After a series of court defeats, some of the nation’s largest internet service providers (ISPs) are trying a new strategy to block state laws aimed at making internet access more affordable for low-income families. Their latest move? Asking the Department of Justice under the Trump administration to take legal action against states like New York, which require ISPs to offer low-cost broadband plans.
The Battle Over Affordable Internet
Affordable internet has become a hot topic as millions of Americans struggle to pay for broadband in an increasingly digital world. Several states have passed laws requiring ISPs to offer budget-friendly internet plans, usually priced around $15 to $20 per month, for qualifying low-income households.
These plans promise basic internet speeds, enough to connect families, students, and job seekers to essential online services. But the broadband industry sees these mandates as a threat to their business model, labeling them “rate regulation” that should not be allowed at the state level.
The Legal Journey So Far
This fight has been brewing for years. New York’s law, for example, requires ISPs with over 20,000 customers to provide plans offering at least 25 Mbps download speeds for $15 a month or faster plans at $20 monthly.
ISPs initially challenged this law in federal court. The Second Circuit Court rejected their case, and the Supreme Court declined to hear their appeal twice, most recently in February 2025. Despite these losses, the industry refuses to back down.
Now, instead of continuing in courts, the major broadband lobby groups — CTIA, NCTA, and USTelecom — have formally asked the Justice Department to sue states directly. They want the federal government to block these laws before more states pass similar rules.
What the ISPs Are Asking For
In a recent filing, the ISPs urged the Department of Justice’s Anticompetitive Regulations Task Force to consider “affirmative preemption litigation.” In plain terms, they want the DOJ to actively fight these state laws, possibly teaming up with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to find ways to overturn or prevent affordability mandates.
The industry argues that federal law, specifically the Telecommunications Act of 1996, intended to keep internet markets free from state interference. They claim that state regulations forcing affordable plans disrupt this vision and threaten competition.
But Courts Have Already Spoken
The courts have largely rejected these claims. When the FCC under former Chairman Ajit Pai rolled back federal broadband regulations, including net neutrality, it also gave up much of its authority to regulate rates.
As the Second Circuit explained, a federal agency cannot prevent states from regulating broadband if the agency itself does not have regulatory power in that area. This means states are free to enact their own laws to make internet access more affordable.
States Are Moving Fast
New York’s law is just one example. California is considering a bill requiring ISPs to offer $15 plans with speeds of 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload — significantly faster than New York’s requirement.
Other states including Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Vermont, and West Virginia are also pushing for similar affordability measures.
This growing momentum alarms the broadband industry, which fears a patchwork of state regulations that could limit profits and increase operational complexity.
The Bigger Picture: Net Neutrality and Utility Classification
Beyond price mandates, many states are also revisiting net neutrality rules — regulations that require ISPs to treat all internet traffic equally. Some states have proposed classifying ISPs as public utilities, subjecting them to tighter oversight and stricter consumer protections.
The broadband lobby views these moves as even greater threats. They argue such regulation stifles innovation and investment, though critics say it’s necessary to ensure fair access and affordable prices for all.
The DOJ’s Role Under Trump
The current push comes as part of a broader effort by the Trump-era Department of Justice to challenge what it sees as “anticompetitive” state regulations.
During the Biden administration, the DOJ largely stayed out of these battles, even as states enacted new broadband laws. The industry filing complains that the Biden DOJ “dropped out” and calls on the Trump DOJ to step back in, either by filing lawsuits or supporting industry challenges through legal briefs.
Why the Industry Wants Federal Preemption
The industry’s ideal outcome is clear: national preemption of state broadband regulations. If the federal government declares that states cannot impose affordability or net neutrality rules, ISPs would only have to comply with federal standards — which have generally favored deregulation.
Such a victory would end years of costly legal fights in multiple states and provide ISPs with more regulatory certainty.
What’s Next Legally?
This ongoing dispute raises key legal questions:
- Can states regulate broadband pricing when federal agencies have stepped back?
- Does the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution give ISPs a path to overturn state mandates?
- Can an industry that has successfully pushed for deregulation still claim protection from state laws under federal preemption?
So far, courts have said no to preemption in this context. But with a Trump DOJ eager to roll back state authority, the industry is betting the tide could shift.
What This Means for Consumers
At stake is the future of affordable internet access in America. Millions rely on low-cost broadband to stay connected to work, education, healthcare, and government services.
State laws mandating affordable plans have the potential to close the digital divide — a gap that became painfully clear during the pandemic when remote work and learning became the norm.
If federal courts or the DOJ succeed in blocking these laws, affordable internet plans could become scarcer and more expensive, disproportionately impacting low-income families.
The Broader Debate Over Broadband Access
The battle over broadband affordability reflects a larger national debate about internet access as a basic utility.
Is broadband a right that governments must guarantee? Or is it a service best left to market forces and private companies?
This debate has divided lawmakers, regulators, and advocacy groups for years. But as internet access becomes essential for full participation in modern life, many argue that affordable broadband must be guaranteed.
Conclusion: The Fight Is Far From Over
The broadband industry’s renewed push through the Trump DOJ signals that this fight will continue for years to come.
States are moving quickly to implement affordability and net neutrality rules. The federal government’s stance, especially if it shifts again, could determine the shape of internet access for millions of Americans.
For now, consumers and advocates should watch closely. The outcome of these legal battles will influence whether affordable internet remains within reach for those who need it most or becomes yet another barrier in an increasingly digital society.
