ISPs Sue Vermont for Net Neutrality Procurement Restrictions

Cable and telecom industry groups sued Vermont over its net neutrality law and executive order that restricted government contracts to companies that follow open-internet principles. Gov. Phil Scott (R) has vowed to fight the suit. It was the third state to enact a net neutrality law when in May the state put into statute Scott’s February executive order (see 1805240043). USTelecom, CTIA, NCTA, the American Cable Association and New England Cable and Telecommunications Association complained Thursday in the U.S. District Court in Burlington. Restricting state contracts are pre-empted under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause by the FCC December order and the Communications Act’s ban on imposing common carrier obligations on mobile and information-service providers, the groups said. The Vermont actions "regulate outside the borders of the State of Vermont and burden interstate commerce in violation of the" Constitution's dormant Commerce Clause, they said. “Internet traffic flows freely between states, making it difficult or impossible for a provider to distinguish traffic moving within Vermont from traffic that crosses state borders.” States can’t “use their spending and procurement authority to bypass federal laws they do not like," but Congress should pass a national law, said a statement by the national associations. NECTA supports "federal legislation that would enshrine these principles permanently across the entire U.S.," said CEO Paul Cianelli. While Scott understands "consistent regulation is important to ensuring a vibrant and thriving telecom and cable sector, our obligation as a state government is to our citizens, who I strongly believe have a right to free and open access to information on the internet,” the governor said. “In the absence of a national standard to protect that right, states must act.” The national groups earlier sued California for a comprehensive net neutrality bill (see 1810030036). Other states with net neutrality laws (Oregon, Washington state) or executive orders (Montana, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii and Rhode Island) have yet to be sued. Washington has comprehensive rules, while the others restricted procurement.