The U.S. Supreme Court, with Justice Samuel Alito dissenting, denied Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s motion to intervene in Murthy et al v. Missouri et al (docket 23-511), the SCOTUS review of the injunction that bars officials from the White House and four federal agencies from coercing or significantly encouraging social media to moderate content. The injunction is stayed, pending the court’s resolution of its review.
The Commerce Department illegally used just one respondent in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel flanges from India covering entries in 2018-19, the Court of International Trade ruled Dec. 8. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in YC Rubber Co. v. U.S. "is directly on point" in this case, because Commerce only reviewed exporter Chandan Steel Limited in a situation where multiple other companies exported the subject merchandise.
The Commerce Department published notices in the Federal Register Dec. 11 on the following AD/CV duty proceedings (any notices that announce changes to AD/CV duty rates, scope, affected firms or effective dates will be detailed in another ITT article):
The Commerce Department has released the preliminary results of its countervailing duty administrative review on refillable stainless steel kegs from China (C-570-094). This review covers subject merchandise from the exporters under review entered during calendar year 2021.
The Commerce Department has released the preliminary results of its antidumping duty administrative review on aluminum foil from Brazil (A-351-856). In the final results of this review, Commerce will set assessment rates for subject merchandise from the companies under review entered May 4, 2021, through Oct. 31, 2022.
Meta and the FTC propose a Wednesday deadline for the filing of the FTC’s opposition and anticipated cross-motion to Meta’s motion for a preliminary injunction to block the agency from modifying its 2020 privacy consent order to include new restrictions on Meta’s business activities, said their joint meet and confer statement Thursday (docket 1:23-cv-03562) in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Dec. 27 is their proposed deadline for Meta’s response, and the FTC’s reply would be due Jan. 10, followed by a hearing Jan. 17 or 18 on the preliminary injunction motion, said the statement. They structured the proposed schedule to allow Meta’s injunction motion and the FTC’s anticipated cross-motion to be briefed and heard before Jan. 31, said the statement. That's Meta's newly extended deadline to respond to the FTC’s May 3 order to show cause why the commission shouldn’t modify the 2020 consent order and enter the new restrictions, said the statement. Meta’s Nov. 29 complaint asked the court to declare that “fundamental aspects” of the FTC’s structure violate the Constitution, and that those violations “render unlawful” the FTC’s proceeding against Meta (see 2311300039).
The Commerce Department has released the final results of the antidumping duty administrative review on corrosion-resistant steel products from South Korea (A-580-878). These final results will be used to set final assessments of AD duties on importers for subject merchandise entered July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Dec. 11 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 8 denied the government's motion to dismiss Chinese printer cartridge exporter Ninestar's suit against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List following a court order finding that CIT has the jurisdiction to hear challenges to inclusion on the UFLPA Entity List. Judge Gary Katzmann said the motion was moot, denying it without prejudice to a renewed motion to dismiss after Ninestar's filing of its amended complaint (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
California should be cautious about adopting limits from other jurisdictions’ privacy laws as it decides how to apply rules to AI, California Privacy Protection Agency Chairperson Jennifer Urban said Friday. But board member Alastair Mactaggart raised concerns that the CPPA is proposing too broad a definition of automated decision-making technology (ADMT) during the board’s virtual meeting. The CPPA board discussed pre-rulemaking proposals on cybersecurity audits, risk assessments and ADMT that privacy experts say could affect many industries, including communications and the internet (see 2312060021).