The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has decisively rejected the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) attempt to impose new net neutrality regulations on internet service providers (ISPs). This ruling marks a significant moment in legal precedent, utilizing the post-Chevron interpretive authority granted by the Supreme Court to federal judges.
In the case of Ohio Telecom Association vs. FCC, the three-judge panel extensively referenced the 2024 Loper Bright ruling, which criticized the FCC’s regulatory approach as overly stringent and favoring the perspectives of ISPs that resisted being classified strictly as telecommunications services. The court’s decision likely puts an end to the long-standing quest for a federal net neutrality policy, a movement that has seen various efforts since the Obama administration aimed at governing major ISPs like AT&T, Comcast, Spectrum, and Verizon Communications.
The court’s opinion highlighted that it will “no longer afford deference” to the FCC’s interpretation of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, a significant shift informed by the rulings in Loper Bright Enterprises, which ended decades of judicial deference to regulatory interpretations of ambiguous federal laws. The judges noted that the FCC’s classification of ISPs has fluctuated based on the ruling political party, and applying Loper Bright should clarify this inconsistency.
Consequently, the ruling reinstates the regulatory status that existed during the Trump administration when net neutrality rules were rescinded in 2018. Additionally, the court expanded its ruling to include mobile broadband providers, further limiting the FCC’s regulatory authority.
Advocates for net neutrality express concern that this ruling poses a “major setback” for consumer protections and competition in the internet marketplace. They argue that without net neutrality, ISPs could potentially manipulate access speeds and availability of certain content, which they believe undermines consumer rights. John Bergmayer, legal director at Public Knowledge, argued that the court misunderstood the fundamental technical realities and Congress’s intentions behind the Communications Act, potentially leading to a regulatory gap that could leave consumers vulnerable.
In contrast, the ISPs’ trade organization, US Telecom, welcomed the ruling, asserting that it would lead to increased investment, innovation, and competition in internet access due to a lighter regulatory framework. They emphasized that a balanced, “light-touch” approach to broadband regulation has historically benefited the growth of the internet.
Following the ruling, FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel urged Congress to establish statutory “open internet principles,” while Commissioner Brendan Carr praised the decision as a victory for the nation, indicating a commitment to continue addressing what he described as regulatory overreach from the Biden administration.
To summarize, the Sixth Circuit’s ruling significantly alters the landscape for internet service regulation, providing ISPs with more freedom while igniting a vigorous debate over consumer rights and regulatory practices that may shape the future of internet accessibility in the U.S.
Overall, while there are concerns for consumer protections, this ruling opens the door for renewed discussions on how to effectively balance regulation with innovation in the rapidly evolving digital landscape. The potential for enhanced competition and investment can be seen as a positive development, which may ultimately benefit consumers in terms of new services and technologies.