Libel for? Cases like this where they are making Apple look bad? I think that would be a stretch. Typically ISP terms of use say they can do pretty much whateve

Libel for? Cases like this where they are making Apple look bad? I think that would be a stretch. Typically ISP terms of use say they can do pretty much whatever they want (see the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act/The Whole Aaron Swartz Thing). In theory if you don't like it you can take your business elsewhere. This "take your business elsewhere" competitive environment is supposed to foster innovation blah blah. Many would say this is BS and more regulation is needed because of a duopoly. As a competitive ISP I have to disagree, but it is true that the duopoly providers spend more on advertising so most people aren't aware of alternatives. One could argue that rewriting pages to insert JS makes a derivative work or something and that gives Apple grounds to sue because of copyright, but that's tough as ISPs are supposed to be finding ways to inflict the Emergency Broadcast System on users and JS insertion is generally less obtrusive than hijacking all HTTP/HTTPS until the alert clears. My perception is that most ISPs avoid this kind of thing because we don't want to give the FCC any more excuses to mandate things like "Net Neutrality" with poorly understood policy consequences. On the other hand inflicting one of those DNS-hijacking special offers systems can increase revenue from the typical residential user that wouldn't care by a few percent so there's always a bit of business pressure.