D.C. Circuit Upholds “Light Touch” Federal Regulation of Broadband ISPs, but Opens the Door to Differing State-Level Laws

Oct 9, 2019

Reading Time : 3 min

As a result of the D.C. Circuit’s decision, broadband Internet access service providers will be free from legacy utility-style regulation by the Commission but, absent a valid case for federal preemption, may be faced with a patchwork of state laws.

Background

The D.C. Circuit’s decision is the latest page in a long history of net neutrality regulation at the FCC. Almost ten years ago, the FCC adopted its first Open Internet Order, in which it promulgated three basic rules designed to promote transparency and prevent blocking as well as other discriminatory traffic management practices used by Internet service providers. The D.C. Circuit subsequently vacated the no-blocking and antidiscrimination rules on the grounds that the FCC had impermissibly regulated broadband Internet access providers as common carriers.

In 2015, in response to the D.C. Circuit’s decision, the Obama-era FCC adopted a second Open Internet Order, which reclassified broadband Internet access service as a “telecommunications service” subject to utility-style common carrier regulation by the FCC. The 2015 Open Internet Order also adopted a bright-line prohibition against blocking, throttling and paid prioritization. Once again, the matter was appealed to the D.C. Circuit, which upheld the rules in a decision issued in June 2016.

Shortly after taking office under President Trump’s administration, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai initiated a rulemaking to roll-back the Obama-era net neutrality regulations. The result of this rulemaking was the 2018 Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which reclassified broadband Internet access services as “information services” subject to limited regulation by the FCC. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order also repealed the Obama-era prohibitions on blocking, throttling and paid prioritization, and adopted a provision prospectively preempting state and local governments from enacting laws that conflict with the new federal framework.

The D.C. Circuit’s October 1 decision was in response to a lawsuit brought by a number of parties challenging the FCC’s authority to adopt the rules established in the Restoring Internet Freedom Order.

Decision

The D.C. Circuit affirmed the Commission’s decision to reclassify broadband Internet access services as “information services,” thereby exempting broadband Internet access from utility-style regulation by the FCC.

However, the D.C. Circuit did not uphold the entire Restoring Internet Freedom Order. It vacated the FCC’s decision to bar states from imposing their own additional restrictions or regulations on Internet service providers. The D.C. Circuit concluded that the FCC lacked authority to adopt such a “sweeping preemption directive” that went “far beyond conflict preemption.” The court left open the possibility that the FCC could, on a case-by-case basis, preempt specific state net neutrality laws.

The D.C. Circuit also remanded the Restoring Internet Freedom Order to the FCC for reconsideration, with regard to three discrete issues that, according to the court, the FCC had failed to consider adequately in assessing the impact of the rule changes adopted in 2018. Specifically, the D.C. Circuit directed the FCC to consider (1) how the lack of rules prohibiting throttling and blocking might affect public safety; (2) how reclassification of broadband Internet access service as an “information service” might affect the regulation of pole attachments, which are statutorily defined by reference to “telecommunications services”; and (3) the potential elimination of the statutory basis to include broadband Internet access service among the services eligible for low-income subsidization under the FCC’s Lifeline Program.

Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit’s decision makes clear that, at least for the moment, the FCC has authority to change its mind and exempt broadband Internet access services from utility-style common carrier regulation. For this reason, the decision has received praise from FCC Chairman Pai, who called the ruling a “victory for consumers, broadband deployment, and the free and open Internet.” However, the Court’s ruling that the FCC lacks authority prospectively to preempt state net neutrality regulations, could be viewed as having the potential to lead to a patchwork regulatory scheme, as certain states like California, seek to enforce state-level net neutrality laws. Regardless, the D.C. Circuit’s ruling on state preemption is likely to lead to more legal battles in the future, particularly if the FCC seeks to preempt state regulations on a case-by-case basis. Given the long history of net neutrality at the FCC and the fact that these three issues have been remanded to the FCC for further consideration, the D.C. Circuit’s latest ruling is unlikely to be the final decision on this issue.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Data Dive

September 11,2025

The Department of Defense (DoD) recently published in the Federal Register its long-awaited final rule (the Rule) amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to formally implement the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program. The Rule, effective November 10, 2025, will move CMMC from a policy framework into binding contractual obligations for most defense contractors.

...

Read More

Data Dive

September 3, 2025

AI policy for the health and life sciences sector has continued to take shape. Building on recent activity, on July 23, 2025, the White House released its highly-anticipated AI Action Plan, setting forth the Trump Administration’s recommended policy actions to accelerate AI innovation and build American AI infrastructure. This Plan recommends policies that would promote AI adoption, the creation of “AI-ready” scientific datasets and the establishment of real-world AI evaluation systems by and for the health care and life sciences industries.

...

Read More

Data Dive

July 29, 2025

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has upheld a 2024 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Order that significantly broadens telecommunications carriers’ breach notification obligations. This decision, issued on August 14, 2025, in Ohio Telecom Association v. FCC, mandates that carriers disclose breaches of any customer personally identifiable information (PII), not just customer proprietary network information (CPNI), and applies to both inadvertent and intentional breaches.2

...

Read More

Data Dive

March 3, 2025

On January 16, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a Final Rule updating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection (COPPA) Rule, significantly expanding compliance obligations for online services that collect, use, or disclose personal information from children under 13.1 The amendments impose new restrictions on targeted advertising, add data security requirements, refine parental consent mechanisms, and introduce additional compliance measures.

...

Read More

Data Dive

February 21, 2025

On January 8, 2025, the DOJ published a final rule prohibiting and restricting certain transactions that could allow persons from countries of concern, such as China, access to bulk sensitive personal data of U.S. citizens or to U.S. government-related data (regardless of volume).

...

Read More

Data Dive

January 22, 2025

On January 17, 2025, days before the inauguration, former President Joe Biden issued an executive order titled Strengthening and Promoting Innovation in the Nation's Cybersecurity (EO 14144). Building on previous efforts, including Executive Order 14028, this directive seeks to bolster cybersecurity across federal systems, supply chains and critical infrastructure from adversarial nations, particularly from the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

...

Read More

Data Dive

January 10, 2025

UPDATE: The California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) has extended the deadline for submitting public comments from January 14 to February 19, 2025, in response to the recent California wildfires. This extension aims to afford stakeholders additional time to provide comprehensive and detailed feedback, considering the significant challenges posed by the wildfires.

...

Read More

Data Dive

November 25, 2024

Treasury has issued a Final Rule to implement President Biden’s 2023 EO targeting U.S. investments in Chinese companies engaged in certain activities related to semiconductors, quantum computing or AI.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.