Lawsuit filed by 22 state attorneys general seeks to block net neutrality repeal

A lawsuit filed today by the attorneys general of 22 states seeks to block the Federal Communications Commission’s recent controversial vote to repeal Obama era Net Neutrality regulations.

The filing is led by New York State Attorney General Schneiderman, who called rollback a potential “disaster for New York consumers and businesses, and for everyone who cares about a free and open internet.”

The letter, which was filed in the United States District Court of Appeals in Washington, is cosigned by AGs from California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Washington DC

“An open internet – and the free exchange of ideas it allows – is critical to our democratic process,” Schneiderman added in an accompanying statement. “The repeal of net neutrality would turn internet service providers into gatekeepers – allowing them to put profits over consumers while controlling what we see, what we do, and what we say online.”

This isn’t the first major joint effort to shoot down the ruling  — the suit comes as 49 Democratic Senators and one Republican vocalized their disapproval for the dubiously named Restoring Internet Freedom ruling. D.C.-based non-profit public interest group Public Knowledge also issued a protective petition today, asking the D.C. Court of appeals to review the rollback.

Immediately following the FCC’s vote, advocacy group Free Press also announced plans to sue the FCC, citing, “Chairman Pai’s deeply flawed legal reasoning on several points.”

Update: You can add Mozilla to the list of organizations filing a petition in federal court this week. As the Firefox maker notes in its post, “the FCC decision made it clear that suits should be filed 10 days after it is published in the Federal Register, which has not yet occurred. However, federal law is more ambiguous. Due to the importance of this issue, even though we believe the filing date should be later, we filed in the event a court determines the appropriate date is today.”