City of Ashdown, Arkansas v. Netflix, Inc., 21-3435

The Arkansas Video Service Act of 2013 (VSA) created a statewide franchising regime: video providers may negotiate local franchises or obtain a statewide certificate of franchise authority from the Secretary of State.
A certificate permits use of public rights-of-way and requires the provider to pay fees required by each political subdivision where it provides service.
Netflix and Hulu offered online streaming before the VSA and did not obtain certificates.
In 2020 the City of Ashdown sued Netflix and Hulu seeking a declaration that they must comply with the VSA and damages for unpaid fees; the district court dismissed, concluding Ashdown lacked a right of action.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit applied Arkansas statutory‑construction rules and considered whether the VSA creates an express or implied municipal right of action to enforce the statute.
The court affirmed dismissal: the VSA does not confer an express or implied right of action on municipalities and enforcement authority was vested with the Public Service Commission (PSC).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the VSA creates an express municipal right of action	The VSA’s provision that it “shall not be interpreted to prevent … a political subdivision … from … seeking clarification of its rights and obligations under … state law” grants municipalities an express right to sue.	That language preserves existing rights but does not create a new, express cause of action; legislature knew how to grant express suits (it did so for the PSC) but did not for municipalities.	No express right: the provision preserves rights but does not create an express municipal cause of action.
Whether the VSA implies a municipal right of action	Even if not express, a right should be implied because municipalities are owed fees and have inspection/administrative rights under the VSA.	Municipalities are not a specially protected class; imposing a private enforcement scheme would conflict with the statute’s goal of statewide uniformity and the PSC’s designated enforcement role.	No implied right: municipalities are not a protected special class and implied suits would undermine the statute’s uniformity and enforcement scheme.

Cockram v. Genesco, Inc., 680 F.3d 1046 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard for reviewing dismissal).
Express Scripts, Inc. v. Aegon Direct Mktg. Servs., Inc., 516 F.3d 695 (8th Cir. 2008) (pleading/dismissal standards).
Behlmann v. Century Sur. Co., 794 F.3d 960 (8th Cir. 2015) (applying state statutory‑construction rules in federal court).
Ark. Dep’t of Corr. v. Shults, 541 S.W.3d 410 (Ark. 2018) (Arkansas rules of statutory interpretation).
Cent. Okla. Pipeline, Inc. v. Hawk Field Servs., LLC, 400 S.W.3d 701 (Ark. 2012) (standards for implying a private right of action).
Shannon v. Wilson, 947 S.W.2d 349 (Ark. 1997) (statute showing a special class via explicit duties).
Jackson v. Cadillac Cowboy, Inc., 986 S.W.2d 410 (Ark. 1999) (similar discussion of statutory protections for particular groups).
Young v. Blytheville Sch. Dist., 425 S.W.3d 865 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013) (duties imposed by statute do not automatically create private causes of action).