OHIO TELECOM ASSOCIATION (24-3133); TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESS (24-3206); CTIA–THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION, NCTA–THE INTERNET & TELEVISION ASSOCIATION, and USTELECOM–THE BROADBAND ASSOCIATION (24-3252), HAMILTON RELAY, INC. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - Articles

All Content

OHIO TELECOM ASSOCIATION (24-3133); TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESS (24-3206); CTIA–THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION, NCTA–THE INTERNET & TELEVISION ASSOCIATION, and USTELECOM–THE BROADBAND ASSOCIATION (24-3252), HAMILTON RELAY, INC. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Aug 13, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Roman Martinez, LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioners.

Attorneys 2: ON BRIEF: Adam Sorensen, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Roman Martinez, Matthew A. Brill, Matthew T. Murchison, Charles S. Dameron, Christina R. Gay, LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioners.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Dameron, Christina R. Gay, LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioners. Adam Sorensen, Sarah E. Citrin, Jacob M. Lewis, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Attorneys 5: ON BRIEF: Jennifer Tatel, WILKINSON BARKER KNAUER, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Intervenor. John Anderson Jung, TECHFREEDOM, Washington, D.C., Trent McCotter, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY, Arlington, Virginia, Craig E. Gilmore, WILKINSON BARKER KNAUER, LLP, Washington, D.C., Alan Butler, ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae.

Judge(s): GRIFFIN, STRANCH, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: On Petition for Review from the Federal Communications Commission

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. These consolidated petitions for review challenge a rule of the Federal Communications Commission imposing reporting requirements on telecommunications carriers in the event of data breaches involving customers’ personally identifiable information. Petitioners contend that the reporting requirements exceed the Commission’s statutory authority and violate the Congressional Review Act. For the reasons set forth below, we DENY the petitions for review.

Attachments: