Stanford Center for Internet and Society

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and Verizon Telephone Companies challenged the results of Federal Communications Commission(FCC)’s review of regulations. They sought review of an order of FCC, which interpreted Section 11 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C.S. 161, “§161”), and which decided to retain two regulatory rules, namely, 47 C.F.R. §43.61(a) and §63.21(i).
§161 provides for the biennial review of telecommunication regulations in every even numbered year and FCC is required to determine whether any regulation is no longer “necessary in the public interest” as the result of meaningful economic competition between providers of telecommunications service. The two regulations whose retention Verizon Wireless challenged involved reporting requirements. First, Part 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations (47 C.F.R §43.61) deals with reporting of international telecommunications traffic, requiring all common carriers providing international service to file annual and quarterly reports with FCC regarding their service. While FCC decided to remove the quarterly reporting requirement in its 2000 Biennial Review, it retained the annual reporting requirement despite comments from wireless communications companies supporting its elimination. Secondly, Part 63 of the Code (47 C.F.R §63.21) requires notification of foreign affiliations to FCC. This provision exempts only the wholly-owned international subsidiaries, and not the carriers that hold a controlling interest in international carrier, from the certificate requirement under 47 USCA §214(a). §214 grants FCC the authority to issue a certificate upon determination as to whether “public convenience and necessity” would be served by a carrier’s acquisition, construction or operation of telecommunications facilities, including international ones.

In 2000, consumer advocate and presidential candidate Ralph Nader ran a campaign ad modeled on MasterCard’s “Priceless” promotional series. The “Priceless” series, which began in 1997, showcased goods and services that could be purchased using MasterCard, with a voice over announcing the price of each item, then naming an intangible good associated with the purchasable items as “Priceless.” Each ad ended with the slogan, “There are some things money can’t buy, for everything else there’s MasterCard.” The Nader ad also featured a series of “purchasable” political goods ranging from a campaign fundraiser meal valued at $1,000 a plate to “promises to special interest groups: over $100 billion.” It ended with the phrase “finding the truth: priceless. There are some things money can’t buy.” After the Nader ad began its television run in early August 2000, MasterCard demanded Nader cease and desist or face liability for intellectual property infringement.

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently upheld a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Michelle Grosse in an Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) suit brought against her by Lucas Nursery and Landscaping, the company she hired to repair a dip in her front yard. Discontented with the service provided by Lucas, and after an adverse result in a Better Business Bureau investigation, Grosse posted a website under “lucasnursery.com”, wherein she published criticisms of Lucas’s service. Lucas responded with a cease and desist letter claiming infringement of Lucas Nursery’s trademark. However, after her research concluded that no trademark registration existed for Lucas Nursery, Grosse resumed the operation of the website. Lucas brought this suit in 2001. Both parties moved for summary judgment; Lucas’s motion was denied and Grosse’s was granted.