Streamers have largely prevailed on this legal front in cases across the country.
The power to force a nonfranchise holder to pay fees through a lawsuit, the judge concluded, belongs to the California Public Utilities Commission. She said the statute “clearly grants only the PUC — and not local entities — a right of action against non-franchise holding video service providers subjects to DIVCA’s requirements.
“If Defendants were required to obtain a DIVCA franchise to deliver their services, then Plaintiff could presumably seek to require Disney Plus, Peacock, HBO Max, and Amazon Prime Video to also obtain DIVCA franchises, the order reads. “Under plaintiff’s reading of DIVCA, numerous franchise holders could ‘use’ a single public right-of-way, and local entities would be allowed to collect a 5% franchise fee from each franchise holder.
Taking local governments’ claims to their logical conclusion, they argued that adopting the position would make anyone who streams content over the internet a video service provider and thus subject to franchising fee requirements.
MichelArouca
Oh right, not Lannister... Lancaster. My bad.
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: WEWS - 🏆 323. / 59 Read more »
Source: SELFmagazine - 🏆 478. / 51 Read more »
Source: DEADLINE - 🏆 109. / 63 Read more »
Source: Collider - 🏆 1. / 98 Read more »
Source: ABC7Chicago - 🏆 284. / 63 Read more »
Source: clevelanddotcom - 🏆 301. / 63 Read more »