Federal Trade Commission v. AT&T Mobility LLC
864 F.3d 995
9th Cir.
2017
Check Treatment
Docket

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC, a limited liability company, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-16585

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

FILED MAY 9, 2017

995

Northern District of California, San Francisco, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-04785-EMC

Eric D. Edmondson, Attorney, David Michael Newman, Attorney, Kerry O’Brien, Attorney, Evan P. Rose, San Francisco, CA, Joel Marcus, David L. Sieradzki, Matthew Michael Hoffman, Washington, DC, Federal Trade Commission, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Mark Charles Hansen, Michael K. Kellogg, Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C., Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellant.

Jacob Matthew Lewis, Associate General Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, David M. Gossett, Deputy General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, Office of General Counsel, Litigation Division, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Federal Communications Commission.

Adina Hyman Rosenbaum, Attorney, Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Richard Blumenthal, Senator.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae Center for Media Justice, New America’s Open Technology Institute, Color of Change.

Seth E. Mermin, Public Good Law Center, Berkeley, CA, for Amici Curiae Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Federation of California, Consumer Action, National Association of Consumer Advocates, National Consumers League, Center for Digital Democracy, Center for Democracy & Technology, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Benton Foundation, Common Sense Kids Action, and Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.

Paul K. Ohm, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Data Privacy and Security Law Professors.

Charles S. Duan, Public Knowledge, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Public Knowledge.

ORDER

THOMAS, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel disposition in this case shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.