US Supreme Court ruling could undermine government efforts to rein in Big Tech

The Supreme Court’s latest climate change decision could undermine efforts by federal agencies to rein in it technology The industry, which remained largely unchecked for decades as the government tried to catch up with the changes brought about by the Internet.

In a 6-3 decision narrowly tailored for the Environmental Protection Agency, the court ruled on June 30 that the EPA does not have broad authority to reduce power plant emissions that contribute to global warming. The precedent is widely expected to invite challenges to other rules set by government agencies.

“Every agency will face new obstacles in the face of this confusing decision,” said Alexandra Givens, president and CEO of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington-based digital rights nonprofit. “But hopefully the agencies will continue to do their job and move forward.”

The Federal Trade Commission, in particular, is pursuing an aggressive agenda in consumer protection, data privacy and tech industry competition under a leader appointed last year by President Joe Biden.

Biden’s pick for the five-member Federal Communications Commission is also pursuing stronger “net neutrality” protections, which prevent Internet providers from slowing or blocking access to websites and applications that don’t pay for premium service. Huh.

A former chief technologist at the FTC during President Donald Trump’s administration said the decision is likely to cause some fear among lawyers for the FTC and other federal agencies about how far they might go in creating new rules affecting businesses. .

The court “basically said that when it comes to major policy changes transforming entire sectors of the economy, Congress must make those choices, not the agencies,” said Neil Chilson, who is now the liberal-leaning Stand Together. I have a partner, which was founded by whom. Billionaire industrialist Charles Koch.

Givens disagreed, arguing that many agencies, particularly the FTC, have clear authority and should be able to face lawsuits inspired by the EPA’s decision. He said Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the opinion, repeatedly described it as an “extraordinary” situation.

Givens is among tech advocates calling on Congress to act urgently to enact legislation that protects digital privacy and other technical matters. But he said laws usually remain on the books for decades, and it is unrealistic to expect Congress to pay attention to every new technological development that questions an agency’s mandate.

“We need a democratic system where Congress can give specialist agencies the power to resolve issues, even if those issues are unpredictable,” she said. “The government literally cannot work with Congress at every turn and turn.”

Empowered by Congress in the 1970s to combat “unfair or deceptive” business practices, the FTC has been at the forefront of Biden’s government-wide mandate to promote competition in certain industries, including Big Tech, health care and agriculture. A slew of targets include hearing aid prices, airline baggage fees, and “Product of the USA” labels on food.

Under Chair Leena Khan, the FTC has widened the door to more actively write new rules, which critics say are a broad interpretation of the agency’s legal authority. The initiative could face tough legal challenges in view of the High Court ruling. The ruling could call into question the agency’s regulatory agenda – leading it to either tread more cautiously or face tougher and more costly legal challenges.

Khan “isn’t really someone who follows soft measures, so this could be a damn-the-buck approach,” Chilson said.

Ethan Zuckerman, an Internet policy expert at the University of Massachusetts, said any potential impact of the court’s ruling on existing tech regulation would be difficult to gauge. This is partly because “there isn’t that much technical regulation to undo,” he said.

One target could be the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, he said, “a byte noir for many conservatives.” Large companies like Facebook parent meta could also potentially appeal stricter enforcement action on the idea that federal agencies were not explicitly authorized to regulate social media.

“We are in uncharted territory, with a court that is taking precedence over a devastating ball and intent on enforcing as many right-wing priorities as possible in the shortest possible time,” Zuckerman said.

The decision could dampen the appetite for agencies like the FTC to act to limit the damage caused by artificial intelligence and other new technologies. This may have less impact on new rules that are more clearly within the purview of the agency implementing them.

Michael Brooks, chief counsel for the nonprofit Center for Auto Safety, said the ruling is unlikely to change auto safety or the government’s ability to regulate self-driving vehicles, although it does open the door to court challenges.

For example, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Clear authority to regulate auto safety From the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Brooks said.

“As long as the rules they are issuing are related to the safety of the vehicle and nothing is outside their authority, as long as it is related to safety, I don’t see how the court can end up around the Safety Act, ” They said.

Unlike the EPA, an agency with authority granted by multiple, complex laws, the NHTSA’s “authority is just that clear,” Brooks said.

The NHTSA can have problems if it deviates too far from regulating protections. For example, if it enacted regulations aimed at shifting buyers away from SUVs to more fuel-efficient cars, it could be abolished, he said. But the agency has historically stuck to its mission to regulate auto safety with some authority over fuel economy, he said.

However, it is possible that a company like Tesla, which has Tested the limits of NHTSA’s powersAn unforeseen Supreme Court cause could sue and win, Brooks said.