Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. Federal Communications Commission [Time Warner II]
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
240 F.3d 1126 (2001)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (defendant) had authority to regulate ownership of the nation’s cable systems, both horizontally and vertically. Pursuant to this authority, the FCC adopted a limit of 30 percent of cable subscribers nationally that one cable operator could hold. The FCC asserted that this limit advanced the government interests of promotion of diversity and preservation of competition. Specifically, this horizontal limit was designed to prevent a single cable operator from excluding a single programmer from the cable-television market. The FCC supported its 30 percent rule with an assumption that collusion would occur at greater concentration levels. The FCC also stated that the limit would ensure that at least four cable operators existed in the market. This many operators increased the likelihood that the operators would purchase different programming, leading to greater programming diversity. Vertically, the FCC adopted a 40 percent limit on a cable operator’s use of its channel capacity for its own or affiliated programming. Time Warner Entertainment Company and other cable operators (plaintiffs) appealed the FCC’s decision in federal court, alleging that the ownership regulations violated their First Amendment rights by restricting the number of subscribers they could reach with their speech.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Williams, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
