Tech companies and nearly two dozen U.S. states clashed with the government in federal court Friday over the repeal of net neutrality, a set of Obama-era rules aimed at preventing big internet providers from discriminating against certain technology and services.
Judges challenged arguments made by both sides in the faceoff in an appeals court in Washington.
Lawyers for the states and the companies tried to persuade the three-judge panel to restore the net neutrality regime, set in 2015 during the Obama administration and repealed in December 2017 at the direction of a regulator appointed by President Donald Trump. The companies challenging the FCC action include Mozilla, developer of the Firefox web browser, and Vimeo, a video-sharing site.
The net neutrality rules had banned cable, wireless and other broadband providers from blocking or slowing down websites and apps of their choosing, or charging Netflix and other video services extra to reach viewers faster.
The practice of slowing down transmission is known as "throttling."
The action by the Federal Communications Commission rolling back the neutrality rules "is a stab in the heart of the Communications Act," said attorney Pantelis Michalopoulos, referring to the Depression-era law that established the FCC.
The FCC wrongly classified the internet as an information service rather than a telecoms service, using that as a rationale for not cracking down on misconduct by big internet providers, Michalopoulos said, who represents Mozilla and the other companies in the case.
Government lawyers, as well as big internet providers such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, argued to keep net neutrality repealed.
Thomas Johnson, the FCC's general counsel, said the agency's "light-touch" regulatory scheme, requiring the internet providers to disclose their practices and operations, provides adequate safeguards. The internet — used more extensively to transmit information — is different both in nature and function from phone service, Johnson maintained. It therefore should be regulated as an information service and not subject to the utility-style oversight of phone companies, he said.
The politically charged issue has emerged from its origins as an engineering challenge to become an anti-monopoly rallying point and even a focus for "resistance" to the Trump administration.
Once Trump took office, net neutrality became one of his first targets as part of broader government deregulation. The FCC chairman he appointed, Ajit Pai, made rolling back net neutrality a top priority.
On the other side, support for net neutrality comes from many of the same people who also are critical of the data-vacuuming tech giants that benefit from it. Politicians have glommed on to the cause to appear consumer-friendly.
The Democratic takeover of the House in November's midterm elections could revive efforts to enshrine net neutrality in federal law, though Trump likely would veto any such attempts.
At the hearing in the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Stephen Williams questioned Michalopoulos's assertions on the FCC wrongly classifying the internet as an information service. Telephone services, too, offer an array of customer products, he said. On the question of broadband providers charging premiums for faster service, Williams said a large majority of consumers prefer cheaper, lower-speed options, citing polls.
The judges are weighing whether the FCC had the authority to nix the 2015 rules and get out of the business of enforcing net neutrality. It appeared that Williams was sympathetic to the FCC's arguments, while Judge Patricia Millett raised possible legal avenues for the companies and states suing the agency, and Judge Robert Wilkins was the swing vote, said Doug Brake, director of broadband and spectrum policy for the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a Washington think tank.
The judges could decide to can the repeal or send it back to the FCC for a redo if they have specific objections.
"Today we fought for an open and free internet that puts consumers first, Mozilla Chief Operating Officer Denelle Dixon said after the hearing. "We believe the FCC needs to follow the rules like everyone else."
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Saudi Arabia could have some form of uranium enrichment within the kingdom under a proposed nuclear deal with the United States, congressional documents and an arms control group suggest, raising proliferation concerns as an atomic standoff between Iran and America continues.
U.S. Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden both tried to reach a nuclear deal with the kingdom to share American technology. Nonproliferation experts warn any spinning centrifuges within Saudi Arabia could open the door to a possible weapons program for the kingdom, something its assertive crown prince has suggested he could pursue if Tehran obtains an atomic bomb.
Already, Saudi Arabia and nuclear-armed Pakistan signed a mutual defense pact last year after Israel launched an attack on Qatar targeting Hamas officials. Pakistan’s defense minister then said his nation’s nuclear program “will be made available” to Saudi Arabia if needed, something seen as a warning for Israel, long believed to be the Middle East's only nuclear-armed state.
“Nuclear cooperation can be a positive mechanism for upholding nonproliferation norms and increasing transparency, but the devil is in the details,” wrote Kelsey Davenport, the director for nonproliferation policy at the Washington-based Arms Control Association.
The documents raise “concerns that the Trump administration has not carefully considered the proliferation risks posed by its proposed nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia or the precedent this agreement may set.”
Saudi Arabia did not respond to questions Friday from The Associated Press.
The congressional document, also seen by the AP, shows the Trump administration aims to reach 20 nuclear business deals with nations around the world, including Saudi Arabia. The deal with Saudi Arabia could be worth billions of dollars, it adds.
The document contends that reaching a deal with the kingdom “will advance the national security interests of the United States, breaking with the failed policies of inaction and indecision that our competitors have capitalized on to disadvantage American industry and diminish the United States standing globally in this critical sector.” China, France, Russia and South Korea are among the leading nations that sell nuclear power plant technology abroad.
The draft deal would see America and Saudi Arabia enter safeguard agreements with the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog — the International Atomic Energy Agency or IAEA. That would include oversight of the “most proliferation-sensitive areas of potential nuclear cooperation,” it added. It listed enrichment, fuel fabrication and reprocessing as potential areas.
“This suggests that once the bilateral safeguards agreement is in place, it will open the door for Saudi Arabia to acquire uranium enrichment technology or capabilities — possibly even from the United States,” Davenport wrote. “Even with restrictions and limits, it seems likely that Saudi Arabia will have a path to some type of uranium enrichment or access to knowledge about enrichment.”
Saudi Arabia is a member state of the IAEA, a Vienna-based agency which promotes peaceful nuclear work but also inspects nations to ensure they don’t have clandestine atomic weapons programs.
The IAEA told the AP in a statement on Friday that it “maintains regular contact with both parties and is able to apply verification measures in connection with bilateral cooperation agreements.”
“If the parties will request the agency to apply verification measures in connection with their bilateral cooperation agreements, the agency will continue to consult with the parties concerned and address the request in accordance with its established procedures,” the IAEA added.
Enrichment isn't an automatic path to a nuclear weapon — a nation also must master other steps including the use of synchronized high explosives, for instance. But it does open the door to weaponization, which has fueled the concerns of the West over Iran's program.
The United Arab Emirates, a neighbor to Saudi Arabia, signed what is referred to as a “123 agreement” with the U.S. to build its Barakah nuclear power plant with South Korean assistance. But the UAE did so without seeking enrichment, something nonproliferation experts have held up as the “gold standard” for nations wanting atomic power.
The push for a Saudi-U.S. deal comes as Trump threatens military action against Iran if it doesn't reach a deal over its nuclear program. The Trump military push follows nationwide protests in Iran that saw its theocratic government launch a bloody crackdown on dissent that killed thousands and saw tens of thousands more reportedly detained.
In Iran's case, it long has insisted its nuclear enrichment program is peaceful. However, the West and the IAEA say Iran had an organized military nuclear program up until 2003. Tehran also had been enriching uranium up to 60% purity, a short, technical step from weapons-grade levels of 90% — making it the only country in the world to do so without a weapons program.
Iranian diplomats long have pointed to 86-year-old Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's comments as a binding fatwa, or religious edict, that Iran won’t build an atomic bomb. However, Iranian officials increasingly have made the threat they could seek the bomb as tensions have risen with the U.S.
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the kingdom's day-to-day ruler, has said if Iran obtains the bomb, “we will have to get one.”
The Associated Press receives support for nuclear security coverage from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Outrider Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
FILE - President Donald Trump stands with Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on his visit to the White House, Nov. 18, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein, File)
