top of page

New law should apply to all internet companies with the means to act as gatekeepers

Updated: Oct 13, 2020


LGBT Tech statement on Mozilla V. FCC Court decision

New law should apply to all internet companies with the means to act as gatekeepers

In response to today’s court decision in Mozilla V. FCC, Carlos Gutierrez, Head of Legal & Public Policy, of LGBT Tech issued the following statement:

“Everyone agrees on the need for a fair and open internet to respect diversity and give marginalized communities the same access and opportunities other groups have. But there is no justification for today’s internet service providers to be subject to rules based on a 1934 law –– written when the current technological landscape could not have even been predicted –– especially since the dominant internet companies aren’t even covered by it.

“Congress must come together in a bipartisan way to write new rules that foster a truly open and transparent internet ecosystem. This new law should apply to all internet companies with the means and incentive to act as gatekeepers - the service providers and the platform companies. Congress must reject half-measures short of a single standard that applies to all internet companies, equally, and protects consumers from unfair practices. Federal net neutrality legislation that embraces these principles is vital to ensuring that all voices are protected online.”

Our Mission:

LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender) Tech encourages the continued early adoption and use of cutting-edge, new and emerging technologies by providing information, education, and strategic outreach for LGBT communities. We are a national, nonpartisan group of LGBT organizations, academics and high technology companies whose mission is to engage with critical technology and public policy leaders for strategic discussions. LGBT Tech empowers LGBT communities and individuals, and ensures that media, telecommunications and high technology issues of specific concern to LGBT communities are addressed in public policy conversations.


59 views0 comments
bottom of page