Adam Candeub FCC → DOJ Antitrust: What His Nomination Means for ISP Competition Enforcement

The entry's core claim—that net neutrality rules were removed by a court decision, not an FCC rulemaking—is correct, but requires precise citation. On January 2, 2025, a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Ohio Telecom Ass'n v. FCC, No. 24-3449, 124 F.4th 993 (6th Cir. 2025), held that the Communications Act does not grant the FCC authority to classify broadband internet access as a 'telecommunications service' subject to Title II common-carrier obligations. The court vacated the FCC's 2024 Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet Order (FCC 24-52), which had restored net neutrality rules, and relied heavily on the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. __ (2024), which ended judicial deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. The ruling does not affect state-level net neutrality laws in California, Washington, and Colorado.

For antitrust specialists, this judicial nullification leaves no federal net neutrality protections, shifting enforcement against ISP anti-competitive conduct entirely to the FTC and DOJ Antitrust Division. The structural remedy is not an FCC order but congressional action to codify net neutrality or restore Title II authority, combined with aggressive antitrust enforcement against ISP practices like self-preferencing, data caps, and zero-rating that harm edge providers and consumers. Advocates should press DOJ and FTC to apply a rigorous consumer-welfare standard—including effects on downstream competition—when reviewing ISP mergers or investigating complaints.