47 U.S.C. § 555a

Limitation of franchising authority liability

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 47 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Suits for damages prohibited

In any court proceeding pending on or initiated after October 5, 1992, involving any claim against a franchising authority or other governmental entity, or any official, member, employee, or agent of such authority or entity, arising from the regulation of cable service or from a decision of approval or disapproval with respect to a grant, renewal, transfer, or amendment of a franchise, any relief, to the extent such relief is required by any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, shall be limited to injunctive relief and declaratory relief.

(b) Exception for completed cases

The limitation contained in subsection (a) shall not apply to actions that, prior to such violation, have been determined by a final order of a court of binding jurisdiction, no longer subject to appeal, to be in violation of a cable operator’s rights.

Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the relief authorized with respect to any claim against a franchising authority or other governmental entity, or any official, member, employee, or agent of such authority or entity, to the extent such claim involves discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, age, religion, national origin, or handicap.

(d) Rule of construction

Nothing in this section shall be construed as creating or authorizing liability of any kind, under any law, for any action or failure to act relating to cable service or the granting of a franchise by any franchising authority or other governmental entity, or any official, member, employee, or agent of such authority or entity.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title VI, § 635A, as added Pub. L. 102–385, § 24(a), Oct. 5, 1992, 106 Stat. 1500.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective 60 days after Oct. 5, 1992, see section 28 of Pub. L. 102–385, set out as an Effective Date of 1992 Amendment note under section 325 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 28 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: Bostock v. Clayton County

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) scotus · cites it 2× “§§554 (b) and (c) (Cable Communica- tions; Equal Employment Opportunity)  47 U. S. C. §555a(c) (Cable Communications; Limitation of Franchising Authority Liability)  48 U.”

Comcast of Sacramento I, LLC v. Sacramento Metropolitan Cable (2019) ca9 · cites it 11× “SMCTC SUMMARY** Cable Franchise Fees The panel vacated the district court’s summary judgment and held that 47 U.S.C. § 555a(a) barred the only relief sought by Comcast of Sacramento in its lawsuit concerning the calculation and payment of cable franchise fees.”

Caprotti v. Town of Woodstock (1999) ny · cites it 18× “The issue before us is whether 47 USC § 555a (a) immunizes the municipality from liability for monetary damages.”

Brennan v. William Paterson College (2014) njd · cites it 4× “involving any claim against a franchising authority or other governmental entity, or any official, member, employee, or agent of such authority or entity, arising from the regulation of cable service or from a decision of approval or disapproval with respect to a grant, renewal,…”

City of Glendale v. Marcus Cable Associates, LLC (2015) calctapp · cites it 2× “(47 U.S.C. § 555a(a).)” (City of Glendale v.”

Comcast of Sacramento I, LLC v. Sacramento Metropolitan Cable Television Commission (2017) caed · cites it 3× “City of Glendale was decided based on the court’s conclusion that such a declaration would, in effect, circumvent 47 U.S.C. § 555a’s prohibition on award of damages against governmental entities in cable regulation suits.”

Jersawitz v. PEOPLE TV (1999) gand · cites it 2× “The City further contends that 47 U.S.C. § 555a(a) prohibits claims for monetary damages against franchising authorities in cases arising from the provision of cable services.”

Office of Consumer Counsel v. Southern New England Telephone Co. (2007) ctd · cites it 2× “§ 1988 as unauthorized under the Cable Act, 47 U.S.C. § 555a(a). II. Counts 1 and 2 Defendants challenge Counts 1 and 2 in both Complaints on standing grounds, and Count 2 of the OCC/NECTA Complaint on ripeness grounds.”

Marnell v. Carbo (2007) nynd · cites it 2× “See 47 U.S.C. § 555a(a). The Cable Act limits relief in a suit “against a franchising authority or other governmental entity, or any official, member, employee or agent of such authority or entity, arising from the regulation of cable service .”

Lindstrom v. City of Des Moines, IA (2007) iasd · cites it 2× “Defendants cite 47 U.S.C. § 555a(a) in support of this proposition.”

Halleck v. City of New York (2016) nysd “Although the Amended Complaint also seeks compensatory and punitive damages, Plaintiffs appear to acknowledge that 47 U.S.C. § 555a(a) precludes the award of monetary damages in actions asserting violations of the Constitution arising from the regulation of cable television.”

Mountain Cable Co. v. Public Service Bd. of State of Vt. (2003) vtd “Since, as noted above, the Supreme Court and other circuit courts have expressly held that the 1996 Act’s remedial scheme is not sufficiently detailed and comprehensive for Seminole Tribe to apply, the same conclusion must apply to the Cable Act. Defendants point to one…”

Show all 28 citing cases →

— 47 U.S.C. § 555a(a) — 22 cases

Comcast of Sacramento I, LLC v. Sacramento Metropolitan Cable (2019) ca9 “SMCTC SUMMARY** Cable Franchise Fees The panel vacated the district court’s summary judgment and held that 47 U.S.C. § 555a(a) barred the only relief sought by Comcast of Sacramento in its lawsuit concerning the calculation and payment of cable franchise fees.”

Brennan v. William Paterson College (2014) njd “involving any claim against a franchising authority or other governmental entity, or any official, member, employee, or agent of such authority or entity, arising from the regulation of cable service or from a decision of approval or disapproval with respect to a grant, renewal,…”

City of Glendale v. Marcus Cable Associates, LLC (2015) calctapp “(47 U.S.C. § 555a(a).)” (City of Glendale v.”

Jersawitz v. PEOPLE TV (1999) gand “The City further contends that 47 U.S.C. § 555a(a) prohibits claims for monetary damages against franchising authorities in cases arising from the provision of cable services.”

Office of Consumer Counsel v. Southern New England Telephone Co. (2007) ctd “§ 1988 as unauthorized under the Cable Act, 47 U.S.C. § 555a(a). II. Counts 1 and 2 Defendants challenge Counts 1 and 2 in both Complaints on standing grounds, and Count 2 of the OCC/NECTA Complaint on ripeness grounds.”

— 47 U.S.C. § 555a(c) — 1 case

Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) scotus “§§554 (b) and (c) (Cable Communica- tions; Equal Employment Opportunity)  47 U. S. C. §555a(c) (Cable Communications; Limitation of Franchising Authority Liability)  48 U.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.