Preferred Communications, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
13 F.3d 1327, 1994 WL 2799 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipal policy that limits access to a single cable television operator per franchise area is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment if the public utility infrastructure can physically accommodate more than one provider. Such a policy is not narrowly tailored to serve the government's substantial interests in minimizing disruption and visual blight.
Facts:
- The City of Los Angeles's charter and master plan for cable television divided the city into fourteen franchise areas and established a policy of awarding only one franchise per area.
- In 1982, the city awarded the single franchise for the South Central Los Angeles area to an applicant through a competitive bidding process known as a Notice of Sale (NOS).
- In 1983, Preferred Communications, Inc. was formed with the intent to provide cable television service in South Central Los Angeles.
- Preferred requested permission from utility companies to lease space on their poles to string cable wires.
- The utilities informed Preferred that it must first obtain a franchise from the City of Los Angeles.
- When Preferred requested a franchise, the city informed it that only one franchise was issued per area and the one for South Central had already been awarded.
- Preferred's subsequent informal requests for a franchise were denied, and the city did not offer another bidding process for the area.
- The City of Los Angeles later conceded in court that its public utility infrastructure could physically accommodate at least one more cable system in the South Central area.
Procedural Posture:
- Preferred Communications, Inc. sued the City of Los Angeles in U.S. District Court, alleging the city's cable franchising system violated the First Amendment.
- The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.
- Preferred, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with the City of Los Angeles as appellee.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal, holding that Preferred's complaint stated a valid First Amendment claim.
- The City of Los Angeles, as petitioner, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit on narrower grounds and remanded the case to the district court for development of a factual record.
- On remand, the district court ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment, invalidating the city's 'one operator/one area' policy, among other provisions.
- Both the City of Los Angeles and Preferred Communications, Inc. appealed the district court's summary judgment rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a city's policy of granting only one franchise for a cable television provider in a given area violate the First Amendment when the public utility infrastructure can physically accommodate more than one provider?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. A city policy that limits cable franchises to a single operator per area violates the First Amendment when there is physical capacity for more than one system. The court reasoned that providing cable service is an activity protected by the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech and press. While the city asserted substantial interests in preventing public disruption, visual blight, and safety hazards, a policy creating a monopoly is not narrowly tailored to serve those interests. The court found that such a significant restriction on speech exacts too heavy a toll on the marketplace of ideas, which benefits from competition and a diversity of viewpoints. Rejecting the city's 'natural monopoly' argument as a repackaging of its other interests, the court held that while a city may place some limits on the number of cable operators, it cannot restrict the number to only one when its infrastructure can support more.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of First Amendment scrutiny to the regulation of cable television, treating cable operators as speakers rather than mere utilities. By invalidating the 'one operator/one area' monopoly policy, the court established that municipalities cannot use interests like aesthetic blight or infrastructure management as a pretext to limit speech and competition without meeting the 'narrowly tailored' requirement of intermediate scrutiny. The ruling opened the door for increased competition in local cable markets, shifting the legal landscape to require cities to justify any numerical limits on providers with concrete evidence of necessity, rather than relying on economic theories like 'natural monopoly.' This precedent forces courts to balance a city's regulatory interests against the First Amendment harm of foreclosing competition in the video programming market.
