Part of Maryland digital ad tax law declared unconstitutional
Reversing a lower court ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with the Chamber of Commerce and two other trade groups that the restriction violated members' First Amendment free speech rights, while insulating Maryland lawmakers from criticism and political accountability.
The offices of Maryland's Attorney General Anthony Brown and the only defendant, state Comptroller Brooke Lierman, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Aimed at larger businesses such as Amazon.com (AMZN.O), opens new tab, Meta Platforms' (META.O), opens new tab Facebook and Alphabet's (GOOGL.O), opens new tab Google, Maryland's 2021 law taxed companies that generated at least $1 million of gross revenue from digital ad services in the state.
Maryland imposed levies on a sliding scale based on companies' global revenue, and lawmakers said the tax could raise $250 million annually.
The Chamber of Commerce, NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association sued, calling the law a punitive assault on digital rather than print advertising.
Friday's decision concerned their objection to a provision against passing on the cost of the tax "by means of a separate fee, surcharge, or line-item," saying it effectively forbade businesses from shifting blame to lawmakers.
Circuit Judge Julius Richardson wrote for a three-judge panel, however, that the provision ensured that companies would bear economic and legal responsibility for the tax. He said Maryland didn't justify this, and the provision was facially unconstitutional.
"The pass-through prevents companies from describing the tax in the one setting where the consumer is guaranteed to look: the invoice," the judge wrote. "Keeping out of hot water with voters is not among the interests that can justify a speech ban."
Richardson added: "As much today as 250 years ago, criticizing the government - for taxes or anything else - is important discourse in a democratic society. The First Amendment forbids Maryland to suppress it."
The Richmond, Virginia appeals court returned the case to U.S. District Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby in Greenbelt, Maryland, to determine appropriate remedies.
In separate statements, the trade groups welcomed the decision.
"The Fourth Circuit was absolutely correct," said Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center. "Maryland tried to prevent criticism of its tax scheme, and the Fourth Circuit recognized that tactic for what it was: censorship."
The case is Chamber of Commerce et al v. Lierman, 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-1727.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
Some workers would be excluded from student loan forgiveness program for 'illegal' activity
Teachers, social workers, nurses and other public workers would be cut off from a popular student loan cancellation program if the Trump administration finds their employer engaged in activities with a 'substantial illegal purpose,' under a new federal proposal released on Friday. The Education Department took aim at nonprofits or government bodies that work with immigrants and transgender youth, releasing plans to overhaul the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. Opponents fear the new policy would turn the loan forgiveness benefit into a tool of political retribution. The proposal would give the education secretary the final say in deciding whether a group or government entity should be excluded from the program, which was created by Congress in 2007 to encourage more college graduates to enter lower-paying public service fields. The proposal says illegal activity includes the trafficking or 'chemical castration' of children, illegal immigration and supporting foreign terrorist organizations. 'Chemical castration' is defined as using hormone therapy or drugs that delay puberty — gender-affirming care common for transgender children or teens. President Donald Trump ordered the changes in March, saying the loan forgiveness program was steering taxpayer money to 'activist organizations' that pose a threat to national security and do not serve the public. The public will be given 30 days to weigh in on the proposal before it can be finalized. Any changes would take effect in July 2026. Under current rules, government employees and many nonprofit workers can get their federal student loans canceled after they've made 10 years of payments. The program is open to government workers, including teachers, firefighters and employees of public hospitals, along with nonprofits that focus on certain areas. The new proposal would exclude employees of any organization tied to an activity deemed illegal. The Education Department predicts that fewer than 10 organizations would be deemed ineligible per year. It doesn't expect a 'significant reduction' in the percentage of borrowers who would be granted forgiveness under the program, according to the proposal. Yet the agency acknowledges that not all industries would be affected evenly. Schools, universities, health care providers, social workers and legal services organizations are among those most likely to have their eligibility jeopardized, the department wrote. It did not give more specifics about what 'illegal' actions those groups were taking that could bar them from the program. But the proposal suggests that performing gender-affirming care in the 27 states that outlaw it would be enough. If a state or federal court rules against an employer, that could lead to its expulsion from the program, or if the employer is involved in a legal settlement that includes an admission of wrongdoing. Even without a legal finding, however, the education secretary could determine independently that an organization should be ejected. The secretary could judge whether an organization participated in illegal activity by using a legal standard known as the 'preponderance of the evidence' — meaning it's more likely than not that an accusation is true. Once an organization is barred from the program, its workers' future loan payments would no longer count toward cancellation. They would have to find work at another eligible employer to keep making progress toward forgiveness. A ban from the Education Department would last 10 years or until the employer completed a 'corrective action plan' approved by the secretary. Critics blasted the proposal as an illegal attempt to weaponize student loan cancellation. Kristin McGuire, CEO of the nonprofit Young Invincibles, which advocates for loan forgiveness, called it a political stunt designed to confuse borrowers. 'By using a distorted and overly broad definition of 'illegal activities,' the Trump administration is exploiting the student loan system to attack political opponents,' McGuire said in a statement. The Education Department sketched out its plans for the overhaul during a federal rulemaking process that began in June. The agency gathered a panel of experts to help hash out the details — a process known as negotiated rulemaking. But the panel failed to reach a consensus, which freed the department to move forward with a proposal of its own design. The proposal released on Friday included some changes meant to ease concerns raised by the expert panel. Some had worried the department would ban organizations merely for supporting transgender rights, even if they have no direct involvement in gender-affirming care. The new proposal clarifies that the secretary would not expel organizations for exercising their First Amendment rights. ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
Duke Energy seeks to merge Carolina utilities, projecting more than $1B in customer savings
Duke Energy Corp. says its move to combine electric utility subsidiaries in North and South Carolina into one entity could save customers more than $1 billion over a decade. The Charlotte-based utility said it formally asked federal and state regulators on Thursday for permission to join together Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress, which have several million customers. The savings would come in part from streamlining operations and spreading out infrastructure expenses. The two entities have operated separately since the 2012 merger of Duke Energy and Raleigh-based Progress Energy. Duke Energy, which likens the request to moving two company divisions into one, said in a news release that it wants the change to be effective Jan. 1, 2027. The two entities combined own 34,600 megawatts of energy capacity, producing electricity for 4.7 million residential, commercial and industrial customers in service areas covering 52,000 square miles (134,680 square kilometers). Duke Energy is the dominant electric utility in North Carolina. Under the current setup, Duke Energy must maintain four different retail-rate structures — two for each subsidiary in each state — and produce four annual filings for state regulators who approve rates — creating confusion for the public. If the combination is approved, the company said, rates would blend gradually between the sets of customers. The company says a combination means fewer resources would be needed to meet electric demands compared to if the two entities remained separate. They could run fewer energy production units, using less fuel and spending less on maintenance, the release said. The two entities already work together on managing electricity demand and other efficiencies. 'Combining our two utilities reduces customer costs, simplifies operations, supports economic growth and promotes regulatory efficiencies, all of which will create value for customers in both states,' said Kodwo Ghartey-Tagoe, executive vice president and CEO at Duke Energy Carolinas. 'There will be no immediate changes to retail customer rates or services.' Duke Energy, one of the nation's largest electric holding companies, said it projects retail customer savings from the combination to reach more than $1 billion through 2038. That's after any expenses, with additional savings expected after that. Duke Energy Carolinas' coverage area spans much of central and western North and South Carolina, including Charlotte and Durham in North Carolina, and Greenville and Spartanburg in South Carolina. Duke Energy Progress generally covers eastern and central North and South Carolina -- including Raleigh, Fayetteville and Wilmington in North Carolina and Florence and Sumter in South Carolina. But its coverage area also includes Asheville, North Carolina, in the west. The combination needs approval from North Carolina Utilities Commission, the Public Service Commission of South Carolina and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. They would all continue to regulate the combined utility.
Reuters
24 minutes ago
- Reuters
Las Vegas resorts defeat hotel rate price-fixing class action in US appeal
Aug 15 (Reuters) - Wynn Resorts (WYNN.O), opens new tab, Caesars and Treasure Island convinced a U.S. appeals court on Friday to turn back a consumer class action lawsuit accusing them of using shared computer software algorithms to illegally coordinate on Las Vegas hotel room prices. Affirming, opens new tab a lower court decision, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it wasn't enough for the consumers to show that the rival resorts used the same revenue-management service provider amid an alleged rise in room rental rates. The plaintiffs had accused the resort companies of colluding to overcharge guests by feeding sensitive internal information to a shared software platform operated by Cendyn that offered pricing recommendations. They appealed after a judge in Nevada dismissed the lawsuit in May. The 9th Circuit panel said the consumers had not shown there was any agreement among the hotels to follow Cendyn's pricing recommendations. The court also said that hotels' independent use of the same software did not restrain their abilities to rent hotel rooms. 'Rather than eliminating competition, pricing one's hotel rooms in a manner calculated to maximize profits is how one competes,' wrote Circuit Judge Carlos Bea, joined by Circuit Judge Ana de Alba and U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey Brown. A lead attorney for the consumers did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and neither did the lawyer who argued for the defendants. Cendyn said it welcomed the court's order. Wynn declined to comment. Caesars and Treasure Island did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The hotels and software provider Cendyn have denied any wrongdoing. U.S. courts are facing an increasing number of lawsuits claiming hotels and other industries unlawfully use revenue maximization platforms to fix prices. Last October, a group of major casino-hotel operators in Atlantic City defeated a proposed consumer class action accusing them and a revenue management platform of overcharging for room rentals. In dismissing the lawsuit in Las Vegas, Chief U.S. District Judge Miranda Du said the system generated pricing recommendations that hotels were not bound to follow. The consumers in their appeal countered that even non-binding guidelines such as price recommendations can be considered an 'unreasonable' restraint within a competitive market. The case is Richard Gibson et al v. Cendyn Group et al, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-3576. For plaintiffs: Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro For defendants: Melissa Sherry of Latham & Watkins Read more: US proposes settlement with Greystar to end alleged rental price collusion US Justice Dept backs consumers in Las Vegas hotel pricing case Consumers seek second chance in Las Vegas hotel price-fixing lawsuit
