{"id":12049,"date":"2017-10-12T20:44:10","date_gmt":"2017-10-13T03:44:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/?p=12049"},"modified":"2017-10-12T20:44:10","modified_gmt":"2017-10-13T03:44:10","slug":"appeals-court-wont-reconsider-challenge-to-berkeley-cellphone-warnings-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/?p=12049","title":{"rendered":"Appeals Court Won\u2019t Reconsider Challenge To Berkeley Cellphone Warnings Law"},"content":{"rendered":"

October 11, 2017 11:05 AM<\/span><\/p>\n

Filed Under: <\/b>Appeals Court<\/b><\/span><\/a>, <\/b>Berkeley<\/b><\/span><\/a>, <\/b>Cellphone<\/b><\/span><\/a>, <\/b>Disputed<\/b><\/span><\/a>, <\/b>Law<\/b><\/span><\/a>, <\/b>Radiation<\/b><\/span><\/a>, <\/b>Warning<\/span><\/a><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS SF) \u2014 A federal appeals court in San Francisco Wednesday turned down an industry group\u2019s bid for reconsideration of the group\u2019s challenge to a Berkeley cellphone warning law<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to grant a rare rehearing by an 11-judge panel on an appeal by a group known as CTIA-The Wireless Association.<\/span><\/p>\n

In April, a three-judge panel of the appeals court by a 2-1 vote declined to block the law<\/strong>. The court majority said the warning was \u201cpurely factual\u201d and \u201creasonably related to the health and safety of consumers.\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The city law, which took effect last year, requires retailers to warn cellphone customers<\/strong> that wearing their device next to the body could result in exposure to radiofrequency radiation exceeding federal guidelines.<\/span><\/p>\n

The message adds, \u201cRefer to the instructions in your phone or user manual for information about how to use your phone safely.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Cellphone retailers must either post the message or give a paper copy to people who buy or lease phones.<\/span><\/p>\n

After losing before the three-judge panel, the cellphone association appealed for a rehearing by an expanded panel, and was turned down Wednesday.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Washington, D.C.- based association contends there is no evidence that cellphones are harmful. It claims the law violates the free speech rights of retailers by forcing them to provide a message they don\u2019t agree with.<\/span><\/p>\n

The appeal for reconsideration was submitted to the 29 active judges on the circuit court. The court never reveals the vote on such appeals, but its order today indicated that two judges favored rehearing the case.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

http:\/\/sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com\/2017\/10\/11\/appeals-court-wont-reconsider-challenge-to-berkeley-cellphone-warnings-law\/<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

October 11, 2017 11:05 AM Filed Under: Appeals Court, Berkeley, Cellphone, Disputed, Law, Radiation, Warning SAN FRANCISCO (CBS SF) \u2014 A federal appeals court in San Francisco Wednesday turned down an industry group\u2019s bid for reconsideration of the group\u2019s challenge to a Berkeley cellphone warning law. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[291,6,289],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12049","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-california-usa-2","category-cellular","category-usa-2"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12049","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12049"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12049\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12050,"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12049\/revisions\/12050"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12049"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12049"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12049"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}