ACA Connects v. Bonta, No. 21-15430 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
In 2018, the FCC stopped treating broadband internet services as “telecommunications services” subject to relatively comprehensive, common-carrier regulation under Title II of the Communications Act, and classified them under Title I as lightly regulated “information services,” with the result of terminating federal net neutrality rules. Trade associations sought an injunction to prevent the California Attorney General from enforcing SB-822, which essentially codified the rescinded federal net neutrality rules, limited to broadband internet services provided to California customers.
The district court concluded there was no federal preemption. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the California law. The court cited a 2019 D.C. Circuit decision, upholding the FCC’s 2018 reclassification but striking an order preempting state net neutrality rules. The court rejected arguments that SB-822 nevertheless was preempted because it conflicted with the policy underlying the reclassification and with the Communications Act or because federal law occupies the field of interstate services. Only the invocation of federal regulatory authority can preempt state regulatory authority; by classifying broadband internet services as information services, the FCC no longer had the authority to regulate in the same manner that it did when these services were classified as telecommunications services. The FCC, therefore, could not preempt state action, like SB-822, that protects net neutrality. SB-822 did not conflict with the Communications Act, which only limits the FCC’s regulatory authority. The field preemption argument was foreclosed by case law.
Court Description: Preliminary Injunction / Preemption. The panel affirmed the district court’s order denying plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the California Internet Consumer Protection and Net Neutrality Act of 2018, or SB-822. In a 2018 order, the Federal Communications Commission decided to stop treating broadband internet services as “telecommunications services” subject to relatively comprehensive, common-carrier regulation pursuant to Title II of the Communications Act, and to classify them instead under Title I as lightly regulated “information services,” which had the result of terminating federal net neutrality rules. A group of industry trade associations representing communications service providers sought an injunction to prevent the California Attorney General from enforcing SB-822, which in essence, codified the rescinded federal net neutrality rules, but limited its application to broadband internet services provided to customers in California. The district court concluded there ACA CONNECTS V. BONTA 3 was no federal preemption because the FCC lacked the requisite regulatory authority. In Mozilla Corp. v. F.C.C., 940 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2019), the D.C. Circuit upheld the FCC’s 2018 reclassification decision but struck down an accompanying order preempting state net neutrality rules. The panel rejected the service providers’ contention that SB-822 nevertheless was preempted because it conflicted with the policy underlying the FCC’s reclassification decision and conflicted with the Communications Act and its limitations on federal regulation. The panel also rejected the service providers’ contention that SB-822 was preempted because federal law occupies the field of interstate services. Guided by the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Mozilla, the panel held that only the invocation of federal regulatory authority can preempt state regulatory authority. The panel held that, by classifying broadband internet services as information services, the FCC no longer had the authority to regulate in the same manner that it did when these services were classified as telecommunications services. The FCC, therefore, could not preempt state action, like SB-822, that protects net neutrality. The panel held that SB-822 did not conflict with the Communications Act itself, which only limits the FCC’s regulatory authority. The panel held that the service providers’ field preemption argument was foreclosed by case law and various provisions of the Communications Act. Concurring, Judge Wallace wrote separately to express his concern that in some cases, parties appeal orders granting or denying motions for preliminary injunctions in the misguided belief they can ascertain the views of the appellate 4 ACA CONNECTS V. BONTA court on the merits of the litigation, and this often leads to unnecessary cost, delay and inefficient use of judicial resources.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.