Rochester opposes Verizon’s motion, joined by plaintiffs Crown Castle and Extenet in the related cases, to exclude from evidence the spreadsheet created by Louie Tobias, the city’s director-telecommunications and special projects, on grounds it contains inadmissable hearsay, said the city’s memorandum of law Friday in U.S. District Court for Western New York in support of that opposition. The spreadsheet “is admissible as a public record,” and the motion should be denied, it said.

U.S. District Judge Robert Payne seemed open multiple times in oral argument Monday to deciding U.S. Bankruptcy Court erred in dismissing SES claims against Intelsat over the collapse of the C-Band Alliance (CBA) (see 2210030050). Oral argument before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Richmond (docket 3:22-cv-668) lasted nearly four hours. Payne said he might require additional briefing.

U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty for Louisiana's Western District in Monroe largely denied a motion Monday to dismiss a censorship complaint from the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana seeking an injunction against President Joe Biden, several federal officials and companies.

Verizon’s appeal of the July 1 district court decision denying its motion to compel the dispute of 27 California consumers to arbitration “is about an arbitration agreement that goes too far,” said the consumers’ answering brief Friday (docket 22-16020) in the 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court. The case originated from a November 2021 class action challenging Verizon’s “bait-and-switch scheme” in which it allegedly padded consumers’ monthly wireless bills with a secretive “administrative charge” that kept climbing higher and higher above the flat monthly rates it was advertising.

A three-judge panel on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals questioned the timing of Consumers' Research's challenge of the USF 2021 Q4 contribution factor and how the nondelegation doctrine applied to the FCC's determination of the quarterly factor Thursday. Judges heard oral argument Friday on the challenge (see 2303060069).

Amazon hasn't complied with the disclosure requirement of New York’s Biometric Identifier Information Law (BIIL) in its New York Amazon Go stores, alleged a privacy class action Thursday (docket 1:23-cv-02251) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan.

"Maryland lawmakers wish to avoid political responsibility for the increased cost of digital advertising services" in the state from a tax targeting big businesses and “make it harder for appellants’ members to recover the costs … from their customers,” U.S. Chamber of Commerce replied Thursday at the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Chamber disagreed with Maryland that the appeals court should dismiss its appeal from the U.S. District Court for Maryland, even though the Tax Injunction Act (TIA) preempts federal court review of state taxes.

There’s little relevance to plaintiff Jazmine Harris’ Video Privacy Protection Act claims against PBS in the recent decision in Goldstein v. Fandango Media denying a motion to dismiss a complaint asserting VPPA violations, said PBS Thursday (docket 1:22-cv-02456) in U.S. District Court for Northern Georgia in Atlanta. PBS seeks leave to respond to Harris’ notice of supplemental authority in which she said Goldstein involved “similar claims and factual allegations” to those she’s asserting against PBS (see 2303140019).

The district court “improperly drew inferences in T-Mobile’s favor,” said plaintiff Simply Wireless in its opening brief (docket 22:2236) Thursday in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a trademark infringement case over the Simply Prepaid trademark.

The Jan. 19-disclosed “criminal cyberattack,” of which T-Mobile was the “victim,” affected only “non-sensitive information” of T-Mobile customers, said the carrier’s opposition Thursday at the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the Feb. 8 petition to transfer the 16 resulting class actions for pretrial consolidation under a single judge. That’s important because all the customers whose personal information was breached “are contractually obligated to resolve their claims against T-Mobile through individual arbitration, not class action litigation,” it said.