Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
740 F.3d 623 (2014)


Facts

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (defendant) established the Open Internet Order. At the time, the Internet could be divided into roughly four categories of participants: (1) backbone networks that provided the physical cable network, (2) service providers that connected the physical network to users, (3) edge users that provided content and applications over the Internet, like Google and YouTube, and (4) end users who viewed the content. The Open Internet Order was intended to establish net neutrality or Internet openness by preventing various forms of user and content discrimination. Specifically, the Open Internet Order said Internet service providers: (1) must provide transparency by disclosing certain network-management practices and terms for their broadband services, (2) may not block lawful content, and (3) may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic. Verizon (plaintiff) sued, arguing the Open Internet Order exceeded the FCC’s authority. Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 granted the FCC the authority to enact regulations related to broadband-infrastructure development. The FCC argued that the Open Internet Order rules were authorized under § 706 because they would accelerate the development of broadband service by promoting competition. Verizon disagreed that the regulations would help develop broadband, claiming that any benefits to users would be outweighed by the harm of limiting incentives for the service providers. In addition, Verizon claimed that the Open Internet Order unlawfully treated Internet providers as common carriers.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Tatel, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.