ftc

trump-ftc-wants-apple-news-to-promote-more-fox-news-and-breitbart-stories

Trump FTC wants Apple News to promote more Fox News and Breitbart stories

andrew ferguson, Apple, Apple News, ftc, Policy, Trump / /

Tim Apple gets a stern letter

FTC claims Apple News suppresses conservatives, cites study by pro-Trump group.

Credit: Getty Images | Anadolu

Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson has accused Apple of violating US law by suppressing conservative-leaning news outlets on Apple News.

Ferguson pointed to research by a pro-Trump group that accused Apple News of suppressing articles by Fox News, the New York Post, Daily Mail, Breitbart, and The Gateway Pundit. The FTC chair claims that Apple News might be violating promises made to consumers in its terms of service, but his letter doesn’t cite any specific provisions from the Apple terms that might have been violated.

“Recently, there have been reports that Apple News has systematically promoted news articles from left-wing news outlets and suppressed news articles from more conservative publications,” Ferguson wrote in the letter to Apple CEO Tim Cook yesterday. He said the “reports raise serious questions about whether Apple News is acting in accordance with its terms of service and its representations to consumers, as well as the reasonable consumer expectations of the tens of millions of Americans who use Apple News.”

Craig Aaron, president and co-CEO of media advocacy group Free Press, told Ars that Ferguson’s “letter would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous. This is what government censorship looks like. Ferguson’s claims of course aren’t based on any facts or evidence, just innuendo from discredited partisan operatives who think The Wall Street Journal is too woke. Just imagine if another administration had told Drudge or Fox News what stories they should feature on their apps or home pages.”

Ferguson told Cook, “As an American citizen, I abhor and condemn any attempt to censor content for ideological reasons. Such efforts, whether taken to appease overzealous activists, at the behest of foreign governments, or simply to advance the political views of Silicon Valley elites, stifle the free exchange of ideas, manipulate the public discourse, and are inconsistent with American values.”

We contacted Apple about Ferguson’s letter and will update this article if it provides a response. Aaron said that “Apple must respond and condemn this government intrusion. Capitulating to or appeasing government censors will never work. If these companies are as committed to free expression as they claim to be, it’s time to take a stand.”

“FTC is not the speech police”

Ferguson’s letter stated that the “FTC is not the speech police; we do not have authority to require Apple or any other firm to take affirmative positions on any political issue, nor to curate news offerings consistent with one ideology or another.” But he pointed out that the FTC has power to ensure that companies do not violate promises made to consumers.

“Congress has mandated that we protect consumers from material misrepresentations and omissions, including when the product or service offered to consumers is a speech-related product,” he wrote.

Ferguson suggested that Apple News promoting liberal publications might violate the service’s terms of use, but the Apple News terms themselves mostly impose obligations on users and include nothing about avoiding partisan bias in news selection. The terms say Apple News content is presented “as-is,” and that the only recourse for someone who doesn’t like the service is to stop using it.

Whether Ferguson or anyone at the FTC carefully reviewed the Apple News terms is not clear from the letter; Ferguson says that Apple must conduct such a review. Ferguson seems to acknowledge that there would be no legal violation if Apple hasn’t made any promises to consumers about the political leanings of news sources highlighted by Apple news. Ferguson wrote:

As the Chairman of the FTC, I write to inform you of your obligations under the FTC Act. Any act or practice by Apple News to suppress or promote news articles based on the perceived ideological or political viewpoint of the article or publication, if inconsistent with Apple’s terms of service or the reasonable expectations of consumers, may violate the FTC Act. I encourage you to conduct a comprehensive review of Apple’s terms of service and ensure that Apple News’ curation of articles is consistent with those terms and representations made to consumers and, if it is not, to take corrective action swiftly.

Ferguson’s letter links to the Apple News terms. He notes that they “address a wide range of topics” related to “the content of the site, a consumer’s use of the site, prohibited conduct, privacy and data security, and dispute resolution.” But he didn’t go into any more detail.

Apple terms: “Your sole remedy…. is to stop using the site”

What do the Apple News terms say? Along with prohibiting scraping, hacking, and other conduct, the terms make it clear that users shouldn’t expect to see any particular types of content on the site or app.

“Apple does not promise that the site or any content, service or feature of the site will be error-free or uninterrupted, or that any defects will be corrected, or that your use of the site will provide specific results,” the terms say. “The site and its content are delivered on an ‘as-is’ and ‘as-available’ basis… your sole remedy against Apple for dissatisfaction with the site or any content is to stop using the site or any such content. This limitation of relief is a part of the bargain between the parties.”

The terms say that Apple News may display third-party materials and links to third-party websites, and that users must “acknowledge and agree that Apple is not responsible for examining or evaluating the content, accuracy, completeness, timeliness, validity, copyright compliance, legality, decency, quality, or any other aspect of such Third Party Materials or web sites. Apple, its officers, affiliates, and subsidiaries do not warrant or endorse and do not assume and will not have any liability or responsibility to you or any other person for any Third Party Materials or Linked Sites, or for any other materials, products, or services of third parties. Third Party Materials and links to other web sites are provided solely as a convenience to you.”

Despite Apple’s terms making no promises about the quality of third-party content in Apple News, both Ferguson and Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr seem to think the FTC allegations against Apple are convincing. “Today I sent a letter to Tim Cook expressing my concerns about allegations that Apple News has, unbeknownst to its users, systematically promoted news articles from left-wing news outlets and suppressed content from conservative publications,” Ferguson wrote in an X post yesterday.

Carr, who has repeatedly amplified Trump’s complaints about media and threatened to revoke broadcast station licenses, wrote yesterday that “FTC Chairman Ferguson is exactly right. 🎯 Apple has no right to suppress conservative viewpoints in violation of the FTC Act.”

FTC cites bias claim from pro-Trump group

While Ferguson’s letter lacks a specific claim that Apple violated its own terms of service, there’s still Ferguson’s vague warning that bias in news aggregation may violate the FTC Act if it “is contrary to consumers’ reasonable expectations such that failure to disclose the ideological favoritism is a material omission.”

He also wrote that tech companies “suppress[ing] or promot[ing] news articles in their news aggregators or feeds based on the perceived ideological or political viewpoint of the article or publication may violate the FTC Act… when those practices cause substantial injury that is neither reasonably avoidable nor outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition.”

Ferguson said that “multiple studies have found that in recent months Apple News has chosen not to feature a single article from an American conservative-leaning news source, while simultaneously promoting hundreds of articles from liberal publications.” Both studies referred to in the letter come from the Media Research Center founded by L. Brent Bozell III, who is now US ambassador to South Africa following a nomination by President Trump.

The Media Research Center argues that “President Donald Trump and the United States appear to stand alone in the fight to preserve free expression.” Under Trump, the group says, “much is being done to correct course and loosen the Biden-era censorship cartel’s stranglehold on American liberty.”

The Media Research Center says its mission “is to document and combat the falsehoods and censorship of the news media, entertainment media and Big Tech in order to defend and preserve America’s founding principles and Judeo-Christian values.” The group’s most recent report on Apple News faults the service for highlighting articles by “leftist outlets,” which it identifies as The Washington Post, Associated Press, NBC News, The Guardian, The New York Times, Apple itself, NPR, Politico, USA Today, and Bloomberg News.

Group says Apple News needs more Breitbart

The group said its study focused on the top 20 articles in the Apple News morning edition on each day of January. It said that all of the 620 highlighted articles were from “left-leaning and other outlets.” The Media Research Center counted The Wall Street Journal as a “center outlet,” lumping it into the same broad category it applied to outlets it describes as leftist.

“Rather than promoting news stories from notable right-leaning media sources such as Fox News, the New York Post, Daily Mail, Breitbart or The Gateway Pundit, Apple News has relentlessly pushed articles from elitist media outlets that amplify the left’s narrative, like: The Washington Post, The Associated Press and NBC News as well as center outlets like The Wall Street Journal and Reuters,” the group said. The Gateway Pundit is known for publishing election-related misinformation and has been beset by defamation lawsuits.

Ferguson’s FTC has also investigated NewsGuard, a company that rates news sources on reliability. NewsGuard sued the FTC last week in an attempt to stop the probe, which it said “was instigated in large part by Newsmax.” NewsGuard said in its lawsuit that the court should also invalidate a merger condition imposed on the Omnicom/Interpublic Group deal that effectively “prohibits Omnicom and its ad agencies and affiliates from using NewsGuard’s services.”

“The FTC has pursued its campaign because Chairman Ferguson does not like NewsGuard’s news ratings, which he views as biased against conservative publications,” the NewsGuard lawsuit said. “That is wrong—NewsGuard’s ratings and journalism about news sources are non-partisan and based on fully disclosed journalistic criteria. But the FTC’s actions are plainly unconstitutional even if that were not the case. The First Amendment does not allow the government to pick and choose speech based on what it likes or dislikes.”

Photo of Jon Brodkin

Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry.

Trump FTC wants Apple News to promote more Fox News and Breitbart stories Read More »

six-months-later,-trump-mobile-still-hasn’t-delivered-preordered-phones

Six months later, Trump Mobile still hasn’t delivered preordered phones

elizabeth warren, ftc, Policy, trump mobile / /

“Trump Mobile began accepting $100 deposits from consumers as early as August 2025 but has failed to deliver any T1 phones to consumers… Instead, Trump Mobile has consistently pushed back its delivery date, originally promising August 2025 and subsequently postponing to November and then the beginning of December. As of January 2026, no phone has been delivered,” the letter said.

Trump Mobile customer service reps “provided contradictory and irrelevant explanations for delays, including blaming a government shutdown that had no apparent connection to the product’s manufacturing or delivery,” the letter continued. With the Trump phone still missing in action, “Trump Mobile has been selling refurbished iPhones, which are largely manufactured in China, and Samsung devices, which are manufactured by a Korean company, while claiming these products are ‘brought to life right here in the USA.’”

Trump phone coming in Q1, allegedly

After Trump Mobile failed to deliver the phone in 2025, USA Today asked for a new projected delivery date. “A Trump Mobile customer service representative told USA Today that the phone is to be released ‘the first quarter of this year’ and that it is completing the final stages of regulatory testing for the cellular device,” USA Today reported on Tuesday.

The Warren letter said Trump Mobile’s made-in-the-USA claims “are potentially misleading characterizations for devices that are manufactured overseas,” and that failing to meet promised delivery dates after collecting $100 deposits may be “a deceptive or unfair business practice.” The letter urged Ferguson to have the FTC carry out “its statutory obligation to enforce consumer protection laws.”

The letter pointed out that the FTC has previously acted against companies that acted similarly to Trump Mobile. “The FTC is responsible for ensuring that companies like Trump Mobile do not make false or misleading claims when marketing products… The FTC has previously taken action against companies for false ‘Made in the USA’ claims, misleading representations about product features and origins, bait-and-switch tactics involving deposits for products never delivered, and failure to honor promised delivery dates,” the letter said.

The letter asked Ferguson to state whether the FTC has opened an investigation into Trump Mobile and, if not, to “explain the legal and factual basis for declining to investigate these apparent violations.”

Six months later, Trump Mobile still hasn’t delivered preordered phones Read More »

instacart-agrees-to-refund-subscribers-$60-million-in-ftc-settlement

Instacart agrees to refund subscribers $60 million in FTC settlement

Consumer protection, federal trade commission, ftc, grocery delivery, instacart, Policy / /

In a blog post, Instacart emphasized that it has admitted no wrongdoing and elected to settle to “move forward.”

The app defended its “$0 delivery fees” claim by reminding customers that “we clearly and consistently distinguish delivery fees from service fees, which are always shown as a separate, itemized line.” Instacart also noted that subscribers receiving refunds were sent email reminders before renewals were charged. Further, any subscriber shocked by the charges had five days to request an automatic full refund if services were never used, the company said.

Boasting that Instacart has helped users save more than $3 billion “through deals, discounts, and loyalty programs,” the company estimated that users weren’t harmed by its practices and, on average, save $5 for each order.

“We flatly deny any allegations of wrongdoing by the agency, and we believe the foundation of the FTC’s inquiry was fundamentally flawed,” the company said.

The FTC, however, alleged that “hundreds of thousands of consumers have been charged membership fees without receiving benefits from the membership or getting refunds.”

Defending Instacart users from an alleged “variety of deceptive tactics,” the FTC will now work with Instacart to retrieve customer information and issue refunds, a jointly filed order detailing the settlement said.

In its blog, Instacart repeatedly claimed to be transparent and clear with customers about charges. But in a sign that the settlement is already forcing changes, a claim that the company provides “one of the most transparent, customer-friendly subscription programs available, unlocking $0 delivery fees on grocery orders of $10 or more” was starred. At the bottom of the blog, the company clarified that “service and other fees apply.”

Instacart agrees to refund subscribers $60 million in FTC settlement Read More »

supreme-court-appears-likely-to-approve-trump’s-firing-of-ftc-democrat

Supreme Court appears likely to approve Trump’s firing of FTC Democrat

ftc, Policy, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, Supreme Court, Trump / /

Justice Samuel Alito suggested that a ruling for Slaughter could open the way for Congress to convert various executive branch agencies into “multi-member commissions with members protected from plenary presidential removal authority.”

“I could go down the list… How about Veterans Affairs? How about Interior? Labor? EPA? Commerce? Education? What am I missing?” Alito said.

“Agriculture,” Justice Neil Gorsuch responded. The official transcript notes that Gorsuch’s response was met with laughter.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed skepticism about the power of independent agencies, saying, “I think broad delegations to unaccountable independent agencies raise enormous constitutional and real-world problems for individual liberty.” He said the court’s approach with “the major questions doctrine over the last several years” has been to “make sure that we are not just being casual about assuming that Congress has delegated major questions of political or economic significance to independent agencies, or to any agencies for that matter.”

Kagan: President would have “uncontrolled, unchecked power”

Unlike the unanimous Humphrey’s Executor, the Slaughter case appears headed for a split ruling between the court’s conservative and liberal justices. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said there are “dangers and real-world consequences” of the Trump administration’s position.

“My understanding was that independent agencies exist because Congress has decided that some issues, some matters, some areas should be handled in this way by nonpartisan experts, that Congress is saying that expertise matters with respect to aspects of the economy and transportation and the various independent agencies that we have,” Jackson said. “So having a president come in and fire all the scientists and the doctors and the economists and the Ph.D.s and replacing them with loyalists and people who don’t know anything is actually not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States. This is what I think Congress’s policy decision is when it says that these certain agencies we’re not going to make directly accountable to the president.”

Justice Elena Kagan said there has historically been a “bargain” in which “Congress has given these agencies a lot of work to do that is not traditionally executive work… and they’ve given all of that power to these agencies largely with it in mind that the agencies are not under the control of a single person, of the president, but that, indeed, Congress has a great deal of influence over them too. And if you take away a half of this bargain, you end up with just massive, uncontrolled, unchecked power in the hands of the president.”

Supreme Court appears likely to approve Trump’s firing of FTC Democrat Read More »

amazon-agrees-to-make-canceling-prime-easy,-will-refund-customers-$1.5b

Amazon agrees to make canceling Prime easy, will refund customers $1.5B

Amazon, Amazon Prime, consumer harms, e-commerce, federal trade commission, ftc, Policy / /

Amazon must also post prominent disclosures describing how auto-renewals and cancellations work, as well as offer “an easy way for consumers to cancel Prime, using the same method that consumers used to sign up.”

“The process cannot be difficult, costly, or time-consuming,” the FTC said.

Moving forward, Amazon must also pay for “an independent, third-party supervisor to monitor Amazon’s compliance” with the distribution of customer refunds.

Celebrating the victory after a 3–0 vote approving the settlement, FTC chairman Andrew Ferguson described Amazon’s $2.5 billion payout as a “record-breaking, monumental win for the millions of Americans who are tired of deceptive subscriptions that feel impossible to cancel.”

The press release cited internal documents in which Amazon executives and employees “knowingly discussed” how hard it was to cancel Prime, exchanging messages admitting that “subscription driving is a bit of a shady world” and suggesting that forcing unwanted subscriptions was “an unspoken cancer.”

“The evidence showed that Amazon used sophisticated subscription traps designed to manipulate consumers into enrolling in Prime and then made it exceedingly hard for consumers to end their subscription,” Ferguson said. “Today, we are putting billions of dollars back into Americans’ pockets and making sure Amazon never does this again.”

Amazon did not immediately respond to Ars’ request to comment.

Amazon agrees to make canceling Prime easy, will refund customers $1.5B Read More »

supreme-court-lets-trump-fire-ftc-democrat-despite-90-year-old-precedent

Supreme Court lets Trump fire FTC Democrat despite 90-year-old precedent

ftc, Policy, president trump, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, White House / /

The Supreme Court yesterday allowed President Trump to fire a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission and will decide whether to overturn a 90-year-old precedent that says the president cannot fire an FTC commissioner without cause.

Trump fired Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter in March with a notice that said her “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with my administration’s priorities.” Trump did so despite the 1935 ruling in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, in which the Supreme Court unanimously held that the president can only remove FTC commissioners for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.

An appeals court reinstated Slaughter three weeks ago, with judges finding that “the government has no likelihood of success on appeal given controlling and directly on point Supreme Court precedent.” But on September 8, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts granted a stay that temporarily blocked the lower-court ruling against Trump.

The Supreme Court majority followed that up yesterday by granting a longer-term stay that will keep Slaughter off the FTC at least until the court rules on the merits of the case. The case will be scheduled for arguments in the December 2025 session.

“The parties are directed to brief and argue the following questions: (1) Whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U. S. 602 (1935), should be overruled. (2) Whether a federal court may prevent a person’s removal from public office, either through relief at equity or at law,” the Supreme Court said.

Kagan: Trump given control of independent agencies

Justice Elena Kagan wrote a dissent that was joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor. Kagan wrote that the majority is continuing to use the court’s emergency docket “to permit what our own precedent bars,” “transfer government authority from Congress to the President,” and thus “reshape the Nation’s separation of powers.”

Supreme Court lets Trump fire FTC Democrat despite 90-year-old precedent Read More »

supreme-court-chief-justice-lets-trump-fire-ftc-democrat,-at-least-for-now

Supreme Court Chief Justice lets Trump fire FTC Democrat, at least for now

ftc, Policy, Trump / /

1935 Supreme Court is key precedent

The key precedent in the case is Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 1935 ruling in which the Supreme Court unanimously held that the president can only remove FTC commissioners for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. Trump’s termination notices to Slaughter and Bedoya said they were being fired simply because their presence on the commission “is inconsistent with my Administration’s priorities.”

The Trump administration argues that Humphrey’s Executor shouldn’t apply to the current version of the FTC because it exercises significant executive power. But the appeals court, in a 2-1 ruling, said “the present-day Commission exercises the same powers that the Court understood it to have in 1935 when Humphrey’s Executor was decided.”

“The government has no likelihood of success on appeal given controlling and directly on point Supreme Court precedent,” the panel majority said.

But while the government was found to have no likelihood of success in the DC Circuit appeals court, its chances are presumably much better in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court previously stayed District Court decisions in cases involving Trump’s removal of Democrats from the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

In a 2020 decision involving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the court said in a footnote that its 1935 “conclusion that the FTC did not exercise executive power has not withstood the test of time.” If the Supreme Court ultimately rules in favor of Trump, it could throw out the Humphrey’s Executor ruling or clarify it in a way that makes it inapplicable to the FTC.

But Humphrey’s Executor is still a binding precedent, Slaughter’s opposition to the administrative stay said. “This Court should not grant an administrative stay where the court below simply ‘follow[ed] the case which directly controls,’ as it was required to do,” the Slaughter filing said.

Supreme Court Chief Justice lets Trump fire FTC Democrat, at least for now Read More »

ftc-claims-gmail-filtering-republican-emails-threatens-“american-freedoms”

FTC claims Gmail filtering Republican emails threatens “American freedoms”

ftc, Gmail, Google, Policy / /

Ferguson said that “similar concerns have resulted in ongoing litigation against Google in other settings” but did not mention that a judge rejected the Republican claims.

“Hearing from candidates and receiving information and messages from political parties is key to exercising fundamental American freedoms and our First Amendment rights,” Ferguson’s letter said. “Moreover, consumers expect that they will have the opportunity to hear from their own chosen candidates or political party. A consumer’s right to hear from candidates or parties, including solicitations for donations, is not diminished because that consumer’s political preferences may run counter to your company’s or your employees’ political preferences.”

Google: Gmail users marked RNC emails as spam

The RNC’s appeal of its court loss is still pending, with the case proceeding toward oral arguments. Google told the appeals court in April that “the Complaint’s own allegations make it obvious that Gmail presented a portion of RNC emails as spam because they appeared to be spam…. The most obvious reason for RNC emails being flagged as spam is that Gmail users were too frequently marking them as such.”

Google also said that “the RNC’s own allegations confirm that Google was helping the RNC, not scheming against it… The RNC acknowledges, for example, that Google worked with the RNC ‘[f]or nearly a year.’ Those efforts even included Google employees traveling to the RNC’s office to ‘give a training’ on ‘Email Best Practices.’ Less than two months after that training, the last alleged instance of the inboxing issue occurred.”

While the RNC “belittles those efforts as ‘excuses’ to cover Google’s tracks… the district court rightly found that judicial experience and common sense counsel otherwise,” Google said. The Google brief quoted from the District Judge’s ruling that said, “the fact that Google engaged with the RNC for nearly a year and made suggestions that improved email performance is inconsistent with a lack of good faith.”

FTC claims Gmail filtering Republican emails threatens “American freedoms” Read More »

elon-musk’s-“thermonuclear”-media-matters-lawsuit-may-be-fizzling-out

Elon Musk’s “thermonuclear” Media Matters lawsuit may be fizzling out

ad boycott, censorship, Donald Trump, elon musk, federal trade commission, ftc, Policy, trump administration, Twitter, twitter ad boycott, X / /

Judge blocks FTC’s Media Matters probe as a likely First Amendment violation.

Media Matters for America (MMFA)—a nonprofit that Elon Musk accused of sparking a supposedly illegal ad boycott on X—won its bid to block a sweeping Federal Trade Commission (FTC) probe that appeared to have rushed to silence Musk’s foe without ever adequately explaining why the government needed to get involved.

In her opinion granting MMFA’s preliminary injunction, US District Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan—a Joe Biden appointee—agreed that the FTC’s probe was likely to be ruled as a retaliatory violation of the First Amendment.

Warning that the FTC’s targeting of reporters was particularly concerning, Sooknanan wrote that the “case presents a straightforward First Amendment violation,” where it’s reasonable to conclude that conservative FTC staffers were perhaps motivated to eliminate a media organization dedicated to correcting conservative misinformation online.

“It should alarm all Americans when the Government retaliates against individuals or organizations for engaging in constitutionally protected public debate,” Sooknanan wrote. “And that alarm should ring even louder when the Government retaliates against those engaged in newsgathering and reporting.”

FTC staff social posts may be evidence of retaliation

In 2023, Musk vowed to file a “thermonuclear” lawsuit because advertisers abandoned X after MMFA published a report showing that major brands’ ads had appeared next to pro-Nazi posts on X. Musk then tried to sue MMFA “all over the world,” Sooknanan wrote, while “seemingly at the behest of Steven Miller, the current White House Deputy Chief of Staff, the Missouri and Texas Attorneys General” joined Musk’s fight, starting their own probes.

But Musk’s “thermonuclear” attack—attempting to fight MMFA on as many fronts as possible—has appeared to be fizzling out. A federal district court preliminarily enjoined the “aggressive” global litigation strategy, and the same court issued the recent FTC ruling that also preliminarily enjoined the AG probes “as likely being retaliatory in violation of the First Amendment.”

The FTC under the Trump administration appeared to be the next line of offense, supporting Musk’s attack on MMFA. And Sooknanan said that FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson’s own comments in interviews, which characterized Media Matters and the FTC’s probe “in ideological terms,” seem to indicate “at a minimum that Chairman Ferguson saw the FTC’s investigation as having a partisan bent.”

A huge part of the problem for the FTC was social media comments posted before some senior FTC staffers were appointed by Ferguson. Those posts appeared to show the FTC growing increasingly partisan, perhaps pointedly hiring staffers who they knew would help take down groups like MMFA.

As examples, Sooknanan pointed to Joe Simonson, the FTC’s director of public affairs, who had posted that MMFA “employed a number of stupid and resentful Democrats who went to like American University and didn’t have the emotional stability to work as an assistant press aide for a House member.” And Jon Schwepp, Ferguson’s senior policy advisor, had claimed that Media Matters—which he branded as the “scum of the earth”—”wants to weaponize powerful institutions to censor conservatives.” And finally, Jake Denton, the FTC’s chief technology officer, had alleged that MMFA is “an organization devoted to pressuring companies into silencing conservative voices.”

Further, the timing of the FTC investigation—arriving “on the heels of other failed attempts to seek retribution”—seemed to suggest it was “motivated by retaliatory animus,” the judge said. The FTC’s “fast-moving” investigation suggests that Ferguson “was chomping at the bit to ‘take investigative steps in the new administration under President Trump’ to make ‘progressives’ like Media Matters ‘give up,'” Sooknanan wrote.

Musk’s fight continues in Texas, for now

Possibly most damning to the FTC case, Sooknanan suggested the FTC has never adequately explained the reason why it’s probing Media Matters. In the “Subject of Investigation” field, the FTC wrote only “see attached,” but the attachment was just a list of specific demands and directions to comply with those demands.

Eventually, the FTC offered “something resembling an explanation,” Sooknanan said. But their “ultimate explanation”—that Media Matters may have information related to a supposedly illegal coordinated campaign to game ad pricing, starve revenue, and censor conservative platforms—”does not inspire confidence that they acted in good faith,” Sooknanan said. The judge considered it problematic that the FTC never explained why it has reason to believe MMFA has the information it’s seeking. Or why its demand list went “well beyond the investigation’s purported scope,” including “a reporter’s resource materials,” financial records, and all documents submitted so far in Musk’s X lawsuit.

“It stands to reason,” Sooknanan wrote, that the FTC launched its probe “because it wanted to continue the years’ long pressure campaign against Media Matters by Mr. Musk and his political allies.”

In its defense, the FTC argued that all civil investigative demands are initially broad, insisting that MMFA would have had the opportunity to narrow the demands if things had proceeded without the lawsuit. But Sooknanan declined to “consider a hypothetical narrowed” demand list instead of “the actual demand issued to Media Matters,” while noting that the court was “troubled” by the FTC’s suggestion that “the federal Government routinely issues civil investigative demands it knows to be overbroad with the goal of later narrowing those demands presumably in exchange for compliance.”

“Perhaps the Defendants will establish otherwise later in these proceedings,” Sooknanan wrote. “But at this stage, the record certainly supports that inference,” that the FTC was politically motivated to back Musk’s fight.

As the FTC mulls a potential appeal, the only other major front of Musk’s fight with MMFA is the lawsuit that X Corp. filed in Texas. Musk allegedly expects more favorable treatment in the Texas court, and MMFA is currently pushing to transfer the case to California after previously arguing that Musk was venue shopping by filing the lawsuit in Texas, claiming that it should be “fatal” to his case.

Musk has so far kept the case in Texas, but risking a venue change could be enough to ultimately doom his “thermonuclear” attack on MMFA. To prevent that, X is arguing that it’s “hard to imagine” how changing the venue and starting over with a new judge two years into such complex litigation would best serve the “interests of justice.”

Media Matters, however, has “easily met” requirements to show that substantial damage has already been done—not just because MMFA has struggled financially and stopped reporting on X and the FTC—but because any loss of First Amendment freedoms “unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”

The FTC tried to claim that any reputational harm, financial harm, and self-censorship are “self-inflicted” wounds for MMFA. But the FTC did “not respond to the argument that the First Amendment injury itself is irreparable, thereby conceding it,” Sooknanan wrote. That likely weakens the FTC’s case in an appeal.

MMFA declined Ars’ request to comment. But despite the lawsuits reportedly plunging MMFA into a financial crisis, its president, Angelo Carusone, told The New York Times that “the court’s ruling demonstrates the importance of fighting over folding, which far too many are doing when confronted with intimidation from the Trump administration.”

“We will continue to stand up and fight for the First Amendment rights that protect every American,” Carusone said.

Photo of Ashley Belanger

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Elon Musk’s “thermonuclear” Media Matters lawsuit may be fizzling out Read More »

delta’s-ai-spying-to-“jack-up”-prices-must-be-banned,-lawmakers-say

Delta’s AI spying to “jack up” prices must be banned, lawmakers say

AI, AI pricing, Amazon, Artificial Intelligence, Delta, equal employment, ftc, Kroger, Online Privacy, Policy, surveillance pricing / /

“There is no fare product Delta has ever used, is testing or plans to use that targets customers with individualized offers based on personal information or otherwise,” Delta said. “A variety of market forces drive the dynamic pricing model that’s been used in the global industry for decades, with new tech simply streamlining this process. Delta always complies with regulations around pricing and disclosures.”

Other companies “engaging in surveillance-based price setting” include giants like Amazon and Kroger, as well as a ride-sharing app that has been “charging a customer more when their phone battery is low.”

Public Citizen, a progressive consumer rights group that endorsed the bill, condemned the practice in the press release, urging Congress to pass the law and draw “a clear line in the sand: companies can offer discounts and fair wages—but not by spying on people.”

“Surveillance-based price gouging and wage setting are exploitative practices that deepen inequality and strip consumers and workers of dignity,” Public Citizen said.

AI pricing will cause “full-blown crisis”

In January, the Federal Trade Commission requested information from eight companies—including MasterCard, Revionics, Bloomreach, JPMorgan Chase, Task Software, PROS, Accenture, and McKinsey & Co—joining a “shadowy market” that provides AI pricing services. Those companies confirmed they’ve provided services to at least 250 companies “that sell goods or services ranging from grocery stores to apparel retailers,” lawmakers noted.

That inquiry led the FTC to conclude that “widespread adoption of this practice may fundamentally upend how consumers buy products and how companies compete.”

In the press release, the anti-monopoly watchdog, the American Economic Liberties Project, was counted among advocacy groups endorsing the Democrats’ bill. Their senior legal counsel, Lee Hepner, pointed out that “grocery prices have risen 26 percent since the pandemic-era explosion of online shopping,” and that’s “dovetailing with new technology designed to squeeze every last penny from consumers.”

Delta’s AI spying to “jack up” prices must be banned, lawmakers say Read More »

court-rules-trump-broke-us-law-when-he-fired-democratic-ftc-commissioner

Court rules Trump broke US law when he fired Democratic FTC commissioner

ftc, Policy, Trump / /

“Without removal protections, that independence would be jeopardized… Accordingly, the Court held that the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections were constitutional,” wrote AliKhan, who was appointed to the District Court by President Biden in 2023.

Judge: Facts almost identical to 1935 case

The Supreme Court reaffirmed its Humphrey’s Executor findings in cases decided in 2010 and 2020, AliKhan wrote. “Humphrey’s Executor remains good law today. Over the span of ninety years, the Supreme Court has declined to revisit or overrule it,” she wrote. Congress has likewise not disturbed FTC commissioners’ removal protection, and “thirteen Presidents have acquiesced to its vitality,” she wrote.

AliKhan said the still-binding precedent clearly supports Slaughter’s case against Trump. “The answer to the key substantive question in this case—whether a unanimous Supreme Court decision about the FTC Act’s removal protections applies to a suit about the FTC Act’s removal protections—seems patently obvious,” AliKhan wrote. “In arguing for a different result, Defendants ask this court to ignore the letter of Humphrey’s Executor and embrace the critiques from its detractors.”

The 1935 case and the present case are similar in multiple ways, the judge wrote. “Humphrey’s Executor involved the exact same provision of the FTC Act that Ms. Slaughter seeks to enforce here: the for-cause removal protection within 15 U.S.C. § 41 prohibiting any termination except for ‘inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,'” she wrote.

The “facts almost identically mirror those of Humphrey’s Executor,” she continued. In both Roosevelt’s removal of Humphrey and Trump’s removal of Slaughter, the president cited disagreements in priorities and “did not purport to base the removal on inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.”

Trump and fellow defendants assert that the current FTC is much different from the 1935 version of the body, saying it now “exercises significant executive power.” That includes investigating and prosecuting violations of federal law, administratively adjudicating claims itself, and issuing rules and regulations to prevent unfair business practices.

Court rules Trump broke US law when he fired Democratic FTC commissioner Read More »

trump’s-ftc-may-impose-merger-condition-that-forbids-advertising-boycotts

Trump’s FTC may impose merger condition that forbids advertising boycotts

advertising boycott, elon musk x, ftc, Policy / /

FTC chair alleged “serious risk” from ad boycotts

After Musk’s purchase of Twitter, the social network lost advertisers for various reasons, including changes to content moderation and an incident in which Musk posted a favorable response to an antisemitic tweet and then told concerned advertisers to “go fuck yourself.”

FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson said at a conference in April that “the risk of an advertiser boycott is a pretty serious risk to the free exchange of ideas.”

“If advertisers get into a back room and agree, ‘We aren’t going to put our stuff next to this guy or woman or his or her ideas,’ that is a form of concerted refusal to deal,” Ferguson said. “The antitrust laws condemn concerted refusals to deal. Now, of course, because of the First Amendment, we don’t have a categorical antitrust prohibition on boycotts. When a boycott ceases to be economic for purposes of the antitrust laws and becomes purely First Amendment activity, the courts have not been super clear—[it’s] sort of a ‘we know it when we see it’ type of thing.”

The FTC website says that any individual company acting on its own may “refuse to do business with another firm, but an agreement among competitors not to do business with targeted individuals or businesses may be an illegal boycott, especially if the group of competitors working together has market power.” The examples given on the FTC webpage are mostly about price competition and do not address the widespread practice of companies choosing where to place advertising based on concerns about their brands.

We contacted the FTC about the merger review today and will update this article if it provides any comment.

X’s ad lawsuit

X’s lawsuit targets a World Federation of Advertisers initiative called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), a now-defunct program that Omnicom and Interpublic participated in. X itself was part of the GARM initiative, which shut down after X filed the lawsuit. X alleged that the defendants conspired “to collectively withhold billions of dollars in advertising revenue.”

The World Federation of Advertisers said in a court filing last month that GARM was founded “to bring clarity and transparency to disparate definitions and understandings in advertising and brand safety in the context of social media. For example, certain advertisers did not want platforms to advertise their brands alongside content that could negatively impact their brands.”

Trump’s FTC may impose merger condition that forbids advertising boycotts Read More »