UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________

No. 21-1791 ______________

ALTICE USA, INC.

v.

NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES; JOSEPH FIORDALISO, in his official capacity as President of the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities; COMMISSIONER MARY-ANNA HOLDEN; DIANE SOLOMON; UPENDRA J. CHIVUKULA; BOB M. GORDON, Appellants ______________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. No. 3-19-cv-21371) U.S. District Judge: Honorable Brian R. Martinotti ______________

Argued January 27, 2022 ______________

Before: HARDIMAN, SHWARTZ, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. (Filed: February 24, 2022) ______________ Alec Schierenbeck [ARGUED] Meliha Arnautovic Office of Attorney General of New Jersey Division of Law 7th Fl, West Wing 25 Market Street Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex Trenton, NJ 08625

Counsel for Appellants Matthew Hellman [ARGUED] Howard J. Symons Jenner & Block 1099 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001 Thomas N. Gamarello Jeffrey T. LaRosa Schenck Price Smith & King 220 Park Avenue P.O. Box 991 Florham Park, NJ 07932

Counsel for Appellee

2 ______________

OPINION OF THE COURT ______________ SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge.

The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (“BPU”) ordered Altice USA, Inc. (“Altice”), a cable service provider, to prorate its bills for the month in which a cable customer cancels his service, as required by New Jersey law (“Proration Requirement”). Altice asserts that the Proration Requirement is preempted by the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (“Cable Act”). The District Court agreed and granted Altice’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), was not warranted and that the Proration Requirement was preempted. Because the Younger ruling was incorrect, we will vacate and remand.

I

A

Under N.J.A.C. § 14:18-16.7, a cable television company may seek relief from, among other things, N.J.A.C. § 14:18-3.8(c)’s requirement that, “[u]nless otherwise provided for . . . , initial and final bills . . . be prorated as of the date of the initial establishment and final termination of service.” See also N.J.A.C. § 14:18-3.8(a). Relief from the Proration Requirement may be granted “provided that the cable television company provides a sample bill to be utilized in lieu of compliance with [the] section.” N.J.A.C. § 14:18-

3 16.7(a)(1).

In 2011, Cablevision petitioned the BPU for relief from N.J.A.C. § 14:18-3.8 and provided sample bills. The BPU accepted Cablevision’s assertion that “its sample bill demonstrate[d] that the company [wa]s billing in a proper manner and show[ed] how [it] will prorate its bills pursuant to the requirements of this section,” J.A. 123, and granted its request for relief.

In 2016, Altice received the BPU’s approval to acquire Cablevision. As part of the approval, Altice agreed to

abide by applicable customer service standards, performance standards, and service metrics as delineated under N.J.A.C. Title 14, including but not limited to Chapters 3, 10 and 18, and N.J.S.A. 48:5A, including, but not limited to, requirements related to billing practices and termination. J.A. 144.

Despite this agreement, and unlike Cablevision, Altice chose not to