T-Mobile appealed a $5.3 million possible fine at the California Public Utilities Commission related to statements about its CDMA shutdown. Two CPUC administrative law judges ruled last month that the carrier misled the CPUC with false statements that it would have a three-year customer migration period for Sprint customers to T-Mobile and Boost Mobile customers to Dish Network (see 2204260061). The record doesn’t support a CPUC Rule 1.1 violation, the “proposed penalty calculation is flawed and the fine it would impose is unwarranted,” T-Mobile said Wednesday in docket A.18-07-012. T-Mobile didn’t agree to operate the CDMA network for three years or say it would maintain CDMA until all Boost customers were migrated, said the carrier: The ALJs’ ruling “would have the Commission find that T-Mobile’s network integration has proceeded too quickly.” Also, “the threatened consumer harm that DISH trumpeted and on which the penalty calculation is based never materialized,” it said. “T-Mobile invested billions of dollars upgrading and integrating the combined network, made accommodations to DISH on the CDMA network sunset schedule, arranged for additional handset supply to DISH, resolved other pending issues in an agreement with DISH” that was cleared by DOJ “and assured that essentially all Boost CDMA customers were migrated in well under three years.”

California legislators passed several telecom bills in their chambers of origin Monday. The Assembly voted 73-0 for AB-2750 to require the California Department of Technology to develop a state digital equity plan. The Assembly voted 71-0 for AB-2752 to require the California Public Utilities Commission to maintain an interactive map of all last-mile connections from the state’s middle-mile network. The Assembly voted 51-0, with 27 members not voting, for a bill (AB-2408) that would make social media platforms civilly liable for addicting children to their websites. The Senate voted 36-0 for SB-857 to extend California High-Cost Fund A and B programs, set to expire Jan. 1, until Jan. 1, 2028 (see 2204040040). Senators voted 25-3 for SB-884 to require the CPUC to establish an electric undergrounding program that requires telecom providers to cooperate with the power company to put non-wireless infrastructure underground and pay proportionate costs. Meanwhile, the Electronic Frontier Foundation opposed a bill (AB-2749) to revise the CPUC’s review process for California Advanced Services Fund grant applications. The bill, ordered Monday to a third and final reading in the Assembly, would amend the state’s last-mile broadband funding program by restricting the CPUC from requiring providers to offer affordable plans to all residents and forcing the state to treat wireless on equal terms as fiber, EFF said Monday.

The New Jersey communities of Longport and Irvington don't have a private right of action against Netflix and Hulu to seek franchise fees from the streamers under the state's Cable TV Act, U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler said in a docket 2:21-cv-15303 opinion entered Monday as he granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. Chesler said the state legislature clearly was designating the Board of Public Utilities as its local franchising authority, and letting the communities seek redress would usurp the board's authority. Outside counsel for the plaintiffs didn't comment.

A Washington state court denied Google’s motion to dismiss a location-tracking complaint by Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D). The Washington AG sued in January (see 2201240028). "Google attempted to evade accountability for its actions, and the judge rejected the corporation’s arguments," Ferguson said Monday. The state “adequately alleges … that Google engaged in trade or commerce that directly or indirectly affects the people of Washington,” and “has properly pled a Consumer Protection Act … claim against Google,” King County Superior Court Judge Matt Lapin wrote Friday. Trial is set for January. Texas AG Ken Paxton (R) last week amended a separate location-tracking complaint against Google (see 2205190040). Google didn’t comment Monday.

Regulating how platforms host the speech of others is constitutional, Florida argued Wednesday, siding with 11 other states in supporting Texas against a social media lawsuit from the tech industry (see 2205180045). The Supreme Court fielded briefs this week in docket 21A720. Florida signed its brief with Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska and South Carolina. Many states are considering measures that mirror social media laws passed in Texas and Florida, the filing said. Texas’ law deals with the conduct of platforms, not the platforms’ protected speech, so it doesn’t violate the First Amendment, the states said.

New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) will probe social media companies about Saturday’s mass shooting in Buffalo, her office said Wednesday. James will investigate how the shooter used social media “to discuss and amplify his intentions and acts to carry out this attack,” with a focus on “platforms that may have been used to stream, promote, or plan the event, including but not limited to” Amazon’s Twitch, 4chan, 8chan and Discord, the AG office said. “That an individual can post detailed plans to commit such an act of hate without consequence, and then stream it for the world to see is bone-chilling and unfathomable,” said James. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) asked James to investigate. “We need to respect individual First Amendment rights, but when individuals use online platforms to promote and plan violence, it raises questions about the role of social media platforms in the promotion of the violence,” the governor said.

A New York state Senate panel cleared two social media bills in voice votes at a virtual hearing Wednesday. The Internet and Technology Committee supported bills by Senate Commerce Committee Chair Anna Kaplan (D) that would require social platforms to provide reporting mechanisms for hateful conduct (S-4511) and election misinformation (S-4531). Tuesday, the Assembly Science and Technology Committee cleared A-7865, its version of S-4511, to the Codes Committee.

The Florida House voted 70-38 to remove an exemption for theme park owners from its social media law. Many Democrats voted no while loudly demonstrating against redistricting bills passed earlier that day. SB-6 “is the bill repealing the carveout that every Democrat voted to oppose last year,” said Rep. Alex Andrade (R) before the webcast vote. The Senate passed it Wednesday, a day after Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) asked legislators to remove special districts and privileges for Disney in Florida in response to the company’s opposition to HB-1557, what opponents call the “Don’t Say Gay” law (see 2204200047). The governor’s office didn’t comment on when DeSantis would sign. Oral argument is scheduled for next Thursday on the underlying social media law at the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. With Congress not passing any “meaningful” online content regulations, “state governments have begun experimenting with ways to regulate online expression,” said a University of North Carolina Center on Technology Policy report released Thursday. “On the right, legislators have introduced dozens of bills addressing what they see as problematic online censorship. On the left, legislators have introduced a series of bills addressing what they see as harmful online content. Yet, state legislation from both Democrats and Republicans faces significant legal and practical challenges, limiting the efficacy of state government reform efforts to date.” Asked Thursday about his support for the amended bill, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr disputed that the removal of the theme park exemption was a response to Disney’s political speech. The proclamation calling for a special session to amend the bill frames the change as a response to the courts criticizing the original legislation for giving Disney special status, Carr said on a press call. “Eliminating that legal vulnerability made sense,” he said.

Florida senators supported removing Disney’s exemption from its social media law. The Senate voted 24-15 Wednesday for SB-6 to remove the exemption for “a company that owns and operates a theme park or entertainment complex.” The Senate acted a day after Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) asked legislators to remove special districts and privileges for Disney in Florida in response to the company’s opposition to HB-1557, Florida’s so-called “Don’t Say Gay” law (see 2204190063). SB-6 is moving a week before a scheduled April 28 oral argument on the state’s social media law at the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr is “pleased to see that Florida may remove the theme park exception to its Big Tech legislation,” the Republican tweeted Wednesday. “The district court cited that exception in support of its decision to stay the law. It’s important that common sense laws regulating these digital networks go into effect.” Tech industry challengers say the law is unconstitutional even without the theme park exemption.

State enforcers lacked sufficient information to block Facebook’s buys of Instagram and WhatsApp, partly because the platform misrepresented its intentions, 48 state attorneys general argued Thursday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in docket 21-7078 (see 2203150046). The basis of the antitrust claims only became clear after Facebook’s conduct was “well underway” and the cumulative effects of its behavior became apparent, the states argued. Facebook doesn’t refute that law enforcers “should judiciously evaluate competitive concerns” before filing and enforcers shouldn’t be “stripped of their critical law-enforcement authority merely because they took the time to do so,” the states wrote.