## Facts

- The FCC issued the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, reclassifying broadband internet access service from a Title II “telecommunications service” to a Title I “information service” under the Communications Act.
- The Order repealed the 2015 Open Internet Order’s net-neutrality rules, including bright-line bans and the “general conduct” standard, and retained a transparency-based disclosure regime.
- The Order also reclassified mobile broadband in a manner that reduced common-carrier-style regulatory treatment.
- The FCC included a broad directive asserting that state and local governments could not impose requirements inconsistent with the federal deregulatory approach.
- Internet companies, public-interest organizations, and multiple state and local governments petitioned for review in the D.C. Circuit, challenging the Order under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Communications Act.

## Issues

1. Whether the FCC reasonably interpreted the Communications Act to classify broadband internet access service as a Title I “information service” rather than a Title II “telecommunications service.”
2. Whether the FCC lawfully adopted related regulatory changes, including eliminating the “general conduct” rule and relying on a transparency rule.
3. Whether the FCC had authority to categorically preempt state and local net-neutrality requirements through an advance, sweeping preemption directive.
4. Whether the FCC’s Order was arbitrary and capricious for failing to adequately address consequences for public safety, pole-attachment regulation, and Lifeline support for low-income consumers.

## Decision

- The court largely denied the petitions for review and upheld the FCC’s reclassification of broadband as an information service under Chevron and Brand X.
- The court upheld the FCC’s associated policy choices, including reliance on a transparency rule and other deregulatory components.
- The court vacated the Order’s categorical Preemption Directive, holding the FCC lacked authority to broadly extinguish state regulatory power in this area.
- The court remanded, without vacating the overall Order, for further explanation regarding effects on public safety, pole attachments, and the Lifeline program.

## Legal Principles

- When statutory terms are ambiguous, a court applies Chevron and defers to an agency’s reasonable interpretation, including an agency’s policy-driven choice among permissible classifications recognized by controlling precedent.
- An agency must provide a reasoned explanation and address significant comments and foreseeable consequences; failure to grapple with important aspects of the problem can be arbitrary and capricious under the APA.
- An agency that disclaims substantive regulatory authority over a service cannot justify sweeping, categorical preemption of state regulation merely by announcing a federal deregulatory policy.
- Vacatur may be limited to an unlawful provision while the remainder of a rule stays in effect; remand without vacatur is appropriate where deficiencies are significant but do not require setting aside the entire framework.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit upheld the FCC’s Title I reclassification of broadband and much of the deregulatory framework, but it vacated the FCC’s attempt to categorically preempt state net-neutrality laws and remanded for further agency reasoning on public safety, pole-attachment impacts, and Lifeline-related effects.


Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, 940 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2019)