CFAC "Test Case" Litigation

CFAC has initiated a program of strategic litigation. Instead of waiting for cases to come to us, CFAC initiates “test case” lawsuits to resolve key legal issues in a way that maximizes chances for a favorable outcome, with potentially far-reaching effects.

China/WTO
CFAC has initiated a proceeding that will attempt to use international trade laws to force the government of China to end its censorship of the internet. In a submission and presentation to the Office of the US Trade Representative, CFAC has petitioned for the filing of a complaint with the World Trade Organization, of which China became a member in 2001.

Our (concededly novel) theory: that China’s censorship of the internet, the most pervasive and systematic system of censorship in the world, violates China’s obligations under treaties it signed (the GATT, covering free trade in goods, and the GATS, covering services) in order to join the WTO. We contend China must end its censorship or risk limitations on its access to US markets.

Think of this as the biggest access-to-information and free speech case in history. If the Trade Representative agrees with CFAC’s petition and files a complaint with the WTO, and if the WTO rules against China--big “ifs,” to be sure--some 1.2 billion Chinese citizens will, for the first time, have unfiltered access to information about the outside world, via the internet.

CFAC is represented by the national law firm of King & Spalding, whose Washington, DC office specializes in trade matters, including several successful cases against China. CFAC is supported in this initiative by a consortium of organizations, including the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School, the National Freedom of Information Coalition, and the China Internet Project at UC Berkeley, among others.

CFAC v. Santa Clara
CFAC recently sued Santa Clara County to force it to make public computer-readable mapping data that the county now sells to a handful of customers at eye-popping fees that can run to the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The suit, filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court, claims that the digital files are public documents, copies of which must be released under the California Public records Act and Prop 59. The county argues (among other things) that the mapping data are proprietary and copyrighted. The suit stands to be a precedent-setting case in the ever-increasing conflict between state FOI statutes and federal copyright law.

CFAC v. San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors

CFAC v. California Judiciary

CFAC v. CALPERS
CFAC successfully sued CALPERS, California’s public employee retirement system, to force it to disclose the management fees it pays to venture capital, private equity, and hedge funds in which CALPERS invests. Because of its huge size, CALPERS is the de facto standard-setter for the pension industry nationally. When CALPERS settled CFAC’s suit, agreeing to most of the fee disclosures CFAC had sought, public pension plans across the country followed suit.

Schwarzenegger's Calendars
CFAC sued Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to obtain his calendars of meetings and those of his top aides. CFAC argued that a state Supreme Court decision sustaining a denial of access to these records was implicitly overturned by Prop 59, which the governor had championed during the election. Schwarzenegger settled, agreeing to turn over nearly all the calendars.