of freedom of speech for media and non-media speakers? If so, how should "media" and "non-media" be defined, and who should decide? Our experts debated a recent Texas Court of Appeals decision that surprised some observers.
The Future of Media
- Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
- Prof. Sonja R. West, University of Georgia School of Law
The Federalist Society's Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group and its George Washington University Law School Student Chapter co-sponsored a conference on the Future of Media -- examining the government's role in light of today's rapidly evolving media landscape. The conference took place at The George Washington University Law School on February 25, 2015.
12:30 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.
- Introduction: Mr. Bryan N. Tramont, Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP and Chairman, Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group
- Introduction: Mr. Anthony Glosson, Student Member, Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group and Editor-in-Chief, Federal Communications Law Journal
- Hon. Joshua D. Wright, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission
The George Washington University Law School Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group Podcast
On March 14, 2014, the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its plan to transition its key internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. It has asked the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to commence the multistakeholder process to develop the transition plan.
NTIA administers changes to the authoritative root zone file – the database containing the lists of names and addresses of all top-level domains – and serves as the historic steward of the Domain Name System. NTIA currently contracts with ICANN to carry out the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions and has a cooperative agreement with Verisign under which it performs related root zone management functions. ICANN’s government contract expires September 30, 2015. NTIA has indicated that ICANN’s transition plan must adhere to four principles. It must:
- Support and enhance the multistakeholder model
- Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS
- Meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services
- Maintain the openness of the internet
In this Teleforum, we discussed the implications of this pending transition and its potential impact on a free and open internet.
- Hon. John M.R. Kneuer, President and Founder, Kneuer LLC
- Patricia J. Paoletta, Partner, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP
[Listen now!] Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group Podcast
In December 2013, Rep. Fred Upton, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman, and Rep. Greg Walden, Chairman of the Committee's Communications and Technology Subcommittee, announced plans to use 2014 to begin a review process leading to an update of the Communications Act of 1934. Rep. Walden announced in a news release that the committee plans “to look at the Communications Act and all of the changes that have been made piecemeal over the last 89 years and ask the simple question: ‘Is this working for today’s communications marketplace?’” The statute has not been changed in any material way since 1996, when the internet was just beginning to be used on a widespread basis and broadband services were only then emerging.
The participants in this Teleforum addressed fundamental questions, such as: whether an update to the Communications Act is needed and why; if an update is desirable, what a new Communications Act should like, including, more specifically, how the structure of the act should be changed along with the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission.
- Mr. Shawn H. Chang, Majority Counsel, Communications and Technology Policy, Committee on Energy and Commerce, United States House of Representatives
- Mr. Randolph J. May, President, The Free State Foundation
- Mr. David Redl, Chief Counsel for Communications and Technology, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives