---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <20200710012913.GA1925@telecom.csail.mit.edu> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 01:29:13 +0000 From: Moderator <telecomdigestsubmissions@remove-this.telecom-digest.org> Subject: Frontier misled subscribers about Internet speeds and prices, AG finds Washington state AG forces Frontier Northwest to clearly disclose prices, speeds. By Jon Brodkin Frontier Communications misled thousands of customers about the prices it charges and about the speeds its broadband network can provide, Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson's office has found. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/07/frontier-misled-subscribers-about-internet-speeds-and-prices-ag-finds/ -- Bill Horne Telecom Digest Moderator ------------------------------ Message-ID: <20200710013416.GA1955@telecom.csail.mit.edu> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 01:34:16 +0000 From: Moderator <telecomdigestsubmissions@remove-this.telecom-digest.org> Subject: "TCPA Class Certification Denial Exposes Major Spousal Scheme" Is a Statement of Opinion, holds the Second Circuit in a case rejecting a libel lawsuit over a blog post headline. By Eugene Volokh >From Wexler v. Dorsey & Whitney LLP, decided today by the Second Circuit (Judges Jon O. Newman, Peter W. Hall, and Gerard E. Lynch) In 2015, plaintiff Shimshon Wexler brought a Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") class action in the Eastern District of New York against AT&T, with his wife, Dr. Eve Wexler, as the proposed lead plaintiff. AT&T filed a letter seeking a conference on a contemplated motion to strike, writing that "unless and until Shimshon Wexler both withdraws as counsel and renounces any interest in any future award of attorney's fees in this case, Dr. Wexler is an inadequate class representative as a matter of law." https://reason.com/2020/07/09/tcpa-class-certification-denial-exposes-major-spousal-scheme-is-a-statement-of-opinion/ -- Bill Horne Telecom Digest Moderator ------------------------------ Message-ID: <B7D98122-7E37-4C00-AD16-8C129DF781DB@roscom.com> Date: 7 Jul 2020 10:23:14 -0400 From: "Monty Solomon" <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Supreme Court bans debt collection robocalling to cellphones Supreme Court bans debt collection robocalling to cellphones by Stephen Gardner Today, the Supreme Court held that collecting government debt by robocalling cellphones didn't deserve special First Amendment treatment. In Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc., the Court held that a 2015 amendment to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which allowed cellphone robocalls to collect federal debts (such as student loans and mortgages), gave unconstitutionally favorable treatment to federal debt collection over other types of speech. https://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2020/07/supreme-court-bans-debt-collection-robocalling-to-cellphones.html +---------------------------------------------------------------+ "Severability" to the Rescue Again: A Further Note on Today's Supreme Court Robocalling Decision Steve Gardner has given a great and succinct summary of todays decision in Barr v. AAPC. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act lives, minus its obnoxious exception for government debt collection robocalls. What's not to like about that bottom line? https://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2020/07/severability-to-the-rescue-again-a-further-note-on-todays-supreme-court-robocalling-decision.html +---------------------------------------------------------------+ BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. v. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF POLITICAL CONSULTANTS, INC., ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-631. Argued May 6, 2020 - Decided July 6, 2020 In response to consumer complaints, Congress passed the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) to prohibit, inter alia, almost all robocalls to cell phones. 47 U. S. C. §227(b)(1)(A)(iii). In 2015, Congress amended the robocall restriction, carving out a new governmentdebt exception that allows robocalls made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States. 129 Stat. 588. The American Association of Political Consultants and three other organizations that participate in the political system filed a declaratory judgment action, claiming that §227(b)(1)(A)(iii) violated the First Amendment. The District Court determined that the robocall restriction with the government-debt exception was content-based but that it survived strict scrutiny because of the Government's compelling interest in collecting debt. The Fourth Circuit vacated the judgment, agreeing that the robocall restriction with the government-debt exception was a contentbased speech restriction, but holding that the law could not withstand strict scrutiny. The court invalidated the government-debt exception and applied traditional severability principles to sever it from the robocall restriction. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-631_2d93.pdf ------------------------------ ********************************************* End of telecom Digest Fri, 10 Jul 2020