U.S. Code » Title 47 » Chapter CHAPTER 5— WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER V–A— CABLE COMMUNICATIONS › Part Part IV— Miscellaneous Provisions

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.

(c) Discrimination claims permitted

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 Cnty., 590 U.S. 644 (2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 590 U.S. 644 (2020). · 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 Metro. Cable, 923 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2019). · 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, 721 N.E.2d 957 (NY 1999). · 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 Coll., 34 F. Supp. 3d 416 (D.N.J. 2014). · 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 Assocs., LLC, 235 Cal. App. 4th 344 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “(47 U.S.C. § 555a(a).)” (City of Glendale v.”
Comcast of Sacramento I, LLC v. Sacramento Metro. Cable Television Comm'n, 250 F. Supp. 3d 616 (E.D. Cal. 2017). · 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, 71 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (N.D. Ga. 1999). · 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.”
Off. of Consum. Couns. v. S. New England Tel. Co., 502 F. Supp. 2d 277 (D. Conn. 2007). · 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, 499 F. Supp. 2d 202 (N.D.N.Y. 2007). · 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, 470 F. Supp. 2d 1002 (S.D. Iowa 2007). · cites it 2× “Defendants cite 47 U.S.C. § 555a(a) in support of this proposition.”
Halleck v. City of New York, 224 F. Supp. 3d 238 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). “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. Pub. Serv. Bd. of State of Vt., 242 F. Supp. 2d 400 (D. Vt. 2003). “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 Metro. Cable, 923 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2019). “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 Coll., 34 F. Supp. 3d 416 (D.N.J. 2014). “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 Assocs., LLC, 235 Cal. App. 4th 344 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). “(47 U.S.C. § 555a(a).)” (City of Glendale v.”
Jersawitz v. PEOPLE TV, 71 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (N.D. Ga. 1999). “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.”
Off. of Consum. Couns. v. S. New England Tel. Co., 502 F. Supp. 2d 277 (D. Conn. 2007). “§ 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 Cnty., 590 U.S. 644 (2020). “§§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.