Some 1,997 public comments were filed with the FTC after its June workshop on competition, consumer protection and economic issues raised by the so-called "sharing economy." Most comments encouraged the FTC to regulate the sharing economy lightly and to end any practices that favor established companies. CEA, the Internet Association and other tech firms backed the sharing economy, which is often said to involve companies including Uber that have run into regulatory issues as they expand.
A federal court accepted the requests of parties to file amicus briefs supporting petitioners challenging the FCC net neutrality and broadband reclassification order. An order Tuesday of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in USTelecom v. FCC, No. 15-1063, granted the motions of: (A) Richard Bennett, (B) the Business Roundtable, National Association of Manufacturers and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, (C) Center for Boundless Innovation in Technology, (D) Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy, Georgetown University, (E) International Center for Law and Economics and Affiliated Scholars, (F) former FCC employee William Kirsch, (G) Mobile Future, (H) Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council, (I) Phoenix Center, (J) Telecommunications Industry Association and (K) Christopher Yoo, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, ex-FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth and Washington Legal Foundation had filed notices of their intent to file amicus briefs; lawyers for the three said they didn't have to file motions because they received the consent of all the parties to the case. (For more on the arguments the parties plan to make in their briefs, see 1507130064, 1507140035, 1507150012, 1507210054 and 1507270045). The briefs of the amici and intervenors supporting petitioners are due Thursday. Tuesday's order also directed the court's clerk to file Kirsch's brief, which he submitted early to protect petitioner due process rights. Kirsch said the FCC arbitrarily and capriciously failed to address his comments in the net neutrality proceeding on international telecom. "The FCC is entitled to deference for a Title II Court-guided classification, but should be subject to a de novo review for a quasi-judicial standard in place of the rules based approach that should be required of a so-called expert agency," Kirsch's brief said. It addressed intervenors' standing to address harm from "gatekeepers" and petitioners' standing to address harm from the U.S. Trade Representative's decision ceding the country's telecom advantage in the World Trade Organization agreement on basic telecom to trading partners, including China.
A federal court accepted the requests of parties to file amicus briefs supporting petitioners challenging the FCC net neutrality and broadband reclassification order. An order Tuesday of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in USTelecom v. FCC, No. 15-1063, granted the motions of: (A) Richard Bennett, (B) the Business Roundtable, National Association of Manufacturers and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, (C) Center for Boundless Innovation in Technology, (D) Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy, Georgetown University, (E) International Center for Law and Economics and Affiliated Scholars, (F) former FCC employee William Kirsch, (G) Mobile Future, (H) Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council, (I) Phoenix Center, (J) Telecommunications Industry Association and (K) Christopher Yoo, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, ex-FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth and Washington Legal Foundation had filed notices of their intent to file amicus briefs; lawyers for the three said they didn't have to file motions because they received the consent of all the parties to the case. (For more on the arguments the parties plan to make in their briefs, see 1507130064, 1507140035, 1507150012, 1507210054 and 1507270045). The briefs of the amici and intervenors supporting petitioners are due Thursday. Tuesday's order also directed the court's clerk to file Kirsch's brief, which he submitted early to protect petitioner due process rights. Kirsch said the FCC arbitrarily and capriciously failed to address his comments in the net neutrality proceeding on international telecom. "The FCC is entitled to deference for a Title II Court-guided classification, but should be subject to a de novo review for a quasi-judicial standard in place of the rules based approach that should be required of a so-called expert agency," Kirsch's brief said. It addressed intervenors' standing to address harm from "gatekeepers" and petitioners' standing to address harm from the U.S. Trade Representative's decision ceding the country's telecom advantage in the World Trade Organization agreement on basic telecom to trading partners, including China.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of July 27 - Aug 2:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of July 20-26:
New changes to antidumping and countervailing duty law signed by President Barack Obama several weeks ago will make it more likely that the Commerce Department and International Trade Commission will impose trade remedies, and puts Commerce's current practice in AD/CVD proceedings on stronger footing, said trade lawyers in recent interviews. The legislation, now named the American Trade Enforcement Effectiveness Act, gives Commerce greater authority to decline voluntary respondents in cases. The bill also gives domestic manufacturers more leverage in arguing to the International Trade Commission that they are injured by dumped and illegally subsidized imports, said the lawyers.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of July 13-19:
Three companies are challenging in court the July 10 FCC declaratory ruling to clarify the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) (see 1507130039). The Association of Credit and Collection Professionals (ACA) International said the ruling is “at odds” with the original act. The Professional Association for Customer Engagement (PACE) and Sirius XM Radio also filed petitions for review. ACA said the ruling created "tremendous new TCPA risks for businesses that contact consumers by telephone." Considering the number of petitioners that sought relief, ACA said the "battle against the FCC’s interpretation of the TCPA is far from over."
There's nothing that limits CBP to only a visual inspection of cargo for classification purposes, the agency said in an April 24 ruling (here), HQ H241622. Despite the claims of Gunther Mele, the importer that filed for a further review of protest, CBP is not bound by the limits of a visual inspection and may use laboratory testing as it sees fit, the agency said. The agency also found that a rate advancement notice from the port is not the same as a interpretive ruling.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of July 6-12:.