In a landmark decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has nullified the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) authority to enforce net neutrality rules.
Net neutrality, short for network neutrality, is the principle that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must treat all online data equally, without blocking, throttling, or prioritizing content based on its source, type, or payment agreements.
The court determined that broadband internet services are classified as “information services” under the Communications Act, exempting them from stringent regulation under Title II of the act.
This ruling effectively halts federal oversight designed to ensure that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) treat all online traffic equally, marking a critical juncture in the decades-long debate over open internet protections.
The court’s ruling leans heavily on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo in 2024, which limits federal agencies’ ability to interpret statutes expansively without clear congressional authorization. “Applying Loper Bright means we can end the FCC’s vacillations,” the court wrote, highlighting the frequent regulatory shifts between administrations.
Related: California AI Safety Bill Faces Setback After Governor’s Veto
From Light-Touch Regulation to Policy Reversals
Net neutrality has been a contentious issue in U.S. policy for nearly two decades, with its fate often tied to changes in presidential administrations. Following the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC maintained a “light-touch” approach to internet regulation, treating broadband as an unregulated information service.
This changed in 2015 when the FCC, under President Obama, reclassified broadband as a telecommunications service through the 2010 Open Internet Order, subjecting ISPs to stricter rules under Title II. These regulations aimed to prevent ISPs from throttling or blocking access to specific content and prioritizing traffic for paying partners.
However, the Trump administration repealed these rules in 2017, arguing that they stifled innovation and investment in broadband infrastructure. President Biden’s FCC sought to reinstate them in 2024, framing the effort as essential to safeguarding consumer access to a fair and open internet.
The Sixth Circuit’s decision now closes the door on federal-level enforcement, barring a legislative response from Congress.
Related: EU Releases First Draft of General-Purpose AI Code of Practice
Definitions: “Information Services” vs. “Telecommunications Services”
Central to the court’s decision was the distinction between “information services” and “telecommunications services.” Under the Communications Act, information services involve data manipulation, such as email or web hosting, while telecommunications services refer to basic data transmission, like traditional phone calls. The court concluded that broadband fits the former category, exempting ISPs from common-carrier obligations.
Another pivotal issue was the classification of mobile broadband. The FCC argued that mobile ISPs should be regulated as “commercial mobile services” under Title II, given their role in connecting consumers to the internet.
The court rejected this claim, stating that mobile broadband is a “private mobile service” and therefore not subject to common-carrier rules. “Mobile broadband does not constitute a service interconnected with the public switched network,” the court stated, emphasizing that IP-based internet systems are fundamentally different from the traditional telephone network.
Related: Microsoft Faces FTC Probe Amid Rising AI and Cloud Dominance
Industry Celebrates, Advocacy Groups Warn of Consequences
The decision has elicited mixed reactions. ISPs and industry groups welcomed the ruling, framing it as a victory for free-market principles. Brendan Carr, a Republican FCC commissioner, described the outcome as a repudiation of regulatory overreach. “This decision ensures that broadband providers can continue to innovate and invest in their networks without unnecessary government interference,” Carr stated.
My full statement:https://t.co/H2d8GX1Eze pic.twitter.com/cg62aQkVzM
— Brendan Carr (@BrendanCarrFCC) January 2, 2025
Similarly, USTelecom, an industry trade group, praised the ruling, stating it would lead to more investment, innovation, and competition:
“Today’s ruling confirming that broadband internet access is an ‘information service’ is not only the proper reading of the statute but a victory for American consumers that will lead to more investment, innovation, and competition in the dynamic digital marketplace. Since the birth of the internet, bipartisan Administrations and policymakers have recognized the virtues of a light-touch approach to broadband regulation. Today’s ruling will cement the United States’s position as the world’s most advanced digital marketplace.”
Conversely, advocacy groups and consumer rights organizations criticized the decision, warning of its potential impact on internet users. Public Knowledge, a nonprofit focused on internet policy, expressed concern about the regulatory gap left by the ruling. “This decision gives broadband providers unchecked power over Americans’ internet access,” the group said in a statement.
“We strongly disagree with the court’s reasoning and its misapplication of Supreme Court precedent, including both the Brand X decision and the recent Loper Bright ruling. The FCC’s decision to classify broadband as an information service was only upheld in the Supreme Court in Brand X due to Chevron deference, with other courts previously finding that broadband was a ‘telecommunications’ or even a ‘cable’ service.”
Jessica Rosenworcel, the FCC’s Democratic chairwoman, called on Congress to intervene, stating, “Consumers across the country have told us again and again that they want an internet that is fast, open and fair. With this decision it is clear that Congress now needs to heed their call, take up the charge for net neutrality and put open internet principles in federal law.”
Implications for State Laws and Federal Oversight
While the court’s ruling nullifies federal net neutrality regulations, state-level laws remain unaffected. States like California and Washington have implemented their own open internet protections, ensuring ISPs cannot throttle or prioritize content within their jurisdictions. However, the enforceability of these laws may face future legal challenges, particularly given the emphasis on federal authority in the Sixth Circuit’s decision.
The ruling also reflects a broader trend in judicial skepticism toward federal agency authority. By invoking Loper Bright, the court signaled a shift toward requiring explicit congressional mandates for significant regulatory actions, aligning with the major questions doctrine. This development could have far-reaching implications for other federal agencies, reshaping the boundaries of administrative power across various sectors.
