By: Jennifer Saba Ten years have passed since The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and a band of other newspapers sued Atlanta's Department of Aviation for trying to commandeer news racks. The case, which has been bouncing around the court system, finally has a resolution.
On March 15, judges for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld restitution fees (for the Atlanta airport) and costs associated with the trial (for the newspapers involved).
Some background: In 1996, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, USA Today, and The New York Times sued the Atlanta airport when operators there tried to shake down newspapers over news racks. As the city was undergoing Olympics fever, the department cooked up a revenue plan that involved "regulating the design, placement, rental, and allocation among publishers of news racks in the airport," according to court documents.
The plan forced publishers to use news racks that advertised for other products (most notably hometown soft drink Coca-Cola), pay a monthly rental fee strictly for revenue, and submit to a specially-appointed person who would deem which publications could have access to the news racks.
The newspapers cried foul, claiming it challenged First Amendment rights. In 2000, the district court declared the plan unconstitutional. Through a series of appeals, only two of the three parts of the plan were overturned. The court found then that the airport could charge rental fees for the racks.
The district court also found the department could collect back fees in the amount of $240,072.60 from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, $18,771.60 from the New York Times, and $90,801.39 from USA Today.
The publishers weren't left high and dry, however: The court said they could collect money for attorney's fees and costs. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution was owed $678,487.80, the New York Times would receive $16,200.28, and USA Today would get $659,016.38.
The aviation department appealed again on grounds that the district court miscalculated its back fees and the publisher's fees for attorneys. The appellate court affirmed both fees on March 15.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here