The opening brief is due Nov. 15 in California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s (D) appeal of the district court's Sept. 18 decision granting NetChoice’s motion for a preliminary injunction to block him from enforcing AB-2273, the state’s Age Appropriate Design Code (see 2310190030), said a 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court clerk’s order Wednesday (docket 23-2969). NetChoice's answering brief is due Dec. 13, and Bonta's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief, said the order. The U.S. District Court for Northern California held that NetChoice was likely to succeed on the merits of its argument that AB-2273 violates the First Amendment. The lower court also held that AB-2273 is preempted by the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
If Iqvia’s purchase of Propel Media (PMI) goes through, the acquisition would “eliminate intense head-to-head competition” between Iqvia’s Lasso division and PMI’s DeepIntent healthcare professional (HCP) programmatic advertising platform, said the FTC’s redacted memorandum of law Thursday (docket 1:23-cv-06188) in support of its motion for a preliminary injunction to block the acquisition on antitrust grounds.
Defendants Google and YouTube submitted as supplemental authority the U.S. Supreme Court’s Oct. 20 order granting the government’s cert petition on the social media injunction entered in Missouri v. Biden and staying the injunction pending disposition of that petition (see 2310210001), said their filing Tuesday (docket 3:23-cv-03880) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. Plaintiff Robert F. Kennedy Jr. seeks a preliminary injunction enjoining Google and YouTube from removing his COVID-19 videos on grounds that they violate YouTube’s medical misinformation policies (see 2310160014). Kennedy cited the Missouri v. Biden injunction in his motion for the injunction against Google and YouTube, plus in his reply in support of that motion, and Google and YouTube submitted the SCOTUS order in support of their opposition to RFK Jr.'s injunction.
The Commerce Department issued an antidumping duty order on gas powered pressure washers from Vietnam (A-552-008). The order sets permanent antidumping duties, which will remain in place unless revoked by Commerce in a sunset or changed circumstances review. Commerce will now begin conducting annual administrative reviews, if requested, to determine final assessments of AD on importers and make changes to cash deposit rates.
The Commerce Department issued notices in the Federal Register on its recently initiated antidumping duty investigations on aluminum lithographic printing plates from China and Japan (A-570-156, A-588-881), and its countervailing duty investigation on aluminum lithographic printing plates from China (C-570-157). The CVD investigation covers entries for the calendar year 2022. The AD investigation on Japan covers entries July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023, and the AD investigation on China covers entries Jan. 1, 2023, through June 30, 2023.
The Commerce Department is beginning new antidumping duty investigations on aluminum extrusions from China, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and Vietnam, as well as new countervailing duty investigations on aluminum extrusions from China, Indonesia, Mexico and Turkey, it said in a fact sheet Oct. 25. The underlying petition was filed Oct. 4 (see 2310040064), seeking expanded AD/CVD to cover additional products excluded from existing AD/CVD orders on China, as well as aluminum extrusions from an 14 additional countries. The International Trade Commission is scheduled to make its preliminary injury determinations by Nov. 20. These AD/CVD investigations will continue only if the ITC finds injury. International Trade Today will provide more details upon publication of the initiation notices in the Federal Register.
The Sept. 27 motion of seven Belmar, New Jersey, residents to intervene in Verizon’s cell tower fight with Monmouth County (see 2309280027) should be denied for several reasons, said Verizon’s memorandum of law Monday (docket 3:23-cv-18091) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Trenton in support of its opposition. As a preliminary matter, the putative intervenors, who also have filed a motion to dismiss Verizon's complaint (see 2310180031), have failed to comply with the terms of Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by not including a “proposed pleading” with their motion to intervene, said Verizon's opposition memorandum. Even putting that "failure aside," the motion to intervene “suffers from several fatal flaws,” it said. The intervenors “fail to demonstrate a specific interest in any property that is the subject of this action beyond their general interest” as citizens of Monmouth County and two organizations -- Belmar Against 5G Towers and Children’s Health Defense -- that oppose Verizon’s technology, it said. Verizon hasn’t asserted any claims against the intervenors, nor could the causes of action have been pled against them, it said. The intervenors also failed to make any showing, “beyond simple speculation,” that Monmouth County won’t defend this case and protect any interest the intervenors may have, it said. Granting the motion to intervene also would “unduly delay this proceeding and prejudice the original parties’ rights,” especially in light of the Telecommunications Act’s requirements that this matter “be handled on an expedited basis,” it said.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals assigned case number 23-2969 to California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s (D) appeal of the district court's Sept. 18 decision granting NetChoice’s motion for a preliminary injunction to block him from enforcing AB-2273, the state’s Age Appropriate Design Code, said a docketing notice Monday. Besides blocking AB-2273's enforcement on First Amendment grounds, the district court also held that AB-2273 is preempted by the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. "We believe the district court decision is wrong, and that we should be able to protect our children as they use the internet,” said Bonta as he filed the appeal Oct. 18 (see 2310190030).
NetChoice believes its court challenge to SB-396, the Arkansas age-verification Social Media Safety Act, “is appropriate for resolution as a matter of law,” and it therefore “intends to file an early dispositive motion” to that effect, said its position statement in a joint Rule 26(f) report Monday (docket 5:23-cv-05105) in U.S. District Court for Western Arkansas in Fayetteville.
The U.S. District Court for Connecticut in New Haven should deny the Sept. 29 motion of Bridger Mahlum, Charter Communications’ former director-state government affairs, to dismiss Charter’s trade secrets complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and, in the alternative, his motion to transfer under binding U.S. Supreme Court, 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals and Connecticut precedent (see 2310020024), said Charter’s opposition Friday (docket 3:23-cv-01106). Charter seeks to prevent Mahlum from spilling Charter’s broadband, equity, access and deployment program trade secrets to BroadbandMT, a direct competitor. Mahlum’s arguments are “yet another meritless attempt” to delay the court’s decision on Charter’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, said Charter’s opposition. Declining to exercise jurisdiction over Mahlum “would simply delay the resolution of this matter and provide him with an avenue to circumvent his obligations to Charter,” it said. Mahlum has “no valid response to Charter’s assertion of personal jurisdiction,” and so his motion to dismiss “misstates black letter law under binding Connecticut Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court precedent,” it said. His motion “misconstrues cases” that support the court’s jurisdiction over him, it said. It also attempts to distract the court with “irrelevant facts,” it said. The court should reject Mahlum’s “attempted misdirection,” deny his motion to dismiss, hold that it has personal jurisdiction over Mahlum, and grant Charter’s request for a preliminary injunction, it said.