CA's net neutrality law was challenged in court and found to be lawful due to Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, and I knew that case hinged upon Brand X. At the time, Ajit Pai was trying to prevent states from making their own net neutrality laws.
Them striking down the state preemption was separate from the Brand X use, it turns out.
> In neither case [Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co and Arkansas Electric] was the source or existence of statutory authority for the agency to preempt state regulation at issue. Nor do those cases speak to a statutory scheme in which Congress expressly marked out a regulatory role for States that the federal agency has attempted to supplant. If Congress wanted Title I to vest the Commission with some form of Dormant-Commerce-Clause-like power to negate States’ statutory (and sovereign) authority just by washing its hands of its own regulatory authority, Congress could have said so
Does this decision(or the decision it was based off of) not also basically say "the fcc has no power over broadband companies" or am I misinterpreting the "information service" vs "telecommunications service" comment?
My recollection is that the FCC during the Obama years repeatedly tried to impose Net Neutrality regulations on ISPs without reclassifying them as telecommunications services, and only after exhausting that route did they try regulating them under Title II. So if this ruling stands, then there's probably enough precedent to keep the FCC from doing anything meaningful against ISPs until Congress can pass major legislation about this.
This decision effectively killed net neutrality and dooms everything that rests on Brand X in one swoop (eg California’s own net neutrality laws).