Due to recent state legislative activity, the Regulatory Commission of Alaska will extend comments on phone deregulation draft rules until July 29, the RCA said in a Friday order (docket R-24-001). Comments had been due Monday in the state’s renewed effort to implement SB-83, Alaska's 2019 telecom deregulation law (see 2404100058). However, earlier this month, Alaska lawmakers approved a bill (HB-307) that clarifies the RCA’s telecom powers. The bill still needs a signature from Gov. Mike Dunleavy (R). The Matanuska Telecom Association and Alaska Communications supported delaying comments so they could analyze HB-307’s impact.

Minnesota became the 19th state with a privacy law Friday when Gov. Tim Walz (D) signed an omnibus (HF-4757) that includes language from the state’s comprehensive data privacy bill. Legislators moved privacy language to that bill from a different omnibus (SF-4942) before it passed the legislature. Privacy lawyers say it mostly follows the Virginia and Connecticut model, while adding a right to question profiling decisions and other new requirements (see 2405200059). Vermont could become the 20th state with a comprehensive privacy law if Gov. Phil Scott (R) signs H-121 (see 2405130050).

Public broadband advocates applauded Minnesota for removing municipal broadband restrictions last week. The changes were part of SF-4097, a commerce omnibus that Gov. Tim Walz (D) signed last week and also included net neutrality and social media disclosure proposals (see 2405200059). Minnesota’s change “highlights a positive trend -- states are dropping misguided barriers to deploying public broadband as examples of successful community-owned networks proliferate across the country,” American Association for Public Broadband Executive Director Gigi Sohn said Friday. “While 16 states still restrict these networks in various ways, we’re confident this number will continue to decrease as more communities demand the freedom to choose the network that best serves their residents.” Minnesota struck an old law that let municipalities buy or construct telephone exchanges, which also included broadband networks, only if a supermajority approved it in a local referendum election, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSF) blogged Thursday. The state also eliminated a law that let municipalities construct broadband only if a private provider wasn't providing service in the area. Christopher Mitchell, director-ILSR's Community Broadband Networks, lauded the changes, saying he has long hoped “to see more deference to communities in how they want to solve these challenges that they understand better than anyone outside their region.”

ISP groups got two more weeks to seek rehearing or rehearing en banc of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision to uphold New York state’s Affordable Broadband Act (case 21-1975). The appeals court Friday granted an unopposed motion by the New York State Telecommunications Association and other industry groups to extend the deadline until June 7. The petition had been due Friday under a previous extension. However, the industry groups sought additional time Wednesday because they said they might reach an agreement with New York state to resolve the case (see 2405220073). On April 26, the 2nd Circuit decided that federal law didn’t preempt the 2021 New York law requiring $15 monthly plans providing 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload speeds for qualifying low-income households (see 2404260051).

California lawmakers supported limiting smartphone and social media time at school in votes last week. The Assembly voted 69-0 on Thursday to approve AB-3216, which would require schools to adopt limits or bans on student use of smartphones. Meanwhile, the Senate voted 35-0 to pass SB-1283, which would require a similar policy for social media. Each bill will now go to the opposite chamber.

A state court needn’t set a deadline for the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) to make rules on cybersecurity audits, risk assessments and automated decision-making technology, with enforcement “still distant,” the agency said Wednesday. The California Superior Court of Sacramento asked May 3 if it should set a “date certain” for those rules after the California Chamber of Commerce’s lawsuit against the agency returned to the court. The court scheduled a June 21 hearing on the question. In February, California’s 3rd District Court of Appeal reversed the court’s June decision that granted a CalChamber petition and stayed any CPPA rules for 12 months after they become final. CalChamber petitioned for review at the California Supreme Court (see 2402210031), but that court declined to take the case on April 24. As a result, the only remaining issue for the Superior Court to decide is whether to set a deadline for the upcoming CPPA rules. In its Wednesday brief, the privacy agency said it started drafting remaining rules at issue in the case and will finalize them "once it has determined that it has received sufficient feedback from stakeholders and obtained necessary approval from state control agencies. In the meantime, it will not enforce the law in the specific areas still subject to regulation. Petitioner is entitled to nothing more.” It would be “improper” for the court to set a deadline because the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) “rulemaking process involves a substantial exercise of judgment and discretion over the timeline of the process itself,” the agency said in case 34-2023-80004106-CU-WM-GDS. “Petitioner's interests are already protected by enforcement delays and the APA-mandated procedures for stakeholder input.” The agency already took more feedback than the APA requires in a pre-rulemaking phase and will soon seek more input when it opens a formal rulemaking process, added the agency. In another brief, CalChamber pointed out that the agency was supposed to adopt final rules by July 1, 2022. “Petitioner continues to be concerned about the Agency’s timeline for fulfilling its statutory obligations with respect to the three outstanding rulemakings.” Given the coming rules’ significance, CalChamber "remains invested in ensuring the Agency does not attempt to adopt the regulations on a timeline that does not allow sufficient time for stakeholder review and participation, public comments, and meaningful consideration of public input,” said the business group. That said, CalChamber noted that only the agency "can fully address the anticipated timing for the adoption of the outstanding regulations.”

Louisiana could soon bar social media companies from collecting data on Louisiana minors younger than 18 for targeted ads. The Senate voted unanimously Thursday for the kids’ privacy bill (HB-577). Similarly, the House passed it unanimously April 30 (see 2405010010) but will have to vote again to concur with Senate amendments. Senate changes included removing the law’s applicability to app stores and developers, while requiring the state’s attorney general to give notice before taking civil action against a social media company. Also, the Senate-amended bill would require attorney fees, court and investigative costs to be paid to the AG if the court grants judgment in the state’s favor. In addition, the Senate pushed back the proposed law’s effective date by one year, to July 1, 2025.

California Assembly members supported a proposed ban on digital discrimination the same day that state senators backed a proposal that would remove a free internet requirement in the state’s public housing broadband grant program. Bills on universal opt-out and social media also cleared their originating chambers Wednesday. The Assembly voted 43-10 to pass AB-2239, which would codify in California law the FCC’s definition of digital discrimination and allow state and local enforcers to seek injunctive relief (see 2404230039). On the privacy front, Assembly members voted 53-7 to pass AB-3048, which would require web browsers to include an option to opt out of selling and sharing data on all websites. The California Privacy Protection Agency supports that bill (see 2403130048). Also, the Assembly voted 46-0 for AB-2481, which would create a mechanism for people who report threatening content on social media platforms. In the other chamber, senators voted 37-0 for SB-1383 to remove restrictions included in the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) public housing account that require ISPs to provide free internet before receiving grants. The cable industry supports the bill because it claims that the current restriction deters grant applications (see 2404020049).

Frontier Communications operates “nationally in a ‘one-size fits all’ manner with no regard for state regulations or rules," Communications Workers of America (CWA) claimed in Tuesday comments at the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA). PURA received comments from Frontier and the Office of Consumer Counsel in its service-quality investigation (docket 24-01-15) on Friday (see 2405200053). CWA raised concerns about job cuts, customer service issues and employee grievances during the past several years. “While there is currently a significant effort to deploy fiber … there has been much negligence as it relates to copper plant,” the union said: “The use of contract labor has created inferior service issues resulting in the need for second and follow-up visits by skilled technicians” and fewer job openings. PURA should “act swiftly to hold Frontier accountable to … Connecticut.”

Louisiana could use unobligated broadband funds for “nonbroadband infrastructure project[s]" under a bill the state legislature passed this week. A telehealth project might qualify for funding, a broadband office official testified last month (see 2404240055). The Senate passed the bill (HB-617) in a 37-0 vote Tuesday. The House unanimously approved it April 11, but it still needs a signature from Gov. Jeff Landry (R). On Wednesday, the legislature sent Landry HB-308, which would require cable providers that terminate their franchise certificate to notify customers at least 30 days before service ends. It passed the legislature last week.