Cablevision Systems Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission
396 U.S. App. D.C. 314
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- Cablevision petitions challenge FCC's 2010 Order closing the terrestrial programming 'loophole' under section 628.
- FCC extended program access rules to terrestrially delivered programming and created a complaint regime for unfair withholding causing hindrance to satellite programming.
- FCC adopted rebuttable presumptions for RSN and RSN HD programming and imposed vicarious liability for terrestrial programs under common control with cable operators or affiliates.
- Statutory framework centers on 47 U.S.C. §548(b)-(c) with satellite focus in §548(c)(2) and public-interest/ sunset provisions in §548(c)(4)-(5).
- Petitioners contend lack of authority, First Amendment concerns, APA challenges, and overbreadth/arbitrary rulings; the court analyzes Chevron, reasonableness, and ripeness.
- The court ultimately denies Petitioners’ challenges in part, vacates the categorically unfair treatment for some terrestrial conduct, and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FCC lacked authority to extend program access to terrestrial programming | Cablevision argues §628(b)/(c) limits apply only to satellite, excluding terrestrial. | FCC contends broad §548(b) and statutory flexibility under (c)(1) permit extension; (c)(2) is floor, not ceiling. | FCC authority extended; Chevron reasonable. |
| Whether the terrestrial rules violate the First Amendment | Cablevision contends the rules burden speech/association and are overbroad. | FCC argues regulations further important government interest in promoting competition with narrowly tailored means. | Rules survive intermediate scrutiny; no First Amendment violation. |
| Validity of rebuttable presumptions and liability regime under APA/statute | Challenges to presumptions and vicarious liability as arbitrary, capricious, or misapplied. | Presumptions shift burden of production; grounded in record and expert judgment; vicarious liability necessary for effectiveness. | Presumptions rational; vicarious liability permissible; APA review deferential. |
| Whether treating terrestrial RSN withholding as 'unfair' is permissible | Terrestrial analogies to satellite rules are improper; fairness should be case-specific and not categorical. | Congress treated satellite withholding as unfair and mirror logic should apply to terrestrial programming. | Court vacates the categorically unfair treatment; remands for further consideration consistent with opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (establishes deference to agency interpretation when statute is ambiguous)
- National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. FCC, 567 F.3d 659 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (broad §548(b) authority; satellite focus; MDU precedent)
- Cablevision Systems Corp. v. FCC, 597 F.3d 1306 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (context on program access and vertical integration; five-year extension upheld)
- Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. FCC, 93 F.3d 957 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (intermediate scrutiny applies to satellite program access rules)
- United States v. Sw. Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157 (U.S. 1968) (flexible regulatory authority in evolving technologies)
- National Mining Ass'n v. Dep't of Interior, 177 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (demonstrates deferential treatment of agency predictive judgments)