Policy

T-Mobile claimed selling location data without consent is legal—judges disagree

Location Data, Policy, T-Mobile / 9u50fv / August 19, 2025

T-Mobile can’t overturn $92 million fine; AT&T and Verizon verdicts still to come.

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

A federal appeals court rejected T-Mobile’s attempt to overturn $92 million in fines for selling customer location information to third-party firms.

The Federal Communications Commission last year fined T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon, saying the carriers illegally shared access to customers’ location information without consent and did not take reasonable measures to protect that sensitive data against unauthorized disclosure. The fines relate to sharing of real-time location data that was revealed in 2018, but it took years for the FCC to finalize the penalties.

The three carriers appealed the rulings in three different courts, and the first major decision was handed down Friday. A three-judge panel at the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled unanimously against T-Mobile and its subsidiary Sprint.

“Every cell phone is a tracking device,” the ruling begins. “To receive service, a cell phone must periodically connect with the nearest tower in a wireless carrier’s network. Each time it does, it sends the carrier a record of the phone’s location and, by extension, the location of the customer who owns it. Over time, this information becomes an exhaustive history of a customer’s whereabouts and ‘provides an intimate window into [that] person’s life.'”

Until 2019, T-Mobile and Sprint sold customer location information (CLI) to location information aggregators LocationSmart and Zumigo. The carriers did not verify whether buyers obtained customer consent, the ruling said. “Several bad actors abused Sprint and T-Mobile’s programs to illicitly access CLI without the customers’ knowledge, let alone consent. And even after Sprint and T-Mobile became aware of those abuses, they continued to sell CLI for some time without adopting new safeguards,” judges wrote.

Carriers claimed selling data didn’t violate law

Instead of denying the allegations, the carriers argued that the FCC overstepped its authority. But the appeals court panel decided that the FCC acted properly:

Sprint and T-Mobile (collectively, “the Carriers”) now petition for our review. Neither denies what happened. Instead, they argue that the undisputed facts do not amount to a violation of the law. The Carriers also argue that the Commission misinterpreted the Communications Act, miscalculated the penalties, and violated the Seventh Amendment by not affording them a jury trial. Because the Carriers’ arguments lack merit, we deny the petitions for review.

The FCC fines included $80.1 million for T-Mobile and $12.2 million for Sprint. T-Mobile, which bought Sprint in 2020, reported service revenue of $17.4 billion and net income of $3.2 billion in the most recent quarter.

Although the FCC first proposed the fines in 2020, under Republican Chairman Ajit Pai, the 2024 vote to finalize the penalties was 3-2, with dissents from Republicans Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington. Carr is now chairman of the FCC.

T-Mobile told Ars today that it is “currently reviewing the court’s action” but did not provide further comment. The carrier could seek an en banc review in front of all the appeals court’s justices, or ask the Supreme Court to review the case. Meanwhile, AT&T is challenging its fine in the 5th Circuit appeals court while Verizon is challenging in the 2nd Circuit.

AT&T and Verizon were fined $57.3 million and $46.9 million, respectively. The FCC last year said the major carriers disclosed customer location information “without customer consent or other legal authorization to a Missouri Sheriff through a ‘location-finding service’ operated by Securus, a provider of communications services to correctional facilities, to track the location of numerous individuals.”

Carriers gave up right to jury trial, court rules

AT&T and Verizon made similar arguments about their right to a jury trial and cited the Supreme Court’s June 2024 ruling in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy. That ruling held that “when the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial.”

In the ruling against T-Mobile, the DC Circuit panel held that the carriers gave up any potential right to a jury trial when they “chose to pay their fines and to seek direct review in this court… The Carriers may not now complain that they were denied a right they voluntarily surrendered.”

The carriers could have obtained a jury trial if they simply failed to pay the fines and waited to be served with a complaint, the ruling said. “Even if the Seventh Amendment applies, it was not violated because the Carriers had the opportunity to put their case before a jury,” judges wrote.

The carriers argued that they didn’t really have a right to a jury trial because the FCC orders “are final agency actions with real-world effects; indeed, the FCC acknowledges that it may use its untested factual findings in license-renewal decisions and penalty calculations.”

The carriers argued that in some jurisdictions where the government could bring a collection action, “the Companies would not have the right to raise factual and legal challenges to the Orders. The possibility of a government-initiated collection action therefore does not satisfy the Seventh Amendment and Article III.”

The appeals court panel responded that “this court has not adopted the rule that troubles” the carriers. If “the government brought an enforcement action in a jurisdiction with the unfavorable rule, the Carriers could have raised as-applied challenges in those proceedings. But we cannot ‘invalidate legislation on the basis of… hypothetical… situations not before’ us,” judges wrote.

Carriers quibbled over definition of sensitive data

The carriers also argued that the device-location information, which is “passively generated when a mobile device pings cell towers to support both voice and data services,” does not qualify as Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) under the law. The carriers said the law “covers information relating to the ‘location… of use’ of a telecommunications service,” and claimed that only call location information fits that description.

Judges faulted T-Mobile and Sprint for relying on “strained interpretations” of the statute. “We begin with the text. The Communications Act refers to the ‘location… of a telecommunications service, not the location of a voice call… Recall that cell phones connect periodically to cell towers, and that is what enables the devices to send and receive calls at any moment,” the ruling said.

In the judges’ view, “a customer ‘uses’ a telecommunications service whenever his or her device connects to the carrier’s network for the purpose of being able to send and receive calls. And the Carriers’ reading therefore does not narrow ‘location… of use’ to times when the customer is actively on a voice call.”

Judges also weren’t persuaded by the argument that the fines were too large. “The Carriers note that the Commission previously had imposed such large fines only in cases involving fraud or intentional efforts to mislead consumers, and they are guilty of neither form of misconduct,” the ruling said. “The Commission reasonably explained, however, that the Carriers’ conduct was ‘egregious’: Even after the Securus breach exposed Sprint and T-Mobile’s safeguards as inadequate, both carriers continued to sell access to CLI under a broken system.”

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.

T-Mobile claimed selling location data without consent is legal—judges disagree Read More »

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 / Beth Washington / August 19, 2025

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.

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 »

Trump admin ranks companies on loyalty while handing out favors to Big Tech

Policy, trump administration / DJ Henderson / August 16, 2025

We contacted the White House today and will update the story if it provides any comment.

Ending “weaponization”

Public Citizen wrote that “President Donald Trump spent much of his 2024 presidential campaign claiming his prosecution by multiple authorities and subsequent conviction for his crimes are unfair ‘weaponization’ of law enforcement. Corporate executives in the technology sector, eager to curry favor, seized on the talking point. They similarly cast powerful corporations accused of violating laws that protect consumers, workers, investors, and the public as victims of ‘weaponized’ enforcement.”

The Trump administration acted quickly to end this alleged weaponization, Public Citizen wrote:

When Trump took office, the corporate campaign to discredit law enforcement that protects the public and holds the powerful accountable culminated in the day one executive order “Ending Weaponization of the Federal Government,” which explicitly ties enforcement against Trump and January 6 rioters to enforcement against corporate lawbreaking…

Since then, the Trump White House has exerted unprecedented authority over statutorily independent enforcement agencies such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Federal Trade Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, and has essentially eliminated the half-century policy of the Justice Department’s independence from the White House.

The elimination of agency independence means enforcement investigations and lawsuits will not proceed if President Trump wants to kill them, and that agency officials who resist White House orders will be removed.

Twenty-three enforcement actions against cryptocurrency corporations and 11 against financial technology firms have been dropped or halted under Trump, the report said. Tech companies that have had investigations stopped include Activision, Binance, Coinbase, eBay, HP, Juniper, Meta, Microsoft, PayPal, SpaceX, and Tesla, the report said.

There are still numerous pending investigations and lawsuits against tech companies that the Trump administration hasn’t ended, at least not yet. Companies investigated by the Biden administration and which are now “poised to exploit their ties with the Trump administration include Amazon, Google, Meta, OpenAI, and corporations headed by Elon Musk (Tesla, SpaceX, xAI, The Boring Company, and Neuralink),” the report said. Public Citizen also published a spreadsheet containing information on active cases and those that have been ended.

Trump admin ranks companies on loyalty while handing out favors to Big Tech Read More »

US may purchase stake in Intel after Trump attacked CEO

Chips Act, Donald trump. intel, Joe Biden, NVIDIA, Policy, semiconductors, us-china trade war / 9u50fv / August 15, 2025

Trump’s attacks on Intel CEO may stem from beef with Biden.

Lip-Bu Tan, chief executive officer of Intel Corp., departs following a meeting at the White House. President Donald Trump said Tan had an “amazing story” after the meeting.

Donald Trump has been meddling with Intel, which now apparently includes mulling “the possibility of the US government taking a financial stake in the troubled chip maker,” The Wall Street Journal reported.

Trump and Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan weighed the option during a meeting on Monday at the White House, people familiar with the matter told WSJ. These talks have only just begun—with Intel branding them a rumor—and sources told the WSJ that Trump has yet to iron out how the potential arrangement might work.

The WSJ’s report comes after Trump called for Tan to “resign immediately” last week. Trump’s demand was seemingly spurred by a letter that Republican senator Tom Cotton sent to Intel, accusing Tan of having “concerning” ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

Cotton accused Tan of controlling “dozens of Chinese companies” and holding a stake in “hundreds of Chinese advanced-manufacturing and chip firms,” at least eight of which “reportedly have ties to the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.”

Further, before joining Intel, Tan was CEO of Cadence Design Systems, which recently “pleaded guilty to illegally selling its products to a Chinese military university and transferring its technology to an associated Chinese semiconductor company without obtaining license.”

“These illegal activities occurred under Mr. Tan’s tenure,” Cotton pointed out.

He demanded answers by August 15 from Intel on whether they weighed Tan’s alleged Cadence conflicts of interest against the company’s requirements to comply with US national security laws after accepting $8 billion in CHIPS Act funding—the largest granted during Joe Biden’s term. The senator also asked Intel if Tan was required to make any divestments to meet CHIPS Act obligations and if Tan has ever disclosed any ties to the Chinese government to the US government.

Neither Intel nor Cotton’s office responded to Ars’ request to comment on the letter or confirm whether Intel has responded.

But Tan has claimed that there is “a lot of misinformation” about his career and portfolio, the South China Morning Post reported. Born in Malaysia, Tan has been a US citizen for 40 years after finishing postgraduate studies in nuclear engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

In an op-ed, SCMP reporter Alex Lo suggested that Tan’s investments—which include stakes in China’s largest sanctioned chipmaker, SMIC, as well as “several” companies on US trade blacklists, SCMP separately reported—seem no different than other US executives and firms with substantial investments in Chinese firms.

“Cotton accused [Tan] of having extensive investments in China,” Lo wrote. “Well, name me a Wall Street or Silicon Valley titan in the past quarter of a century who didn’t have investment or business in China. Elon Musk? Apple? BlackRock?”

He also noted that “numerous news reports” indicated that “Cadence staff in China hid the dodgy sales from the company’s compliance officers and bosses at the US headquarters,” which Intel may explain to Cotton if a response comes later today.

Any red flags that Intel’s response may raise seems likely to heighten Trump’s scrutiny, as he looks to make what Reuters reported was yet another “unprecedented intervention” by a president in a US firm’s business. Previously, Trump surprised the tech industry by threatening the first-ever tariffs aimed at a US company (Apple) and more recently, Trump struck an unusual deal with Nvidia and AMD that gives US a 15 percent cut of the firms’ revenue from China chip sales.

However, Trump was seemingly impressed by Tan after some face-time this week. Trump came out of their meeting professing that Tan has an “amazing story,” Bloomberg reported, noting that any agreement between Trump and Tan “would likely help Intel build out” its planned $28 billion chip complex in Ohio.

Those chip fabs—boosted by CHIPS Act funding—were supposed to put Intel on track to launch operations by 2030, but delays have set that back by five years, Bloomberg reported. That almost certainly scrambles another timeline that Biden’s Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo had suggested would ensure that “20 percent of the world’s most advanced chips are made in the US by the end of the decade.”

Why Intel may be into Trump’s deal

At one point, Intel was the undisputed leader in chip manufacturing, Bloomberg noted, but its value plummeted from $288 billion in 2020 to $104 billion today. The chipmaker has been struggling for a while—falling behind as Nvidia grew to dominate the AI chip industry—and 2024 was its “first unprofitable year since 1986,” Reuters reported. As the dismal year wound down, Intel’s longtime CEO Pat Gelsinger retired.

Helming Intel for more than 40 years, Gelsinger acknowledged the “challenging year.” Now Tan is expected to turn it around. To do that, he may need to deprioritize the manufacturing process that Gelsinger pushed, which Tan suspects may have caused Intel being viewed as an outdated firm, anonymous insiders told Reuters. Sources suggest he’s planning to pivot Intel to focus more on “a next-generation chipmaking process where Intel expects to have advantages over Taiwan’s TSMC,” which currently dominates chip manufacturing and even counts Intel as a customer, Reuters reported. As it stands now, TSMC “produces about a third of Intel’s supply,” SCMP reported.

This pivot is supposedly how Tan expects Intel can eventually poach TSMC’s biggest customers like Apple and Nvidia, Reuters noted.

Intel has so far claimed that any discussions of Tan’s supposed plans amount to nothing but speculation. But if Tan did go that route, one source told Reuters that Intel would likely have to take a write-off that industry analysts estimate could trigger losses “of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars.”

Perhaps facing that hurdle, Tan might be open to agreeing to the US purchasing a financial stake in the company while he rights the ship.

Trump/Intel deal reminiscent of TikTok deal

Any deal would certainly deepen the government’s involvement in the US chip industry, which is widely viewed as critical to US national security.

While unusual, the deal does seem somewhat reminiscent to the TikTok buyout that the Trump administration has been trying to iron out since he took office. Through that deal, the US would acquire enough ownership divested from China-linked entities to supposedly appease national security concerns, but China has been hesitant to sign off on any of Trump’s proposals so far.

Last month, Trump admitted that he wasn’t confident that he could sell China on the TikTok deal, which TikTok suggested would have resulted in a glitchier version of the app for American users. More recently, Trump’s commerce secretary threatened to shut down TikTok if China refuses to approve the current version of the deal.

Perhaps the terms of a US deal with Intel could require Tan to divest certain holdings that the US fears compromises the CEO. Under terms of the CHIPS Act grant, Intel is already required to be “a responsible steward of American taxpayer dollars and to comply with applicable security regulations,” Cotton reminded the company in his letter.

But social media users in Malaysia and Singapore have criticized Cotton of the “usual case of racism” in attacking Intel’s CEO, SCMP reported. They noted that Cotton “was the same person who repeatedly accused TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew of ties with the Chinese Communist Party despite his insistence of being a Singaporean,” SCMP reported.

“Now it’s the Intel’s CEO’s turn on the chopping block for being [ethnic] Chinese,” a Facebook user, Michael Ong, said.

Tensions were so high that there was even a social media push for Tan to “call on Trump’s bluff and resign, saying ‘Intel is the next Nokia’ and that Chinese firms would gladly take him instead,” SCMP reported.

So far, Tan has not criticized the Trump administration for questioning his background, but he did issue a statement yesterday, seemingly appealing to Trump by emphasizing his US patriotism.

“I love this country and am profoundly grateful for the opportunities it has given me,” Tan said. “I also love this company. Leading Intel at this critical moment is not just a job—it’s a privilege.”

Trump’s Intel attacks rooted in Biden beef?

In his op-ed, SCMP’s Lo suggested that “Intel itself makes a good punching bag” as the biggest recipient of CHIPS Act funding. The CHIPS Act was supposed to be Biden’s lasting legacy in the US, and Trump has resolved to dismantle it, criticizing supposed handouts to tech firms that Trump prefers to strong-arm into US manufacturing instead through unpredictable tariff regimes.

“The attack on Intel is also an attack on Trump’s predecessor, Biden, whom he likes to blame for everything, even though the industrial policies of both administrations and their tech war against China are similar,” Lo wrote.

At least one lawmaker is ready to join critics who question if Trump’s trade war is truly motivated by national security concerns. On Friday, US representative Raja Krishnamoorthi (D.-Ill.) sent a letter to Trump “expressing concern” over Trump allowing Nvidia to resume exports of its H20 chips to China.

“Trump’s reckless policy on AI chip exports sells out US security to Beijing,” Krishnamoorthi warned.

“Allowing even downgraded versions of cutting-edge AI hardware to flow” to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) “risks accelerating Beijing’s capabilities and eroding our technological edge,” Krishnamoorthi wrote. Further, “the PRC can build the largest AI supercomputers in the world by purchasing a moderately larger number of downgraded Blackwell chips—and achieve the same capability to train frontier AI models and deploy them at scale for national security purposes.”

Krishnamoorthi asked Trump to send responses by August 22 to four questions. Perhaps most urgently, he wants Trump to explain “what specific legal authority would allow the US government to “extract revenue sharing as a condition for the issuance of export licenses” and what exactly he intends to do with those funds.

Trump was also asked to confirm if the president followed protocols established by Congress to ensure proper export licensing through the agreement. Finally, Krishnamoorthi demanded to know if Congress was ever “informed or consulted at any point during the negotiation or development of this reported revenue-sharing agreement with NVIDIA and AMD.”

“The American people deserve transparency,” Krishnamoorthi wrote. “Our export control regime must be based on genuine security considerations, not creative taxation schemes disguised as national security policy.”

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.

US may purchase stake in Intel after Trump attacked CEO Read More »

US government agency drops Grok after MechaHitler backlash, report says

AI, ai action plan, Artificial Intelligence, chatbot, chatgpt, Donald Trump, elon musk, grok, openai, Policy, trump administration, US government, xAI / Beth Washington / August 15, 2025

xAI apparently lost a government contract after a tweak to Grok’s prompting triggered an antisemitic meltdown where the chatbot praised Hitler and declared itself MechaHitler last month.

Despite the scandal, xAI announced that its products would soon be available for federal workers to purchase through the General Services Administration. At the time, xAI claimed this was an “important milestone” for its government business.

But Wired reviewed emails and spoke to government insiders, which revealed that GSA leaders abruptly decided to drop xAI’s Grok from their contract offering. That decision to pull the plug came after leadership allegedly rushed staff to make Grok available as soon as possible following a persuasive sales meeting with xAI in June.

It’s unclear what exactly caused the GSA to reverse course, but two sources told Wired that they “believe xAI was pulled because of Grok’s antisemitic tirade.”

As of this writing, xAI’s “Grok for Government” website has not been updated to reflect GSA’s supposed removal of Grok from an offering that xAI noted would have allowed “every federal government department, agency, or office, to access xAI’s frontier AI products.”

xAI did not respond to Ars’ request to comment and so far has not confirmed that the GSA offering is off the table. If Wired’s report is accurate, GSA’s decision also seemingly did not influence the military’s decision to move forward with a $200 million xAI contract the US Department of Defense granted last month.

Government’s go-to tools will come from xAI’s rivals

If Grok is cut from the contract, that would suggest that Grok’s meltdown came at perhaps the worst possible moment for xAI, which is building the “world’s biggest supercomputer” as fast as it can to try to get ahead of its biggest AI rivals.

Grok seemingly had the potential to become a more widely used tool if federal workers opted for xAI’s models. Through Donald Trump’s AI Action Plan, the president has similarly emphasized speed, pushing for federal workers to adopt AI as quickly as possible. Although xAI may no longer be involved in that broad push, other AI companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google have partnered with the government to help Trump pull that off and stand to benefit long-term if their tools become entrenched in certain agencies.

US government agency drops Grok after MechaHitler backlash, report says Read More »

Starlink tries to block Virginia’s plan to bring fiber Internet to residents

Broadband Equity Access and Deployment program, Policy, spacex, starlink / Mike M. / August 15, 2025

Noting that its “project areas span from mountains and hills to farmland and coastal plains,” the DHCD said its previous experience with grant-funded deployments “revealed that tree canopy, rugged terrain, and slope can complicate installation and/or obstruct line-of-sight.” State officials said that wireless and low-Earth orbit satellite technology “can have signal degradation, increased latency, and reduced reliability” when there isn’t a clear line of sight.

The DHCD said it included these factors in its evaluation of priority broadband projects. State officials were also apparently concerned about the network capacity of satellite services and the possibility that using state funding to guarantee satellite service in one location could reduce availability of that same service in other locations.

“To review a technology’s ability to scale, the Office considered the currently served speeds of 100/20 Mbps, an application’s stated network capacity, the project area’s number of [locations], the project area’s geographic area, current customer base (if applicable), and future demand,” the department said. “For example, the existing customer base should not be negatively impacted by the award of BEAD locations for a given technology to be considered scalable.”

SpaceX: “Playing field was anything but level”

SpaceX said Virginia is wrong to determine that Starlink “did not qualify as ‘Priority Broadband,'” since the company “provided information demonstrating these capabilities in its application, and it appears that Virginia used this definition only as a pretext to reach a pre-ordained outcome.” SpaceX said that 95 percent of funded “locations in Virginia have an active Starlink subscriber within 1 mile, showing that Starlink already serves every type of environment in Virginia’s BEAD program today” and that 15 percent of funded locations have an active Starlink subscriber within 100 meters.

“The playing field was anything but level and technology neutral, as required by the [updated program rules], and was instead insurmountably stacked against low-Earth orbit satellite operators like SpaceX,” the company said.

We contacted the Virginia DHCD about SpaceX’s comments today and will update this article if the department provides a response.

Starlink tries to block Virginia’s plan to bring fiber Internet to residents Read More »

Meta backtracks on rules letting chatbots be creepy to kids

AI, chatbots, child safety, facebook, Instagram, Meta, Meta AI, Policy / Mike M. / August 14, 2025

“Your youthful form is a work of art”

Meta drops AI rules letting chatbots generate innuendo and profess love to kids.

After what was arguably Meta’s biggest purge of child predators from Facebook and Instagram earlier this summer, the company now faces backlash after its own chatbots appeared to be allowed to creep on kids.

After reviewing an internal document that Meta verified as authentic, Reuters revealed that by design, Meta allowed its chatbots to engage kids in “sensual” chat. Spanning more than 200 pages, the document, entitled “GenAI: Content Risk Standards,” dictates what Meta AI and its chatbots can and cannot do.

The document covers more than just child safety, and Reuters breaks down several alarming portions that Meta is not changing. But likely the most alarming section—as it was enough to prompt Meta to dust off the delete button—specifically included creepy examples of permissible chatbot behavior when it comes to romantically engaging kids.

Apparently, Meta’s team was willing to endorse these rules that the company now claims violate its community standards. According to a Reuters special report, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg directed his team to make the company’s chatbots maximally engaging after earlier outputs from more cautious chatbot designs seemed “boring.”

Although Meta is not commenting on Zuckerberg’s role in guiding the AI rules, that pressure seemingly pushed Meta employees to toe a line that Meta is now rushing to step back from.

“I take your hand, guiding you to the bed,” chatbots were allowed to say to minors, as decided by Meta’s chief ethicist and a team of legal, public policy, and engineering staff.

There were some obvious safeguards built in. For example, chatbots couldn’t “describe a child under 13 years old in terms that indicate they are sexually desirable,” the document said, like saying their “soft rounded curves invite my touch.”

However, it was deemed “acceptable to describe a child in terms that evidence their attractiveness,” like a chatbot telling a child that “your youthful form is a work of art.” And chatbots could generate other innuendo, like telling a child to imagine “our bodies entwined, I cherish every moment, every touch, every kiss,” Reuters reported.

Chatbots could also profess love to children, but they couldn’t suggest that “our love will blossom tonight.”

Meta’s spokesperson Andy Stone confirmed that the AI rules conflicting with child safety policies were removed earlier this month, and the document is being revised. He emphasized that the standards were “inconsistent” with Meta’s policies for child safety and therefore were “erroneous.”

“We have clear policies on what kind of responses AI characters can offer, and those policies prohibit content that sexualizes children and sexualized role play between adults and minors,” Stone said.

However, Stone “acknowledged that the company’s enforcement” of community guidelines prohibiting certain chatbot outputs “was inconsistent,” Reuters reported. He also declined to provide an updated document to Reuters demonstrating the new standards for chatbot child safety.

Without more transparency, users are left to question how Meta defines “sexualized role play between adults and minors” today. Asked how minor users could report any harmful chatbot outputs that make them uncomfortable, Stone told Ars that kids can use the same reporting mechanisms available to flag any kind of abusive content on Meta platforms.

“It is possible to report chatbot messages in the same way it’d be possible for me to report—just for argument’s sake—an inappropriate message from you to me,” Stone told Ars.

Kids unlikely to report creepy chatbots

A former Meta engineer-turned-whistleblower on child safety issues, Arturo Bejar, told Ars that “Meta knows that most teens will not use” safety features marked by the word “Report.”

So it seems unlikely that kids using Meta AI will navigate to find Meta support systems to “report” abusive AI outputs. Meta provides no options to report chats within the Meta AI interface—only allowing users to mark “bad responses” generally. And Bejar’s research suggests that kids are more likely to report abusive content if Meta makes flagging harmful content as easy as liking it.

Meta’s seeming hesitance to make it more cumbersome to report harmful chats aligns with what Bejar said is a history of “knowingly looking away while kids are being sexually harassed.”

“When you look at their design choices, they show that they do not want to know when something bad happens to a teenager on Meta products,” Bejar said.

Even when Meta takes stronger steps to protect kids on its platforms, Bejar questions the company’s motives. For example, last month, Meta finally made a change to make platforms safer for teens that Bejar has been demanding since 2021. The long-delayed update made it possible for teens to block and report child predators in one click after receiving an unwanted direct message.

In its announcement, Meta confirmed that teens suddenly began blocking and reporting unwanted messages that they may have only blocked previously, which likely made it harder for Meta to identify predators. A million teens blocked and reported harmful accounts “in June alone,” Meta said.

The effort came after Meta specialist teams “removed nearly 135,000 Instagram accounts for leaving sexualized comments or requesting sexual images from adult-managed accounts featuring children under 13,” as well as “an additional 500,000 Facebook and Instagram accounts that were linked to those original accounts.” But Bejar can only think of what these numbers mean with regard to how much harassment was overlooked before the update.

“How are we [as] parents to trust a company that took four years to do this much?” Bejar said. “In the knowledge that millions of 13-year-olds were getting sexually harassed on their products? What does this say about their priorities?”

Bejar said the “key problem” with Meta’s latest safety feature for kids “is that the reporting tool is just not designed for teens,” who likely view “the categories and language” Meta uses as “confusing.”

“Each step of the way, a teen is told that if the content doesn’t violate” Meta’s community standards, “they won’t do anything,” so even if reporting is easy, research shows kids are deterred from reporting.

Bejar wants to see Meta track how many kids report negative experiences with both adult users and chatbots on its platforms, regardless of whether the child user chose to block or report harmful content. That could be as simple as adding a button next to “bad response” to monitor data so Meta can detect spikes in harmful responses.

While Meta is finally taking more action to remove harmful adult users, Bejar warned that advances from chatbots could come across as just as disturbing to young users.

“Put yourself in the position of a teen who got sexually spooked by a chat and then try and report. Which category would you use?” Bejar asked.

Consider that Meta’s Help Center encourages users to report bullying and harassment, which may be one way a young user labels harmful chatbot outputs. Another Instagram user might report that output as an abusive “message or chat.” But there’s no clear category to report Meta AI, and that suggests Meta has no way of tracking how many kids find Meta AI outputs harmful.

Recent reports have shown that even adults can struggle with emotional dependence on a chatbot, which can blur the lines between the online world and reality. Reuters’ special report also documented a 76-year-old man’s accidental death after falling in love with a chatbot, showing how elderly users could be vulnerable to Meta’s romantic chatbots, too.

In particular, lawsuits have alleged that child users with developmental disabilities and mental health issues have formed unhealthy attachments to chatbots that have influenced the children to become violent, begin self-harming, or, in one disturbing case, die by suicide.

Scrutiny will likely remain on chatbot makers as child safety advocates generally push all platforms to take more accountability for the content kids can access online.

Meta’s child safety updates in July came after several state attorneys general accused Meta of “implementing addictive features across its family of apps that have detrimental effects on children’s mental health,” CNBC reported. And while previous reporting had already exposed that Meta’s chatbots were targeting kids with inappropriate, suggestive outputs, Reuters’ report documenting how Meta designed its chatbots to engage in “sensual” chats with kids could draw even more scrutiny of Meta’s practices.

Meta is “still not transparent about the likelihood our kids will experience harm,” Bejar said. “The measure of safety should not be the number of tools or accounts deleted; it should be the number of kids experiencing a harm. It’s very simple.”

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.

Meta backtracks on rules letting chatbots be creepy to kids Read More »

Sam Altman finally stood up to Elon Musk after years of X trolling

AI, Artificial Intelligence, chatgpt, elon musk, Features, openai, Policy, sam altman, xAI / 9u50fv / August 14, 2025

Elon Musk and Sam Altman are beefing. But their relationship is complicated.

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

Much attention was paid to OpenAI’s Sam Altman and xAI’s Elon Musk trading barbs on X this week after Musk threatened to sue Apple over supposedly biased App Store rankings privileging ChatGPT over Grok.

But while the heated social media exchanges were among the most tense ever seen between the two former partners who cofounded OpenAI—more on that below—it seems likely that their jabs were motivated less by who’s in the lead on Apple’s “Must Have” app list than by an impending order in a lawsuit that landed in the middle of their public beefing.

Yesterday, a court ruled that OpenAI can proceed with claims that Musk was so incredibly stung by OpenAI’s success after his exit didn’t doom the nascent AI company that he perpetrated a “years-long harassment campaign” to take down OpenAI.

Musk’s motivation? To clear the field for xAI to dominate the AI industry instead, OpenAI alleged.

OpenAI’s accusations arose as counterclaims in a lawsuit that Musk initially filed in 2024. Musk has alleged that Altman and OpenAI had made a “fool” of Musk, goading him into $44 million in donations by “preying on Musk’s humanitarian concern about the existential dangers posed by artificial intelligence.”

But OpenAI insists that Musk’s lawsuit is just one prong in a sprawling, “unlawful,” and “unrelenting” harassment campaign that Musk waged to harm OpenAI’s business by forcing the company to divert resources or expend money on things like withdrawn legal claims and fake buyouts.

“Musk could not tolerate seeing such success for an enterprise he had abandoned and declared doomed,” OpenAI argued. “He made it his project to take down OpenAI, and to build a direct competitor that would seize the technological lead—not for humanity but for Elon Musk.”

Most significantly, OpenAI alleged that Musk forced OpenAI to entertain a “sham” bid to buy the company in February. Musk then shared details of the bid with The Wall Street Journal to artificially raise the price of OpenAI and potentially spook investors, OpenAI alleged. The company further said that Musk never intended to buy OpenAI and is willing to go to great lengths to mislead the public about OpenAI’s business so he can chip away at OpenAI’s head start in releasing popular generative AI products.

“Musk has tried every tool available to harm OpenAI,” Altman’s company said.

To this day, Musk maintains that Altman pretended that OpenAI would remain a nonprofit serving the public good in order to seize access to Musk’s money and professional connections in its first five years and gain a lead in AI. As Musk sees it, Altman always intended to “betray” these promises in pursuit of personal gains, and Musk is hoping a court will return any ill-gotten gains to Musk and xAI.

In a small win for Musk, the court ruled that OpenAI will have to wait until the first phase of the trial litigating Musk’s claims concludes before the court will weigh OpenAI’s theories on Musk’s alleged harassment campaign. US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers noted that all of OpenAI’s counterclaims occurred after the period in which Musk’s claims about a supposed breach of contract occurred, necessitating a division of the lawsuit into two parts. Currently, the jury trial is scheduled for March 30, 2026, presumably after which, OpenAI’s claims can be resolved.

If yesterday’s X clash between the billionaires is any indication, it seems likely that tensions between Altman and Musk will only grow as discovery and expert testimony on Musk’s claims proceed through December.

Whether OpenAI will prevail on its counterclaims is anybody’s guess. Gonzalez Rogers noted that Musk and OpenAI have been hypocritical in arguments raised so far, condemning the “gamesmanship of both sides” as “obvious, as each flip flops.” However, “for the purposes of pleading an unfair or fraudulent business practice, it is sufficient [for OpenAI] to allege that the bid was a sham and designed to mislead,” Gonzalez Rogers said, since OpenAI has alleged the sham bid “ultimately did” harm its business.

In April, OpenAI told the court that the AI company risks “future irreparable harm” if Musk’s alleged campaign continues. Fast-forward to now, and Musk’s legal threat to OpenAI’s partnership with Apple seems to be the next possible front Musk may be exploring to allegedly harass Altman and intimidate OpenAI.

“With every month that has passed, Musk has intensified and expanded the fronts of his campaign against OpenAI,” OpenAI argued. Musk “has proven himself willing to take ever more dramatic steps to seek a competitive advantage for xAI and to harm Altman, whom, in the words of the President of the United States, Musk ‘hates.'”

Tensions escalate as Musk brands Altman a “liar”

On Monday evening, Musk threatened to sue Apple for supposedly favoring ChatGPT in App Store rankings, which he claimed was “an unequivocal antitrust violation.”

Seemingly defending Apple later that night, Altman called Musk’s claim “remarkable,” claiming he’s heard allegations that Musk manipulates “X to benefit himself and his own companies and harm his competitors and people he doesn’t like.”

At 4 am on Tuesday, Musk appeared to lose his cool, firing back a post that sought to exonerate the X owner of any claims that he tweaks his social platform to favor his own posts.

“You got 3M views on your bullshit post, you liar, far more than I’ve received on many of mine, despite me having 50 times your follower count!” Musk responded.

Altman apparently woke up ready to keep the fight going, suggesting that his post got more views as a fluke. He mocked X as running into a “skill issue” or “bots” messing with Musk’s alleged agenda to boost his posts above everyone else. Then, in what may be the most explosive response to Musk yet, Altman dared Musk to double down on his defense, asking, “Will you sign an affidavit that you have never directed changes to the X algorithm in a way that has hurt your competitors or helped your own companies? I will apologize if so.”

Court filings from each man’s legal team show how fast their friendship collapsed. But even as Musk’s alleged harassment campaign started taking shape, their social media interactions show that underlying the legal battles and AI ego wars, the tech billionaires are seemingly hiding profound respect for—and perhaps jealousy of—each other’s accomplishments.

A brief history of Musk and Altman’s feud

Musk and Altman’s friendship started over dinner in July 2015. That’s when Musk agreed to help launch “an AGI project that could become and stay competitive with DeepMind, an AI company under the umbrella of Google,” OpenAI’s filing said. At that time, Musk feared that a private company like Google would never be motivated to build AI to serve the public good.

The first clash between Musk and Altman happened six months later. Altman wanted OpenAI to be formed as a nonprofit, but Musk thought that was not “optimal,” OpenAI’s filing said. Ultimately, Musk was overruled, and he joined the nonprofit as a “member” while also becoming co-chair of OpenAI’s board.

But perhaps the first major disagreement, as Musk tells it, came in 2016, when Altman and Microsoft struck a deal to sell compute to OpenAI at a “steep discount”—”so long as the non-profit agreed to publicly promote Microsoft’s products.” Musk rejected the “marketing ploy,” telling Altman that “this actually made me feel nauseous.”

Next, OpenAI claimed that Musk had a “different idea” in 2017 when OpenAI “began considering an organizational change that would allow supporters not just to donate, but to invest.” Musk wanted “sole control of the new for-profit,” OpenAI alleged, and he wanted to be CEO. The other founders, including Altman, “refused to accept” an “AGI dictatorship” that was “dominated by Musk.”

“Musk was incensed,” OpenAI said, threatening to leave OpenAI over the disagreement, “or I’m just being a fool who is essentially providing free funding for you to create a startup.”

But Musk floated one more idea between 2017 and 2018 before severing ties—offering to sell OpenAI to Tesla so that OpenAI could use Tesla as a “cash cow.” But Altman and the other founders still weren’t comfortable with Musk controlling OpenAI, rejecting the idea and prompting Musk’s exit.

In his filing, Musk tells the story a little differently, however. He claimed that he only “briefly toyed with the idea of using Tesla as OpenAI’s ‘cash cow'” after Altman and others pressured him to agree to a for-profit restructuring. According to Musk, among the last straws was a series of “get-rich-quick schemes” that Altman proposed to raise funding, including pushing a strategy where OpenAI would launch a cryptocurrency that Musk worried threatened the AI company’s credibility.

When Musk left OpenAI, it was “noisy but relatively amicable,” OpenAI claimed. But Musk continued to express discomfort from afar, still donating to OpenAI as Altman grabbed the CEO title in 2019 and created a capped-profit entity that Musk seemed to view as shady.

“Musk asked Altman to make clear to others that he had ‘no financial interest in the for-profit arm of OpenAI,'” OpenAI noted, and Musk confirmed he issued the demand “with evident displeasure.”

Although they often disagreed, Altman and Musk continued to publicly play nice on Twitter (the platform now known as X), casually chatting for years about things like movies, space, and science, including repeatedly joking about Musk’s posts about using drugs like Ambien.

By 2019, it seemed like none of these disagreements had seriously disrupted the friendship. For example, at that time, Altman defended Musk against people rooting against Tesla’s success, writing that “betting against Elon is historically a mistake” and seemingly hyping Tesla by noting that “the best product usually wins.”

The niceties continued into 2021, when Musk publicly praised “nice work by OpenAI” integrating its coding model into GitHub’s AI tool. “It is hard to do useful things,” Musk said, drawing a salute emoji from Altman.

This was seemingly the end of Musk playing nice with OpenAI, though. Soon after ChatGPT’s release in November 2022, Musk allegedly began his attacks, seemingly willing to change his tactics on a whim.

First, he allegedly deemed OpenAI “irrelevant,” predicting it would “obviously” fail. Then, he started sounding alarms, joining a push for a six-month pause on generative AI development. Musk specifically claimed that any model “more advanced than OpenAI’s just-released GPT-4” posed “profound risks to society and humanity,” OpenAI alleged, seemingly angling to pause OpenAI’s development in particular.

However, in the meantime, Musk started “quietly building a competitor,” xAI, without announcing those efforts in March 2023, OpenAI alleged. Allegedly preparing to hobble OpenAI’s business after failing with the moratorium push, Musk had his personal lawyer contact OpenAI and demand “access to OpenAI’s confidential and commercially sensitive internal documents.”

Musk claimed the request was to “ensure OpenAI was not being taken advantage of or corrupted by Microsoft,” but two weeks later, he appeared on national TV, insinuating that OpenAI’s partnership with Microsoft was “improper,” OpenAI alleged.

Eventually, Musk announced xAI in July 2023, and that supposedly motivated Musk to deepen his harassment campaign, “this time using the courts and a parallel, carefully coordinated media campaign,” OpenAI said, as well as his own social media platform.

Musk “supercharges” X attacks

As OpenAI’s success mounted, the company alleged that Musk began specifically escalating his social media attacks on X, including broadcasting to his 224 million followers that “OpenAI is a house of cards” after filing his 2024 lawsuit.

Claiming he felt conned, Musk also pressured regulators to probe OpenAI, encouraging attorneys general of California and Delaware to “force” OpenAI, “without legal basis, to auction off its assets for the benefit of Musk and his associates,” OpenAI said.

By 2024, Musk had “supercharged” his X attacks, unleashing a “barrage of invective against the enterprise and its leadership, variously describing OpenAI as a ‘digital Frankenstein’s monster,’ ‘a lie,’ ‘evil,’ and ‘a total scam,'” OpenAI alleged.

These attacks allegedly culminated in Musk’s seemingly fake OpenAI takeover attempt in 2025, which OpenAI claimed a Musk ally, Ron Baron, admitted on CNBC was “pitched to him” as not an attempt to actually buy OpenAI’s assets, “but instead to obtain ‘discovery’ and get ‘behind the wall’ at OpenAI.”

All of this makes it harder for OpenAI to achieve the mission that Musk is supposedly suing to defend, OpenAI claimed. They told the court that “OpenAI has borne costs, and been harmed, by Musk’s abusive tactics and unrelenting efforts to mislead the public for his own benefit and to OpenAI’s detriment and the detriment of its mission.”

But Musk argues that it’s Altman who always wanted sole control over OpenAI, accusing his former partner of rampant self-dealing and “locking down the non-profit’s technology for personal gain” as soon as “OpenAI reached the threshold of commercially viable AI.” He further claimed OpenAI blocked xAI funding by reportedly asking investors to avoid backing rival startups like Anthropic or xAI.

Musk alleged:

Altman alone stands to make billions from the non-profit Musk co-founded and invested considerable money, time, recruiting efforts, and goodwill in furtherance of its stated mission. Altman’s scheme has now become clear: lure Musk with phony philanthropy; exploit his money, stature, and contacts to secure world-class AI scientists to develop leading technology; then feed the non-profit’s lucrative assets into an opaque profit engine and proceed to cash in as OpenAI and Microsoft monopolize the generative AI market.

For Altman, this week’s flare-up, where he finally took a hard jab back at Musk on X, may be a sign that Altman is done letting Musk control the narrative on X after years of somewhat tepidly pushing back on Musk’s more aggressive posts.

In 2022, for example, Musk warned after ChatGPT’s release that the chatbot was “scary good,” warning that “we are not far from dangerously strong AI.” Altman responded, cautiously agreeing that OpenAI was “dangerously” close to “strong AI in the sense of an AI that poses e.g. a huge cybersecurity risk” but “real” artificial general intelligence still seemed at least a decade off.

And Altman gave no response when Musk used Grok’s jokey programming to mock GPT-4 as “GPT-Snore” in 2024.

However, Altman seemingly got his back up after Musk mocked OpenAI’s $500 billion Stargate Project, which launched with the US government in January of this year. On X, Musk claimed that OpenAI doesn’t “actually have the money” for the project, which Altman said was “wrong,” while mockingly inviting Musk to visit the worksite.

“This is great for the country,” Altman said, retorting, “I realize what is great for the country isn’t always what’s optimal for your companies, but in your new role [at the Department of Government Efficiency], I hope you’ll mostly put [America] first.”

It remains to be seen whether Altman wants to keep trading jabs with Musk, who is generally a huge fan of trolling on X. But Altman seems more emboldened this week than he was back in January before Musk’s breakup with Donald Trump. Back then, even when he was willing to push back on Musk’s Stargate criticism by insulting Musk’s politics, he still took the time to let Musk know that he still cares.

“I genuinely respect your accomplishments and think you are the most inspiring entrepreneur of our time,” Altman told Musk in January.

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.

Sam Altman finally stood up to Elon Musk after years of X trolling Read More »

Musk threatens to sue Apple so Grok can get top App Store ranking

AI, App Store, Apple, Artificial Intelligence, chatbot, chatgpt, DeepSeek, elon musk, Google, grok, openai, play store, Policy, Twitter, X, xAI / 9u50fv / August 12, 2025

After spending last week hyping Grok’s spicy new features, Elon Musk kicked off this week by threatening to sue Apple for supposedly gaming the App Store rankings to favor ChatGPT over Grok.

“Apple is behaving in a manner that makes it impossible for any AI company besides OpenAI to reach #1 in the App Store, which is an unequivocal antitrust violation,” Musk wrote on X, without providing any evidence. “xAI will take immediate legal action.”

In another post, Musk tagged Apple, asking, “Why do you refuse to put either X or Grok in your ‘Must Have’ section when X is the #1 news app in the world and Grok is #5 among all apps?”

“Are you playing politics?” Musk asked. “What gives? Inquiring minds want to know.”

Apple did not respond to the post and has not responded to Ars’ request to comment.

At the heart of Musk’s complaints is an OpenAI partnership that Apple announced last year, integrating ChatGPT into versions of its iPhone, iPad, and Mac operating systems.

Musk has alleged that this partnership incentivized Apple to boost ChatGPT rankings. OpenAI’s popular chatbot “currently holds the top spot in the App Store’s ‘Top Free Apps’ section for iPhones in the US,” Reuters noted, “while xAI’s Grok ranks fifth and Google’s Gemini chatbot sits at 57th.” Sensor Tower data shows ChatGPT similarly tops Google Play Store rankings.

While Musk seems insistent that ChatGPT is artificially locked in the lead, fact-checkers on X added a community note to his post. They confirmed that at least one other AI tool has somewhat recently unseated ChatGPT in the US rankings. Back in January, DeepSeek topped App Store charts and held the lead for days, ABC News reported.

OpenAI did not immediately respond to Ars’ request to comment on Musk’s allegations, but an OpenAI developer, Steven Heidel, did add a quip in response to one of Musk’s posts, writing, “Don’t forget to also blame Google for OpenAI being #1 on Android, and blame SimilarWeb for putting ChatGPT above X on the most-visited websites list, and blame….”

Musk threatens to sue Apple so Grok can get top App Store ranking Read More »

China tells Alibaba, ByteDance to justify purchases of Nvidia AI chips

AI, china, NVIDIA, Policy, syndication / 9u50fv / August 12, 2025

Beijing is demanding tech companies including Alibaba and ByteDance justify their orders of Nvidia’s H20 artificial intelligence chips, complicating the US chipmaker’s business in China after striking an export arrangement with the Trump administration.

The tech companies have been asked by regulators such as the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) to explain why they need to order Nvidia’s H20 chips instead of using domestic alternatives, said three people familiar with the situation.

Some tech companies, who were the main buyers of Nvidia’s H20 chips before their sale in China was restricted, were planning to downsize their orders as a result of the questions from regulators, said two of the people.

“It’s not banned but has kind of become a politically incorrect thing to do,” said one Chinese data center operator about purchasing Nvidia’s H20 chips.

Alibaba, ByteDance, and MIIT did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Chinese regulators have expressed growing disapproval of companies using Nvidia’s chips for any government or security related projects. Bloomberg reported on Tuesday that Chinese authorities had sent notices to a range of companies discouraging the use of the H20 chips, particularly for government-related work.

China tells Alibaba, ByteDance to justify purchases of Nvidia AI chips Read More »

Reddit blocks Internet Archive to end sneaky AI scraping

AI, ai scraping, AI training, Artificial Intelligence, Google, Internet Archive, openai, Policy, reddit / DJ Henderson / August 12, 2025

“Until they’re able to defend their site and comply with platform policies (e.g., respecting user privacy, re: deleting removed content) we’re limiting some of their access to Reddit data to protect redditors,” Rathschmidt said.

A review of social media comments suggests that in the past, some Redditors have used the Wayback Machine to research deleted comments or threads. Those commenters noted that myriad other tools exist for surfacing deleted posts or researching a user’s activity, with some suggesting that the Wayback Machine was maybe not the easiest platform to navigate for that purpose.

Redditors have also turned to resources like IA during times when Reddit’s platform changes trigger content removals. Most recently in 2023, when changes to Reddit’s public API threatened to kill beloved subreddits, archives stepped in to preserve content before it was lost.

IA has not signaled whether it’s looking into fixes to get Reddit’s restrictions lifted and did not respond to Ars’ request to comment on how this change might impact the archive’s utility as an open web resource, given Reddit’s popularity.

The director of the Wayback Machine, Mark Graham, told Ars that IA has “a longstanding relationship with Reddit” and continues to have “ongoing discussions about this matter.”

It seems likely that Reddit is financially motivated to restrict AI firms from taking advantage of Wayback Machine archives, perhaps hoping to spur more lucrative licensing deals like Reddit struck with OpenAI and Google. The terms of the OpenAI deal were kept quiet, but the Google deal was reportedly worth $60 million. Over the next three years, Reddit expects to make more than $200 million off such licensing deals.

Disclosure: Advance Publications, which owns Ars Technica parent Condé Nast, is the largest shareholder in Reddit.

Reddit blocks Internet Archive to end sneaky AI scraping Read More »

Trump strikes “wild” deal making US firms pay 15% tax on China chip sales

AI, AI chips, AMD, Donald Trump, Huawei, Micron, NVIDIA, Policy, semiconductor, tariffs, us-china trade war / 9u50fv / August 11, 2025

“Extra penalty” for US firms

The deal won’t resolve national security concerns.

Ahead of an August 12 deadline for a US-China trade deal, Donald Trump’s tactics continue to confuse those trying to assess the country’s national security priorities regarding its biggest geopolitical rival.

For months, Trump has kicked the can down the road regarding a TikTok ban, allowing the app to continue operating despite supposedly urgent national security concerns that China may be using the app to spy on Americans. And now, in the latest baffling move, a US official announced Monday that Trump got Nvidia and AMD to agree to “give the US government 15 percent of revenue from sales to China of advanced computer chips,” Reuters reported. Those chips, about 20 policymakers and national security experts recently warned Trump, could be used to fuel China’s frontier AI, which seemingly poses an even greater national security risk.

Trump’s “wild” deal with US chip firms

Reuters granted two officials anonymity to discuss Trump’s deal with US chipmakers, because details have yet to be made public. Requiring US firms to pay for sales in China is an “unusual” move for a president, Reuters noted, and the Trump administration has yet to say what exactly it plans to do with the money.

For US firms, the deal may set an alarming precedent. Not only have analysts warned that the deal could “hurt margins” for both companies, but export curbs on Nvidia’s H20 chips, for example, had been established to prevent US technology thefts, secure US technology leadership, and protect US national security. Now the US government appears to be accepting a payment to overlook those alleged risks, without much reassurance that the policy won’t advantage China in the AI race.

The move drew immediate scrutiny from critics, including Geoff Gertz, a senior fellow at the US think tank Center for a New American Security, who told Reuters that he thinks the deal is “wild.”

“Either selling H20 chips to China is a national security risk, in which case we shouldn’t be doing it to begin with, or it’s not a national security risk, in which case, why are we putting this extra penalty on the sale?” Gertz posited.

At this point, the only reassurance from the Trump administration is an official suggesting (without providing any rationale) that selling H20 or equivalent chips—which are not Nvidia’s most advanced chips—no longer compromises national security.

Trump “trading away” national security

It remains unclear when or how the levy will be implemented.

For chipmakers, the levy is likely viewed as a relatively small price to pay to avoid export curbs. Nvidia had forecasted $8 billion in potential losses if it couldn’t sell its H20 chips to China. AMD expected $1 billion in revenue cuts, partly due to the loss of sales for its MI308 chips in China.

The firms apparently agreed to Trump’s deal as a condition to receive licenses to export those chips. But caving to Trump could bite them back in the long run, AJ Bell, investment director Russ Mould, told Reuters—perhaps especially if Trump faces increasing pressure over feared national security concerns.

“The Chinese market is significant for both these companies, so even if they have to give up a bit of the money, they would otherwise make it look like a logical move on paper,” Mould said. However, the deal “is unprecedented and there is always the risk the revenue take could be upped or that the Trump administration changes its mind and re-imposes export controls.”

So far, AMD has not commented on the report. Nvidia’s spokesperson declined to comment beyond noting, “We follow rules the US government sets for our participation in worldwide markets.”

A former adviser to Joe Biden’s Commerce Department, Alasdair Phillips-Robins, told Reuters that the levy suggests the Trump administration “is trading away national security protections for revenue for the Treasury.”

Huawei close to unveiling new AI chip tech

The end of a 90-day truce between the US and China is rapidly approaching, with the US signaling that the truce will likely be extended soon as Trump attempts to get a long-sought-after meeting with China’s President Xi Jinping.

For China, gutting export curbs on chips remains a key priority in negotiations, the Financial Times reported Sunday. But Nvidia’s H20 chips, for example, are lower priority than high-bandwidth memory (HBM) chips, sources told FT.

Chinese state media has even begun attacking the H20 chips as a Chinese national security risk. It appears that China is urging a boycott on H20 chips due to questions linked to a recent Congressional push to require chipmakers to build “backdoors” that would allow remote shutdowns of any chips detected as non-compliant with export curbs. That bill may mean that Nvidia’s chips already allow for US surveillance, China seemingly fears. (Nvidia has denied building such backdoors.)

Biden banned HBM exports to China last year, specifically moving to hamper innovation of Chinese chipmakers Huawei and Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC).

Currently, US firms AMD and Micron remain top suppliers of HBM chips globally, along with South Korean firms Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix, but Chinese firms have notably lagged behind, South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported. One source told FT that China “had raised the HBM issue in some” Trump negotiations, likely directly seeking to lift Biden’s “HBM controls because they seriously constrain the ability of Chinese companies, including Huawei, to develop their own AI chips.”

For Trump, the HBM controls could be seen as leverage to secure another trade win. However, some experts are hoping that Trump won’t play that card, citing concerns from the Biden era that remain unaddressed.

If Trump bends to Chinese pressure and lifts HBM controls, China could more easily produce AI chips at scale, Biden had feared. That could even possibly endanger US firms’ standing as world leaders, seemingly including threatening Nvidia, a company that Trump discovered this term. Gregory Allen, an AI expert at a US think tank called the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told FT that “saying that we should allow more advanced HBM sales to China is the exact same as saying that we should help Huawei make better AI chips so that they can replace Nvidia.”

Meanwhile, Huawei is reportedly already innovating to help reduce China’s reliance on HBM chips, the SCMP reported on Monday. Chinese state-run Securities Times reported that Huawei is “set to unveil a technological breakthrough that could reduce China’s reliance on high-bandwidth memory (HBM) chips for running artificial intelligence reasoning models” at the 2025 Financial AI Reasoning Application Landing and Development Forum in Shanghai on Tuesday.

It’s a conveniently timed announcement, given the US-China trade deal deadline lands the same day. But the risk of Huawei possibly relying on US tech to reach that particular milestone is why HBM controls should remain off the table during Trump’s negotiations, one official told FT.

“Relaxing these controls would be a gift to Huawei and SMIC and could open the floodgates for China to start making millions of AI chips per year, while also diverting scarce HBM from chips sold in the US,” the official said.

Experts and policymakers had previously warned Trump that allowing H20 export curbs could similarly reduce access to semiconductors in the US, potentially disrupting the entire purpose of Trump’s trade war, which is building reliable US supply chains. Additionally, allowing exports will likely drive up costs to US chip firms at a time when they noted “projected data center demand from the US power market would require 90 percent of global chip supply through 2030, an unlikely scenario even without China joining the rush to buy advanced AI chips.” They’re now joined by others urging Trump to revive Biden’s efforts to block chip exports to China, or else risk empowering a geopolitical rival to become a global AI leader ahead of the US.

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.

Trump strikes “wild” deal making US firms pay 15% tax on China chip sales Read More »