Mobile industry loses its bid to stop Berkeley’s cellphone warning law
by Cyrus Farivar, arstechnica.com,
by Cyrus Farivar, arstechnica.com,
21 April 2017
9th Circuit: Local law actually “complements and reinforces” federal law, policy.
On Friday, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of the City of Berkeley, allowing the city to keep its law that requires radiation warning signs in all cellphone stores within the city limits.
The CTIA, the cellphone industry trade group, sued the city to stop the law from taking effect by asking a lower court to impose a preliminary injunction. The group argued that forcing retailers to display the warning (pictured below) constituted compelled speech, which violates the First Amendment. After the district court didn't impose the injunction, the CTIA appealed to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals.
The 9th Circuit concluded that Berkeley's disclosure "did no more than alert consumers" to FCC safety disclosures.
The CTIA went to great lengths to try to stop this law from being enacted. It even hired Ted Olson, a former solicitor general under the George W. Bush administration, to argue on its behalf.
"There's a reason why Berkeley put the word 'safety' in there," he told the 9th Circuit last year. "It's to send an alarm."
The organization did not immediately respond to Ars' request for comment.
The case can now be appealed further to a full panel of 9th Circuit judges, or it could be appealed up to the Supreme Court.
On Friday, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of the City of Berkeley, allowing the city to keep its law that requires radiation warning signs in all cellphone stores within the city limits.
The CTIA, the cellphone industry trade group, sued the city to stop the law from taking effect by asking a lower court to impose a preliminary injunction. The group argued that forcing retailers to display the warning (pictured below) constituted compelled speech, which violates the First Amendment. After the district court didn't impose the injunction, the CTIA appealed to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals.
The 9th Circuit concluded that Berkeley's disclosure "did no more than alert consumers" to FCC safety disclosures.
The CTIA went to great lengths to try to stop this law from being enacted. It even hired Ted Olson, a former solicitor general under the George W. Bush administration, to argue on its behalf.
"There's a reason why Berkeley put the word 'safety' in there," he told the 9th Circuit last year. "It's to send an alarm."
The organization did not immediately respond to Ars' request for comment.
The case can now be appealed further to a full panel of 9th Circuit judges, or it could be appealed up to the Supreme Court.
Three letters: SAR
As Ars also reported previously, little to no current science supports the need for the warnings Berkeley is mandating. There's no well-described mechanism by which non-ionizing radiation can induce long-term biological changes, although it can cause short-term heating of tissues. There are also no clear indications that wireless hardware creates any health risks in the first place, which raises questions of what, exactly, the city's legislation was supposed to accomplish.
The city seemed to feel the need to educate cellphone customers about exactly what kind of radiation all phones release. Specifically, one of the primary ways that radiation from a phone is measured is through something called the "Specific Absorption Rate" (SAR)—in other words, how fast a given amount of energy is absorbed by the human body, measured in watts per kilogram.
Since 1996, the FCC has required that all cell phones sold in the United States not exceed a SAR limit of 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg), as averaged over one gram of tissue. On most phones, the SAR value for a given handset is not at all obvious. On the iPhone 6S Plus—the author's phone—for instance, the information is buried four menus deep. Even then, I still have to click yet another link.
The CTIA sued Berkeley and argued that, like a similar law passed in San Francisco in 2010 (which was defeated in court), the warning would essentially scare customers away from owning cellphones. Among other concerns, the CTIA argued that the phrase "RF radiation" is enough to send alarm bells ringing. The organization asked the district court to impose a preliminary injunction to stop the law from going into effect, which the court declined to do.
In its Friday decision, the 9th Circuit conducted a line-by-line analysis of the actual warning sign. The court found that language such as "RF radiation" is actually "largely reassuring," as it tells prospective buyers that the phones they are buying meet or exceed safety regulations.
Beyond that, the court also noted that the CTIA had presented no "evidence showing that sales of cell phones in Berkeley were, or are likely to be, depressed as a result of the compelled disclosure."
A dissenting voice
One of the three judges on the 9th Circuit panel, Circuit Judge Michelle Friedland, who by coincidence was born in Berkeley, dissented from the majority.
She found that while the sentences in Berkeley's warning are "literally true" when taken one at a time, "this approach misses the forest for the trees."
She wrote that "The message of the disclosure as a whole is clear: carrying a phone 'in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra' is not safe. Yet that implication is a problem for Berkeley because it has not offered any evidence that carrying a cell phone in a pocket is in fact unsafe."
Judge Friedland concluded: "If Berkeley wants consumers to listen to its warnings, it should stay quiet until it is prepared to present evidence of a wolf."
UPDATE 5:32pm ET: Justin Cole, a spokesman with the CTIA, sent Ars a statement saying that "there is no evidence of harmful effects caused by cell phones," and it further indicated that it supported Judge Friedland's dissent.
CYRUS FARIVAR
As Ars also reported previously, little to no current science supports the need for the warnings Berkeley is mandating. There's no well-described mechanism by which non-ionizing radiation can induce long-term biological changes, although it can cause short-term heating of tissues. There are also no clear indications that wireless hardware creates any health risks in the first place, which raises questions of what, exactly, the city's legislation was supposed to accomplish.
The city seemed to feel the need to educate cellphone customers about exactly what kind of radiation all phones release. Specifically, one of the primary ways that radiation from a phone is measured is through something called the "Specific Absorption Rate" (SAR)—in other words, how fast a given amount of energy is absorbed by the human body, measured in watts per kilogram.
Since 1996, the FCC has required that all cell phones sold in the United States not exceed a SAR limit of 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg), as averaged over one gram of tissue. On most phones, the SAR value for a given handset is not at all obvious. On the iPhone 6S Plus—the author's phone—for instance, the information is buried four menus deep. Even then, I still have to click yet another link.
The CTIA sued Berkeley and argued that, like a similar law passed in San Francisco in 2010 (which was defeated in court), the warning would essentially scare customers away from owning cellphones. Among other concerns, the CTIA argued that the phrase "RF radiation" is enough to send alarm bells ringing. The organization asked the district court to impose a preliminary injunction to stop the law from going into effect, which the court declined to do.
In its Friday decision, the 9th Circuit conducted a line-by-line analysis of the actual warning sign. The court found that language such as "RF radiation" is actually "largely reassuring," as it tells prospective buyers that the phones they are buying meet or exceed safety regulations.
Beyond that, the court also noted that the CTIA had presented no "evidence showing that sales of cell phones in Berkeley were, or are likely to be, depressed as a result of the compelled disclosure."
A dissenting voice
One of the three judges on the 9th Circuit panel, Circuit Judge Michelle Friedland, who by coincidence was born in Berkeley, dissented from the majority.
She found that while the sentences in Berkeley's warning are "literally true" when taken one at a time, "this approach misses the forest for the trees."
She wrote that "The message of the disclosure as a whole is clear: carrying a phone 'in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra' is not safe. Yet that implication is a problem for Berkeley because it has not offered any evidence that carrying a cell phone in a pocket is in fact unsafe."
Judge Friedland concluded: "If Berkeley wants consumers to listen to its warnings, it should stay quiet until it is prepared to present evidence of a wolf."
UPDATE 5:32pm ET: Justin Cole, a spokesman with the CTIA, sent Ars a statement saying that "there is no evidence of harmful effects caused by cell phones," and it further indicated that it supported Judge Friedland's dissent.
CYRUS FARIVAR
Cyrus is the Senior Business Editor at Ars Technica, and is also a radio producer and author. His first book, The Internet of Elsewhere, was published in April 2011.EMAIL cyrus.farivar@arstechnica.com // TWITTER @cfarivar
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.