ACA Connects v. Bonta: Ninth Circuit Upholds California’s Net Neutrality Law in Preemption Challenge
Legal Sidebari
ACA Connects v. Bonta: Ninth Circuit
Upholds California’s Net Neutrality Law
in Preemption Challenge
February 2, 2022
On January 28, 2022, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in ACA
Connects v. Bonta that California’s net neutrality law, SB-822, is not preempted by federal law. This
decision allows California to continue enforcing SB-822. The decision also has implications for other
states’ net neutrality laws. ACA Connects is binding precedent within the Ninth Circuit, which includes
Washington and Oregon, states that have enacted their own net neutrality laws. The decision may also be
persuasive precedent for courts outside of the Ninth Circuit.
This Legal Sidebar provides a brief overview of existing net neutrality law and the ACA Connects case.
For context, the Sidebar starts by explaining the legal principles of federal preemption and by describing
the FCC’s past net neutrality actions. Next, it discusses California’s net neutrality law, SB-822, and the
Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in ACA Connects. Finally, it discusses the decision’s implications for the future
of net neutrality in the United States and some potential considerations for Congress.
For further background on net neutrality, see CRS Report R46973, Net Neutrality Law: An Overview, by
Chris D. Linebaugh and CRS Report R40616, The Federal Net Neutrality Debate: Access to Broadband
Networks, by Patricia Moloney Figliola.
Preemption Principles
The preemption of state law by federal law derives from the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause,
which states that the “Constitution, and the Laws of the United States” shall be the “supreme Law of the
Land.” The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that the Supremacy Clause empowers Congress to displace
state law when Congress is acting pursuant to its authority under the Constitution. The Supreme Court has
also explained that regulations adopted by federal agencies have the same preemptive effect as statutes
enacted by Congress, provided that the regulations are validly enacted and do not exceed the agency’s
statutory authority.
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10693
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress
Congressional Research Service
2
The Supreme Court has said that federal law may preempt state law in three ways. First, federal law
may expressly preempt state law by stating which state laws are preempted. Second, federal law preempts
any conflicting state law. Such conflict preemption occurs when either (1) “compliance with both federal
and state regulations is a physical impossibility” or (2) the “challenged state law stands as an obstacle to
the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Third, federal law
may preempt an entire field of state regulation by occupying that field “so comprehensively that it has left
no room for supplementary state legislation.”
In the communications law context, the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, primarily governs the
extent to which state law is preempted. The Communications Act sets up a dual system of federal and
state regulation. At the federal level, the Communications Act gives the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC or Commission) broad authority to regulate wired and wireless telephony, radio
transmissions, cable services, and matters that are reasonably ancillary to these areas. At the same time,
the Act expressly preserves some state regulatory authority over these technologies. The FCC may
generally preempt state law as long as it is acting pursuant to its regulatory authority and does not run
afoul of any specific provisions in the Communications Act that define or limit is preemption authority.
For further background about preemption issues in the communications law context, see CRS Report
R46736, Stepping In: The FCC’s Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act, by
Chris D. Linebaugh and Eric N. Holmes
FCC’s Net Neutrality Actions
Net neutrality generally refers to the idea that internet service providers should neither control how
consumers use their networks nor discriminate among the content providers that use their networks. The
FCC’s ability to adopt net neutrality rules is tied to whether it classifies broadband internet access service
(BIAS) as a “telecommunications service” or an “information service” under the Communications Act.
The FCC has broad authority to regulate telecommunications services as common carriers under Title II
of the Communications Act. On the other hand, the FCC’s regulatory authority over information
services—which are not subject to Title II regulation—is limited. The Supreme Court has held that the
FCC has discretion to choose which category is most appropriate for BIAS under the Chevron doctrine,
under which courts generally defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statutory
provision.
The FCC has alternated between classifying BIAS as a telecommunications service and an information
service. For roughly the first 15 years of the 21st century, the FCC classified BIAS as an information
service. The FCC attempted to regulate BIAS on several occasions while retaining its information service
classification, but courts struck down these attempts. In 2010, in Comcast v. FCC, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the FCC’s attempt to enforce net neutrality principles against a
BIAS provider. After Comcast, the FCC attempted to adopt binding net neutrality rules in a 2010 order,
but the D.C. Circuit struck it down in its 2014 decision in Verizon v. FCC. The D.C. Circuit held that the
net neutrality rules were “per se” common carrier rules and that the Communications Act prohibited the
FCC from imposing them as long as it classified BIAS as an information service.
The FCC responded to Verizon by issuing a new order in 2015 (the 2015 Open Internet Order) that
reclassified BIAS as a telecommunication service and adopted new net neutrality rules. The 2015 Open
Internet Order, among other things, imposed three bright-line net neutrality rules on BIAS providers.
These rules prohibited BIAS providers from: (1) blocking lawful internet traffic on the basis of content,
applications, services, or non-harmful devices; (2) throttling (i.e., impairing or degrading) lawful internet
traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; and (3) engaging in paid
prioritization, defined as favoring some internet traffic over other traffic in exchange for consideration.
The order also imposed a more flexible “general conduct” rule that prohibited BIAS providers from
Congressional Research Service
3
“unreasonably interfer[ing] or unreasonably disadvantag[ing]” users from accessing the content or
services of their choice. The D.C. Circuit upheld the 2015 Open Internet Order in its entirety in a decision
issued in 2016.
The Commission reversed course several years later, adopting a new order titled “Restoring Internet
Freedom” (the RIF Order) in December 2017. The RIF Order reclassified broadband Internet as an
information service and eliminated the bright-line rules and general conduct rule. The FCC posited that
this new “light-touch” regulatory framework for BIAS would promote investment and innovation better
than the “heavy-handed utility-style regulation” of Title II. The RIF Order also preempted any state or
local laws “that would effectively impose rules or requirements that [the FCC] repealed or decided to
refrain from imposing,” or that would impose “more stringent requirements for any aspect of broadband
service” addressed by the RIF Order.
The D.C. Circuit upheld the bulk of the RIF Order in its 2019 decision in Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, but
vacated the RIF Order’s “sweeping” preemption of state and local laws. The court held that the FCC’s
classification of BIAS as an information service deprived it of affirmative regulatory authority over BIAS
and that the Commission could not preempt state law in an area over which it lacks regulatory authority,
absent an express authorization from Congress. The court left open, however, the possibility that specific
state laws might be preempted on a case-by-case basis under principles of conflict preemption. The D.C.
Circuit’s preemption analysis is discussed in detail in CRS Report R46736, Stepping In: The FCC’s
Authority to Preempt State Laws Under the Communications Act, by Chris D. Linebaugh and Eric N.
Holmes.
California’s Net Neutrality Law (SB-822)
California adopted its own net neutrality law, the California Internet Consumer Protection and Net
Neutrality Act of 2018 (SB-822), in September 2018. As characterized by the Ninth Circuit, SB-822
“essentially codifies” the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order, insofar as it contains bright-line rules against
blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization, and establishes a general conduct rule. Unlike the 2015 Open
Internet Order, SB-822 has additional rules regulating “zero-rating” (the practice of not counting the
usage of a particular application or class of applications towards a data cap) and applies only to BIAS
provided to customers in California.
ACA Connects v. Bonta
After the enactment of SB-822, BIAS providers commenced the ACA Connects litigation in federal
district court, arguing that the FCC’s RIF Order preempted California’s statute. The U.S. Department of
Justice also sued to block SB-822, although it later dropped its suit. The district court stayed the ACA
Connects action pending the D.C. Circuit’s decision on the challenge to the RIF Order in Mozilla. After
considering arguments on what effect to give to the D.C. Circuit’s decision, the district court rejected the
plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction blocking SB-822 and allowed the law to go into effect. The
district court concluded that, given the FCC’s reclassification of BIAS as an information service, it lacked
the regulatory authority to preempt SB-822. The BIAS providers then appealed the district court’s order
denying a preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit.
A panel of three Ninth Circuit judges affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction
against SB-822. The plaintiffs argued that the RIF Order preempted SB-822 because: (1) SB-822 conflicts
with the policy underlying the FCC’s reclassification decision in the RIF Order; (2) SB-822 conflicts with
the Communications Act; and (3) the FCC occupies the entire field of interstate communications,
precluding the states from regulating in any manner that touches interstate communications. The Ninth
Circuit panel rejected each of these arguments.
Congressional Research Service
4
The court characterized the plaintiffs’ argument that SB-822 conflicts with the RIF Order as “essentially
contend[ing]” that SB-822 conflicts with the “absence of federal regulation.” The court recognized that an
agency’s decision not to regulate may have preemptive effect in some circumstances, but such preemption
occurs only when the agency has regulatory authority that it has chosen not to exercise. An agency may
not, however, preempt state regulation when it does not have regulatory authority. The court held that, in
the RIF Order, the FCC had “surrendered its authority to regulate” net neutrality, thereby surrendering as
well its power to preempt state regulations.
The Ninth Circuit also rejected what it called the plaintiffs’ “novel” interpretation of the Chevron
doctrine. The plaintiffs argued that, under Chevron, Congress delegated to agencies the authority to
interpret ambiguous statutory language because it intended to rely on agencies’ expert policy judgment.
Thus, according to the plaintiffs, the policy judgments animating agencies’ statutory interpretations under
Chevron—in this case, the FCC’s policy judgment regarding how best to regulate BIAS—should be
binding on the states. The Ninth Circuit rejected this contention, concluding that policy preferences
motivating Chevron interpretations are “not a source of the statutory authority required to regulate or to
preempt.”
The Ninth Circuit next rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the Communications Act preempts SB-822
because the provisions in the Act that prohibit the FCC from imposing common carrier requirements on
information services apply equally to states. The court observed that these provisions expressly apply to
the FCC and say nothing about the regulatory authority of states. The court reasoned that if Congress
wanted to limit state authority with these provisions it would have done so explicitly, as it had done
elsewhere in the Communications Act.
Lastly, the court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that, through the Communications Act, Congress had
occupied the entire field of interstate communications and that SB-822 was preempted because it
“touches” on interstate communications. The court explained that the Communications Act does not
“neatly divide” regulatory authority between the federal government and the states in the way the
plaintiffs contended; rather it reflects a regulatory scheme that “leaves room” for state regulation that
touches on interstate services.
Next Steps and Considerations for Congress
It is possible that the plaintiffs in ACA Connects will seek to have the panel’s decision reviewed en banc
(meaning, by the Chief Judge and ten other judges of the Ninth Circuit) or will petition the Supreme
Court for review. Assuming there are no further judicial proceedings, California will be able to continue
enforcing the provisions of SB-822. ACA Connects also has ramifications beyond California. Other
states—including Colorado, Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington—have adopted some
form of net neutrality requirements, and ACA Connects could spur additional states to do the same. While
ACA Connects dealt specifically with SB-822, its reasoning could be applied to other state net neutrality
laws. The decision is binding within the Ninth Circuit (which includes Oregon and Washington), and it
may be persuasive to courts outside of the Ninth Circuit weighing the legality of state net neutrality laws.
It also remains possible that state net neutrality laws could be preempted by future federal action, either
by the FCC or Congress. Were the FCC to reclassify BIAS as a telecommunications service, it then would
have Title II regulatory authority over BIAS and thus remove the barrier to preempting state net neutrality
laws on which the Ninth Circuit grounded its decision in ACA Connects. While the FCC has not initiated
any new net neutrality proceedings, President Biden has issued an executive order urging the FCC to
adopt rules similar to those in the 2015 Open Internet Order. Congress might also adopt a federal net
neutrality law. For instance, in the 116th Congress, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Save the
Internet Act, which would have repealed the RIF Order and restored the 2015 Open Internet Order. Other
bills introduced in the 116th Congress, such as H.R. 1101, H.R. 1006, H.R. 2136, and H.R. 1096, would
Congressional Research Service
5
have amended Title I to include net neutrality requirements, such as prohibitions on blocking or throttling,
and would have given the FCC limited regulatory and enforcement authority to implement the
requirements. Similar bills have not been reintroduced in the 117th Congress.
Author Information
Chris D. Linebaugh
Legislative Attorney
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
LSB10693 · VERSION 1 · NEW