U.S. appeals court hears challenge to FCC net neutrality repeal

A federal appeals court was hearing arguments on Friday over whether the Trump administration acted legally when it repealed landmark net neutrality rules governing internet providers in December 2017.

By David Shepardson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A federal appeals court was hearing arguments on Friday over whether the Trump administration acted legally when it repealed landmark net neutrality rules governing internet providers in December 2017.

The panel, which set aside 2-1/2 hours to hear the case, is made up of Judges Robert Wilkins and Patricia Millett, two appointees of Democratic former President Barack Obama, and Stephen Williams, an appointee of Republican Ronald Reagan.

It was the first hearing in court on the Federal Communication Commission’s controversial decision to repeal the 2015 Obama administration’s net neutrality rules.

The arguments focus on how internet providers should be classified under law – either as information service providers as the Trump administration decided or as a public utility, which subjects companies to more rigorous regulations – and whether the FCC adhered to procedural rules.

The Republican-led FCC voted 3-2 along party lines to reverse the net neutrality rules, which barred internet service providers from blocking or throttling traffic, or offering paid fast lanes, also known as paid prioritization. The FCC said providers must disclose any changes in users internet access as it repealed what it termed “unnecessary, heavy-handed regulations.”

Kevin Russell, a lawyer for the challengers, told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that hypothetically an internet provider could now block the Daily Caller website or graphic animal abuse videos as long as they disclosed it.

“We never get a straight answer from the commission whether it thinks blocking and throttling must always be prohibited” or only if it applies to punishing a competitor, Russell said, arguing that the FCC failed to engage in a reasoned analysis and did not properly assess consumer complaints.

Judge Williams suggested users could simply choose another provider if some content was blocked.

The FCC repeal was a win for providers like Comcast Corp, AT&T Inc and Verizon Communications Inc, but was opposed by internet companies like Facebook Inc, Amazon.com Inc and Alphabet Inc.

A group of 22 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia asked the appeals court to reinstate the Obama-era internet rules and to block the FCC’s effort to pre-empt states from imposing their own rules guaranteeing an open internet.

Several internet companies are also part of the legal challenge, including Mozilla Corp, Vimeo Inc and Etsy Inc (ETSY.O), as well as numerous media and technology advocacy groups and major cities, including New York and San Francisco.

Major providers have not made any changes in how Americans access the internet since the repeal.

In October, California agreed not to enforce its own state net neutrality law until the appeals court’s decision on the 2017 repeal, and any potential review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

A decision is expected by this summer.

(Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Frances Kerry)

U.S. House passes bill to penalize websites for sex trafficking US

FILE PHOTO - The U.S. Capitol Building is lit at sunset in Washington, U.S., December 20, 2016. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

By Dustin Volz

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday overwhelmingly passed legislation to make it easier to penalize operators of websites that facilitate online sex trafficking, chipping away at a bedrock legal shield for the technology industry.

The bill’s passage marks one of the most concrete actions in recent years from the U.S. Congress to tighten regulation of internet firms, which have drawn heavy scrutiny from lawmakers in both parties over the past year due to an array of concerns regarding the size and influence of their platforms.

The House passed the measure 388-25. It still needs to pass the U.S. Senate, where similar legislation has already gained substantial support, and then be signed by President Donald Trump before it can become law.

Speaker Paul Ryan, in a statement before the vote, said the bill would help “put an end to modern-day slavery here in the United States.”

The White House issued a statement generally supportive of the bill, but said the administration “remains concerned” about certain provisions that it hopes can be resolved in the final legislation.

Several major internet companies, including Alphabet Inc’s Google and Facebook Inc, had been reluctant to support any congressional effort to dent what is known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a decades-old law that protects them from liability for the activities of their users.

But facing political pressure, the internet industry slowly warmed to a proposal that gained traction in the Senate last year, and eventually endorsed it after it gained sizeable bipartisan support.

Republican Senator Rob Portman, a chief architect of the Senate proposal, said in a statement he supported the House’s similar version and called on the Senate to quickly pass it.

The legislation is a result of years of law-enforcement lobbying for a crackdown on the online classified site backpage.com, which is used for sex advertising.

It would make it easier for states and sex-trafficking victims to sue social media networks, advertisers and others that fail to keep exploitative material off their platforms.

Some critics warned that the House measure would weaken Section 230 in a way that would only serve to further help established internet giants, who possess larger resources to police their content, and not adequately address the problem.

“This bill will only prop up the entrenched players who are rapidly losing the public’s trust,” Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, an original author of Section 230, said. “The failure to understand the technological side effects of this bill – specifically that it will become harder to expose sex-traffickers, while hamstringing innovation – will be something that this Congress will regret.”

(Reporting by Dustin Volz; editing by Sandra Maler and Lisa Shumaker)