Login
EMR & Wireless Legal Actions
Cases
IDAHO
CHD Uses Federal Disability Laws to Fight Back Against Cell Tower in Eagle, ID
Case Name: Henry Allen v. Verizon Wireless et al.
Court: U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO – SOUTHERN DIVISION
Attorney: W. Scott McCollough
Summary
On Dec. 12, 2023, Henry “Hank” Allen, whose Electromagnetic Sensitivities (EMS) amount to a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), sued Verizon Wireless and other companies involved in the operation of a cell tower near his home that triggered life-threatening cardiac episodes that began in April 2021, soon after the tower was activated.
Allen’s case is the first in a series of strategic cases funded by CHD that leverages federal disability laws, specifically the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), to petition the courts for reasonable accommodations for clients who have been disabled by RF radiation emitted by a cell tower near their homes.
EMS is a federally recognized condition — protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) — in which individuals suffer adverse health effects due to exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF). According to the lawsuit, funded by Children’s Health Defense (CHD), the high levels of radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted from the cell tower caused Allen’s atrial fibrillations and other EMS symptoms, including tinnitus, extreme fatigue, impaired memory and vision, sleep disruption and flu-like symptoms.
Press Release
Related Articles
FEDERAL
CHD Fights Proposed 5G Towers on the Jersey Shore in Belmar
Case Name: Verizon Wireless v. The County of Monmouth, et al.
Court: United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Case No. 3:23-cv-18091-MAS-DEA
Attorneys: W. Scott McCollough, Kimberly M. Mack Rosenberg
Summary
CHD is supporting residents of Belmar, NJ in a lawsuit brought by Verizon against Monmouth County (County) after the County denied Verizon’s permit applications to install nine 5G cell towers along Belmar’s historic boardwalk and beach resort. The residents have opposed the towers since Verizon first proposed their installation in 2021, citing concerns about the negative health and environmental impacts of radiofrequency (RF) radiation from cell towers.
The permit applications were denied by the County on the basis that Verizon failed to meet the County’s permitting requirements and obtain the proper environmental reviews. Belmar’s boardwalk and beachfront lies in an ecologically fragile area protected by federal and state law. In these areas, the County requires a determination from the state of NJ that the project will not unduly harm the environment before it will issue a permit. Verizon claims that the County wrongfully denied its application under federal law.
Federal law prohibits states and local counties from regulating cell tower placements based on “environmental effects” of RF radiation, as long as the emissions are within the FCC’s RF radiation guidelines. The FCC issued its latest standards in 1996, before the existence of widespread wireless infrastructure for mobile devices such as cell phones and tablets.
CHD sought to intervene as an additional party to defend its interest in reducing RF emissions, an air-polluting environmental toxin that harms children and the environment. The Jersey shore is home to several endangered species that will be impacted if Verizon is allowed to install the towers.
Key Pleadings and Events
- September 9, 2023: Verizon sues the County of Monmouth for denying its permit application to install up to 20 5G towers along the Belmar’s historic Jersey Shore boardwalk. Verizon files an amended complaint after the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection waives the required environmental review.
- September 27, 2023: CHD and Belmar residents whose homes will be affected by the proposed towers move to intervene in the lawsuit to defend the County. The County has yet to file its Answer.
- October 28, 2023: The County files its Answer, later amended, contending that Verizon’s permit application was not complete and did not meet the County’s regulations and the terms in its Right-of-Way Agreement with Verizon.
- March 7, 2024: The Court allows the residents to intervene in the lawsuit, noting the impact of proposed towers on the residents’ property values and aesthetic concerns. The Court, however, does not allow CHD to intervene but allows CHD to resubmit its intervention.
- April 22, 2024: Verizon submits a letter to the Court from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection exempting wireless permit applications from environmental reviews. This exemption eliminates an important basis for the County’s denial: that Verizon did not comply with environment review requirements.
- October 25, 2024: The Court denies CHD’s resubmitted motion to intervene in the lawsuit without explanation.
Related Media
- 5G Towers Are a Threat to the Environment and Have No Place on the Belmar Boardwalk!/li>
- CHD Intervenes on Behalf of Residents in Belmar, NJ To Fight Verizon 5G Towers on Jersey Shore
- Good Morning CHD: UK Farming, Cell Tower in NJ, and Book Banning
California
CHD Sues Los Angeles Over ‘Smart City’ Plan Documents
Case Name: Children’s Health Defense et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al.
Court: Superior Court of the State of California
Attorney: Gregory J. Glaser, Ray L. Flores II
Summary
On July 24, 2023 Children’s Health Defense (CHD) sued the City of Los Angeles (LA) for failing to respond to CHD’s request for documents related to LA’s smart city initiatives. According to the complaint, key departments in the city government violated the California Public Records Act (CPRA) by failing to promptly respond to CHD’s request to produce electronic records related to smart city planning. While most of the city’s 20 departments involved in smart city planning provided the documents CHD requested, the Information Technology Agency, Bureau of Street Lighting, LA World Airports, Bureau of Street Services, Bureau of Engineering and the LA Police Department, which may have highly sensitive information regarding the smart city rollout, did not produce the requested documents.
The SmartLA 2028 initiative, launched in 2020, promises to solve a host of “urban challenges” and create “a highly digital and connected city” by 2028. The plan includes an array of digital infrastructure, including a surveillance camera network that can capture individual face and voice signatures and be used for law enforcement and third-party marketing. It also includes technologies like Amazon Sidewalk, digital payment platforms for city services, artificial intelligence for city contracting and more. CHD lawyers argue that this data collection violates LA residents’ Fourth Amendment rights to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of property and other surveillance by the government and raises particular concerns about what the city’s partners — Big Tech companies — are doing with that data.
Related Articles
FEDERAL
CHD Pressures the FCC to Reassess its Wireless Radiation Exposure Guidelines
Case Name: In the Matter of Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies
Court/Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Attorney: W. Scott McCollough
Summary
On April 4, 2023, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) petitioned the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to comply with a court-ordered mandate that requires the agency to explain how it determined its current guidelines adequately protect humans and the environment against harmful effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure.
Related Articles
- CHD Petitions FCC to ‘Quit Stalling’ on Court Order to Address Harmful Effects of Wireless Radiation
FEDERAL
CHD Supports a Petition Against Apple Arguing that Unelected Federal Bureaucrats Cannot Override State Health and Safety Law
Case Name: Andrew Cohen et al. v. Apple, Inc;
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Lead Attorney: Mary Holland
Summary
On March 15, 2023, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and eight nonprofits filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Apple. The plaintiffs are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to decide if the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC’s) radiofrequency policy preempts state safety and health laws after a lower court held that state tort law is preempted by the FCC’s policy. The U.S. Supreme Court decided against hearing the lawsuit.
Related Articles
- U.S. Supreme Court Won’t Hear Apple Cellphone Radiation Case
- CHD Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Rule in Cellphone Radiation Case Against Apple
CALIFORNIA
CHD and California Community Groups Sue LA County Over New Wireless Antenna Ordinances
Case Name: Fiber First Los Angeles v. County of Los Angeles
Court: California Superior Court in LA County
Attorneys: Mitchell M. Tsai, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and W. Scott McCollough
Summary
On Jan. 10, the LA County Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance allowing for the fast tracked proliferation of wireless infrastructure without notice, hearing, environmental review, or the right to appeal. On Feb. 24, 2023, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) with 9 other organizations sued LA County on the basis that the ordinance violates the California Environmental Quality Act, several state statutes and does not comport with procedural or substantive due process under the California state constitution.
Related Articles
- CHD and California Community Groups File Lawsuit Challenging Los Angeles County Over New Wireless Antenna Ordinances
- CHD, California Groups Sue Los Angeles County to Stop Fast-Track Proliferation of Wireless Towers
- CHD Plans Lawsuit After Los Angeles County Approves Fast-Tracking of Wireless Towers
- ‘Democracy at Work’: L.A. County Delays Decision on Fast-Tracking Wireless Towers After Public Outcry
FEDERAL
CHD Files Comments Raising Discrimination Issues on Behalf of the EMS Disabled and Urging the FCC to Champion Fiber Solutions
Case Name: In the Matter of Implementing the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act: Prevention and Elimination of Digital Discrimination
Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Attorneys: W. Scott McCollough, Odette Wilkins
Summary
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) sought comments in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on preventing digital discrimination and ensuring diversity, equity and inclusion in access to broadband. Children’s Health Defense (CHD), under Advocates for the Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS) Disabled, filed comments raising discrimination issues on behalf of the EMS disabled and urged the FCC to champion fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) solutions rather than harmful wireless broadband.
Related Articles
- CHD Urges FCC to End Discrimination Against People Disabled by Electromagnetic Sensitivity
- CHD Urges FCC to Accommodate Millions Sickened by Wireless Radiation
- CHD Files Comments with FCC Urging Accommodation of Millions of People Sickened by Wireless Radiation
MASSACHUSETTS
CHD Fights Verizon Wireless Over Pittsfield, MA Cell Tower That Is Making Locals Sick
Case Name: Courtney Giraldi et al. v. Linda Tyer as Mayor Pittsfield et al.
Court: Berkshire County Superior Court
Attorneys: Paul Revere, III and W. Scott McCollough
Summary
Lawyers working on behalf of Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed a motion to intervene in the legal battle between the Pittsfield, Massachusetts Board of Health (Board) and Verizon over the telecom giant’s refusal to remove or relocate a cell tower that began making residents sick soon after it became operational in 2020. After conducting an exhaustive analysis, the Board issued and later rescinded a cease-and-desist order against Verizon; CHD-supported lawyers are seeking to reinstate the order.
Related Articles
- Lawsuit Over Verizon Cell Tower Can Proceed, Judge Rules
- Locked in Battle With Verizon Over Cell Tower, Residents of Massachusetts Town Await Judge’s Decision
- Pittsfield Massachusetts Residents File Suit Over Verizon Cell Tower Injuries
- Massachusetts Town Gives Up Fight Against Verizon Cell Tower That Residents Allege Caused Illness
- CHD Supports Pittsfield, Mass. Residents Seeking to Intervene in Cell Tower Lawsuit Against Verizon
- Massachusetts Town Threatens Verizon With Cease-and-Desist Order Over Cell Tower
PENNSYLVANIA
CHD Supports the Fight Against Pennsylvania’s Discriminatory Smart Meter Mandate
Case Name: Povacz v. Pa. PUC
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Middle District
Attorneys: W. Scott McCollough, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Andrea L. Shaw
Summary
CHD and 80 safe-technology and environmental organizations filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania challenging a 2008 Act mandating smart meters and denying disability accommodations to the Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS) Disabled. The Court held that the act mandated smart meters and did not provide customers the ability to opt out of their installation. This unfavorable judgment may have devastating implications for smart meter opt-out programs around the country and disability accommodation rights for those harmed by smart meters and other wireless devices, particularly the EMS Disabled.
Related Articles
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Hear Arguments Dec. 7 in Smart Meter Mandate Case
- 80 Groups, 57 Doctors, 19 Scientists Join CHD in Urging Pennsylvania to Reject ‘Smart Meters’ Mandate
LOUISIANA
CHD Fights Cell Phone Industry For Causing Brain Cancer
Case Name: Walker v. Motorola Mobility, LLC
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
Attorneys: Hunter W. Lundy, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Summary
This case concerns (now deceased) Frank Walker who was diagnosed with brain cancer as a direct result of RF radiation exposure from ordinary and intended cell phone use. His family filed a lawsuit in District Court against the cell phone industry organizations responsible for his severe and extensive health issues and death. In an order published on April 21, 2023, the judge dismissed most of the claims brought by Walker’s family, stating they were based on “general attacks on the inadequacy of the FCC’s certifications and cell phone manufacturers’ alleged manipulations of testing results”. According to the order, the plaintiffs must “prove that one or more of the phones at issue exceeded the SAR Standard under FCC testing protocols due to some defect caused by a defendant” to prevail on the remaining claims.
Related Articles
- After 21-Year Delay, Judge Hears Evidence in Lawsuit Alleging Cellphones Caused Plaintiffs’ Brain Cancer
- Public ‘Not Being Told the Truth’ About Cellphone Radiation, Attorney Tells RFK Jr.
- RFK Jr. and Attorney Hunter Lundy Discuss Their Lawsuit Alleging Cell Phones Cause Brain Cancer
- WEBINAR: Cell Phone Brain Tumor Litigation — Legislation, Barriers and Opportunities
- Family Sues Telecom Giants, Alleging They Hid Risks of Cell Phone Radiation That Caused Man’s Brain Cancer
WASHINGTON D.C.
CHD Challenges ‘Draconian’ OTARD Rule Which Allows 5G Antennas on Homes
Case Name: Children’s Health Defense v. Federal Communications Commission
Court: D.C. Court of Appeals
Attorneys: Robert F. Kennedy Jr., W. Scott McCullough
Summary
On Feb. 26, 2021, the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed a case (called a Petition for Review) against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) challenging the amendment to the Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule (OTARD). The amended rule was adopted by the FCC on Jan. 7, 2021 and went into effect on March 29, 2021.
Related Articles
- 68 Groups Representing More Than 1 Million People File Amicus Brief in Support of CHD’s Lawsuit Against FCC
- In ‘Disheartening’ Ruling, Court Paves Way for Deployment of 5G Wireless Antennas on Private Property
- CHD Sues FCC to Stop New Rule That Could Lead to ‘Wireless Wild West’
WASHINGTON D.C.
CHD Successfully Challenges the FCC’s Outdated Wireless Radiation Exposure Guidelines
Case Name: Children’s Health Defense, et al. v. Federal Communications Commission
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Attorneys: W. Scott McCollough, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Summary
We won! On Aug. 13, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of Children’s Health Defense (CHD) in a landmark case against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that challenged the FCC’s decision not to review its 1996 RF exposure guidelines. The court held that the FCC failed to consider the non-cancer evidence of adverse health effects related to wireless technology, the environmental impacts of RF radiation and the “impact of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation, the ubiquity of wireless devices and other technological developments that have occurred since the Commission last updated its guidelines.”
Related Articles
- Court’s Decision
- Court’s Judgment
- Petition for Review
- Government Failed to Consider Evidence of Harm, Including to Children, From 5G and Wireless Radiation, Court Rules
- ‘Historic Win’: CHD Wins Case Against FCC on Safety Guidelines for 5G and Wireless
- Judge to FCC: ‘I am Inclined to Rule Against You’
- 11,000 Pages Filed in Landmark 5G Case Against the FCC, Hearing Set for Jan. 25
- Lawsuits Expose FCC’s Failure to Weigh Evidence of Health Impact of Wireless Technology
Sign up for free news and updates from Children’s Health Defense. CHD focuses on legal strategies to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those injured. We can't do it without your support.