Internet providers are suing the state of California for banning the new net neutrality laws and enforcing their new rules that bans Internet providers from blocking or slowing down websites. In addition, they are banning the Internet providers from charging their customers fees for certain websites and "selectively exempting favored apps and services from customer data caps". In the lawsuit, the Internet Providers argued that California's new rules would be going against the Federal Regulations already placed about Net Neutrality. Under the Dormant Commerce Clause we learned in class, we learned that if you can obey the state law and violate the federal law at the same time, which is an irreconcilable difference, the state law should be unconstitutional. Therefore, the California's new rules regarding net neutrality should be unconstitutional. In addition, the Internet providers also argued that the California's new rule is also going against the Dormant Commerce clause due to the fact that "Internet traffic typically bounces across servers in various states before arriving at a final destination such as your phone or PC, Internet access is considered interstate commerce, according to the suit". In class, we learned that if the law places an undue burden on interstate commerce, the state law should be invalid. California's new law is regulating the internet outside state borders, which is affecting interstate commerce. My question is that if internet traffic typically bounce across servers in various states, are all the other states affecting interstate commerce too, just as California?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/10/03/internet-providers-are-joining-trumps-doj-suing-california-over-net-neutrality/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0d0d1b451d0e
Excellent! Thank you Rachel - I can use this for my exam next semester!