Maple Hts. v. Netlix, Inc., 2022 Ohio 4174

Maple Heights sued Netflix and Hulu in federal court, alleging violations of Ohio’s Fair Competition in Cable Operations Act (R.C. Chapter 1332.21) by providing video services in Ohio without a state video-service authorization or payment of municipal fees.
Netflix and Hulu provide on‑demand streaming over the public Internet, do not place wires/cables or operate networks in Ohio public rights‑of‑way, and have never held video‑service authorizations.
The 2007 Act centralized franchising authority in the Ohio director of commerce, defined “video service” as video programming delivered over wires or cables located at least partly in public rights‑of‑way, and expressly excluded programming provided solely via services that enable access to content over the public Internet (R.C. 1332.21(J)).
The Act requires authorized video‑service providers to pay quarterly fees to municipalities (R.C. 1332.32) and allows municipalities to audit fee calculations and sue to dispute amounts based on an audit (R.C. 1332.33), but vests enforcement and investigatory authority (including injunctions) in the director of commerce (R.C. 1332.24).
The federal district court certified two questions to the Ohio Supreme Court: (1) whether Netflix and Hulu are “video‑service providers” under the Act; and (2) whether Maple Heights may sue to enforce the Act (expressly or by implication).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are Netflix and Hulu "video‑service providers" under Ohio law?	Maple Heights: streaming content is comparable to broadcast programming and thus falls within the Act; provider need not own physical wires.	Netflix/Hulu: delivery is solely over the public Internet, they do not use public rights‑of‑way or hold state authorizations, and R.C. 1332.21(J) excludes such services.	No. Streaming over the public Internet is excluded by R.C. 1332.21(J); only entities with director‑issued authorizations are "video‑service providers."
Can Maple Heights sue Netflix/Hulu to enforce the Act?	Maple Heights: it may enforce the Act either under R.C. 1332.33 or via an implied private cause of action under the Cort test.	Netflix/Hulu: enforcement authority is vested exclusively in the director of commerce; municipalities' remedies are limited to audits/disputes identified in the Act.	No. The Act confers enforcement power on the director and limits municipal authority; no express or implied private right to bring the enforcement action exists.

Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (1975) (framework for assessing implied private causes of action)
Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (private rights of action must be created by legislature)
Vernon v. Warner Amex Cable Communications, Inc., 25 Ohio St.3d 117 (1986) (municipal home‑rule authority historically used to franchise cable in rights‑of‑way)
Fawcett v. G. C. Murphy & Co., 46 Ohio St.2d 245 (1976) (requires clear implication for a court to create a statutory cause of action)
Biddle v. Warren Gen. Hosp., 86 Ohio St.3d 395 (1999) (caution against implying private statutory causes of action)
Thomas v. Freeman, 79 Ohio St.3d 221 (1997) (existence of specific remedies implies exclusion of other remedies)
Bostock v. Clayton Cty., Georgia, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) (textualist emphasis: statutory meaning derives from text at enactment)