Net neutrality advocates are making a last-ditch effort to salvage broadband regulations after the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the FCC’s ability to classify internet service providers (ISPs) as Title II common carriers under the Telecommunications Act.

Net Neutrality is the principle that internet service providers (ISPs) must treat all internet traffic equally without discriminating or charging differently based on content, user, platform, website, or application. It ensures that ISPs cannot block, throttle, or prioritize certain types of online content or services.

With the FCC under new Republican leadership following President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the agency is not expected to challenge the decision, leaving consumer advocacy groups as the only remaining challengers.

The case marks the latest chapter in the long-running battle over net neutrality, which has seen dramatic shifts under different presidential administrations:

• 2015: Obama-era FCC enacts net neutrality, classifying ISPs under Title II, allowing the FCC to regulate them as common carriers.
• 2017: Trump-era FCC repeals net neutrality, deregulating broadband providers.
• 2023: Biden’s FCC reinstates net neutrality, restoring Title II classification.
• 2025: Trump’s FCC leadership supports the court’s decision striking down Title II rules.

The Sixth Circuit’s January 2, 2025, ruling sided with broadband trade groups, arguing that the FCC overstepped its authority by classifying broadband as a highly regulated telecom service rather than a less-regulated “information service.”

The court’s decision relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which overturned the Chevron doctrine. This decades-old precedent required judges to defer to expert regulatory agencies when interpreting ambiguous laws.

Now, courts must apply their own interpretation of the law’s plain meaning, which the Sixth Circuit used to narrow the definition of broadband as an “information service.”

A coalition of nonprofit groups, including Public Knowledge, filed a petition for rehearing, asking for a full en banc review of the ruling by a larger panel of judges.

John Bergmayer, legal director at Public Knowledge, slammed the court’s decision:

“Instead of interpreting the law according to its plain meaning, the Sixth Circuit panel shoehorned its policy preferences into the law in a slapdash and inconsistent opinion. If left unchallenged, this decision will eliminate the ability of future regulators to promote universal, affordable, competitive broadband access and could even threaten the openness of the telephone network itself.”

The intervenors argued that broadband meets the definition of a Title II telecommunications service, which is supposed to purely transmit data, rather than an “information service,” which processes or alters information.

They pointed out the logical flaw in the court’s reasoning, arguing that if broadband is an information service simply because users access information, then traditional phone lines—historically classified as telecom services—would also be considered information services.

“A phone line in 1996 could be used to retrieve and interact with information on AOL, just like broadband today allows users to search, send emails, or join chat groups. That did not convert phone service into an information service, and broadband should not be treated differently.”

Under FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, a staunch opponent of net neutrality, the commission has no intention of challenging the court’s ruling. Carr welcomed the decision, calling it a victory against “President Biden’s internet power grab.”

With a Republican-controlled Congress unlikely to pass any legislation restoring net neutrality protections, consumer advocates now face an uphill battle.

The case could now proceed in several possible directions:

1. The Sixth Circuit could agree to rehear the case en banc, potentially reversing the ruling.
2. The ruling stands, effectively killing the FCC’s ability to impose Title II regulations on broadband providers.
3. Advocates appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, though the conservative-leaning court is unlikely to rule in their favor.
4. Future elections could shift control of the FCC, leading to yet another round of policy reversals.

With broadband providers celebrating their win, net neutrality remains in limbo—leaving consumer advocates without agency support and making it increasingly difficult to restore federal protections against throttling, paid prioritization, and blocking of online content.