Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lawsuit Settlement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves settlement in CTIA lawsuit over cellphone health warnings, Avalos votes no
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Tuesday approved an ordinance settling a lawsuit brought by CTIA against the City and County of San Francisco, with a 10–1 roll‑call vote on first reading.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Tuesday approved an ordinance authorizing settlement of a lawsuit filed by CTIA (the wireless industry association) against the City and County of San Francisco, voting 10–1 to pass the measure on first reading.
The settlement, presented as an ordinance on the consent calendar as Item 8, drew a single formal dissent. Supervisor Avalos said he would "not be supporting this settlement," criticizing what he described as a Ninth Circuit legal standard that, in his view, required the City to prove “without a shadow of a doubt” that scientific consensus shows cell phones are harmful before restricting speech. "I can't support the settlement based on a ruling I believe was just way too extreme," he told colleagues before casting the lone no vote.
Other supervisors who spoke in favor of approving the settlement said the City faced a practical choice because of the governing court rulings. Supervisor Campos said the Ninth Circuit decision had become the "law of the case" and that litigating further could expose the city to a substantial legal-fee award. "If we do not approve the settlement, we're talking about having to pay $500,000 in legal fees," Campos said, adding that he would "reluctantly" support the settlement to avoid that expense.
A roll-call vote recorded 10 ayes and 1 no; the clerk announced the ordinance "passed on first read." The item was characterized on the agenda as an ordinance authorizing settlement of the CTIA lawsuit; the legislative text and supporting documents filed with the clerk describe the settlement terms but the board discussion focused on the legal tradeoffs rather than settlement dollar figures.
Why it matters: The vote resolves active litigation over local regulation and free‑speech limits in the context of mobile‑phone health warnings and reflects tensions between defending local policy preferences and limiting the City's exposure to litigation costs after adverse federal appellate rulings.
What supervisors said (selection) - Supervisor John Avalos: "I will not be supporting this settlement. I believe that the ruling that came down for the Ninth Circuit Court was a standard that was too high around free speech rights... I can't support the settlement based on a ruling I believe was just way too extreme." - Supervisor David Campos: "The ruling by the Ninth Circuit now makes what they decided the law of the case... if we do not approve the settlement, we're talking about having to pay $500,000 in legal fees... the last thing that I want is to have the General Fund give $500,000 to lawyers in this case."
What the vote does (procedural) - The ordinance was approved on first reading; as with other ordinances, additional hearings/second reading steps will follow according to the city charter and administrative code.
Provenance: This discussion appears on the meeting agenda as Item 8 and the roll call and debate are recorded on the Board transcript (Item 8, settlement of CTIA lawsuit).
