Telecommunications & Electronic Media

Broadband Re-regulation: The Battle Returns to the Courts - Event Audio/Video

2015 National Lawyers Convention
Earl W. Comstock, Miguel Estrada, Roslyn Layton, David B. Sentelle, Kelly A. Donohue November 18, 2015

Panelists will examine the impact of the FCC's Open Internet Order and reclassification of broadband as a public utility and explore possible alternative regulatory regimes. What will the courts do? What should Congress do? What should a new Administration make its first broadband priorities? ‎With the convergence of technologies, should the current platform-specific regulation be replaced with a more flexible, service-based regulatory scheme? How could such regulations impact developing business models and evolving technologies? How is the US faring against the rest of the world in the quest for broadband leadership?

Telecommunications: Broadband Re-regulation: The Battle Returns to the Courts
3:45 p.m. – 5:15 p.m.
East Room

  • Mr. Earl W. Comstock, Partner, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC
  • Mr. Miguel A. Estrada, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
  • Ms. Roslyn Layton, Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
  • Mr. Robert Quinn, Senior Vice-President – Federal Regulatory and Chief Privacy Officer, AT&T
  • Moderator: Hon. David B. Sentelle, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
  • Introduction: Ms. Kelly A. Donohue, Partner, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 11-11-15 featuring Mark Chenoweth
Mark Chenoweth November 11, 2015

On October 14, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez.

This case concerns a complaint by Jose Gomez that Campbell-Ewald Company, a marketing consultant for the U.S. Navy, allowed a third-party vendor to send him unsolicited text messages in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. 

Three questions are before the Court. The first is whether a case becomes moot when a plaintiff receives an offer of complete relief on his claim, and the second is whether the answer to that changes if the plaintiff is attempting to bring a class action. The third question is whether the doctrine of derivative sovereign immunity for government contractors is limited to claims arising out of property damage caused by public works projects.

To discuss the case, we have Mark Chenoweth, who is General Counsel at Washington Legal Foundation.

DIRECTV v. Imburgia - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 11-6-15 featuring Cory Andrews
Cory L. Andrews November 06, 2015

On October 6, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in DIRECTV v. Imburgia. This case involves a class action lawsuit which argues that DIRECTV improperly charged early termination fees to its customers. The question is whether the California Court of Appeal erred by holding that a reference to state law in an arbitration agreement governed by the Federal Arbitration Act requires the application of state law preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act.

To discuss the case, we have Cory Andrews, who is Senior Litigation Counsel at the Washington Legal Foundation.

Injury & Article III (Spokeo/Search Engine Case)

Short video featuring Andy Hessick discussing Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins
Frederick "Andy" Hessick October 21, 2015

University of Utah Law Professor Andy Hessick previews an upcoming Supreme Court case and explains the possible application of the Fair Credit Reporting Act to search engines.

Mr. Robins found that one of these internet search engines, Spokeo, provided incorrect information about his age, education and marital status. Spokeo, a website that aggregates data from a variety of online sources, claims that Robins lacks standing because he did not suffer an “injury in fact.”  In opposition, Robins claims that a violation of the FCRA alone constitutes an injury.

Net Neutrality Litigation - Podcast

Litigation Practice Group Podcast
Brett Shumate, Adam J. White October 19, 2015

After suffering two judicial setbacks, most recently in the D.C. Circuit’s Verizon v. FCC decision in January 2014, the Federal Communications Commission adopted new net neutrality regulations and subjected broadband providers to public utility regulation under Title II of the Communications Act. In a new case, petitioners and intervenors challenging the FCC’s order recently filed their opening briefs outlining their arguments opposing the FCC’s latest attempt to regulate the internet.

In this Teleforum, counsel for two of the net neutrality petitioners and the intervenors discussed the issues being raised in the D.C. Circuit appeal. The panelists described the challenges to the FCC’s authority to regulate the Internet under Title II of the Communications Act and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act. Is broadband a telecommunications service subject to public utility regulation or is it an information service? Can the FCC adopt rules to regulate the Internet under Section 706? Are broadband providers protected by the First Amendment? How will the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in King v. Burwell and Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, and other constitutionally-rooted canons of statutory construction, affect the net neutrality case? Can the FCC ban paid prioritization of Internet traffic?

  • Brett Shumate, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP
  • Adam J. White, Counsel, Boyden Gray & Associates