Policy

trump’s-reported-plans-to-save-tiktok-may-violate-scotus-backed-law

Trump’s reported plans to save TikTok may violate SCOTUS-backed law


Everything insiders are saying about Trump’s plan to save TikTok.

It was apparently a busy weekend for key players involved in Donald Trump’s efforts to make a deal to save TikTok.

Perhaps the most appealing option for ByteDance could be if Trump blessed a merger between TikTok and Perplexity AI—a San Francisco-based AI search company worth about $9 billion that appears to view a TikTok video content acquisition as a path to compete with major players like Google and OpenAI.

On Sunday, Perplexity AI submitted a revised merger proposal to TikTok-owner ByteDance, reviewed by CNBC, which sources told AP News included feedback from the Trump administration.

If the plan is approved, Perplexity AI and TikTok US would be merged into a new entity. And once TikTok reaches an initial public offering of at least $300 billion, the US government could own up to 50 percent of that new company, CNBC reported. In the proposal, Perplexity AI suggested that a “fair price” would be “well north of $50 billion,” but the final price will likely depend on how many of TikTok’s existing investors decide to cash out following the merger.

ByteDance has maintained a strong resistance to selling off TikTok, especially a sale including its recommendation algorithm. Not only would this option allow ByteDance to maintain a minority stake in TikTok, but it also would leave TikTok’s recommendation algorithm under ByteDance’s control, CNBC reported. The deal would also “allow for most of ByteDance’s existing investors to retain their equity stakes,” CNBC reported.

But ByteDance may not like one potential part of the deal. An insider source told AP News that ByteDance would be required to allow “full US board control.”

According to AP News, US government ownership of a large stake in TikTok would include checks to ensure the app doesn’t become state controlled. The government’s potential stake would apparently not grant the US voting power or a seat on the merged company’s board.

A source familiar with Perplexity AI’s proposal confirmed to Ars that the reporting from CNBC and AP News is accurate.

Trump denied Oracle’s involvement in talks

Over the weekend, there was also a lot of speculation about Oracle’s involvement in negotiations. NPR reported that two sources with direct knowledge claimed that Trump was considering “tapping software company Oracle and a group of outside investors to effectively take control of the app’s global operations.”

That would be a seemingly bigger grab for the US than forcing ByteDance to divest only TikTok’s US operations.

“The goal is for Oracle to effectively monitor and provide oversight with what is going on with TikTok,” one source told NPR. “ByteDance wouldn’t completely go away, but it would minimize Chinese ownership.”

Oracle apparently met with the Trump administration on Friday and has another meeting scheduled this week to discuss Oracle buying a TikTok stake “in the tens of billions,” NPR reported.

But Trump has disputed that, saying this past weekend that he “never” spoke to Oracle about buying TikTok, AP News reported.

“Numerous people are talking to me. Very substantial people,” Trump said, confirming that he would only make a deal to save TikTok “if the United States benefits.”

All sources seemed to suggest that no deal was close to being finalized yet. Other potential Big Tech buyers include Microsoft or even possibly Elon Musk (can you imagine TikTok merged with X?). On Saturday, Trump suggested that he would likely announce his decision on TikTok’s future in the next 30 days.

Meanwhile, TikTok access has become spotty in the US. Google and Apple dropped TikTok from their app stores when the divest-or-ban law kicked in, partly because of the legal limbo threatening hundreds of billions in fines if Trump changes his mind about enforcement. That means ByteDance currently can’t push updates to US users, and anyone who offloads TikTok or purchases a new device can’t download the app in popular distribution channels.

“If we can save TikTok, I think it would be a good thing,” Trump said.

Could Trump’s plan violate divest-or-ban law?

The divest-or-ban law is formally called the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. For months, TikTok was told in court that the law required either a sale of TikTok US operations or a US ban, but now ByteDance seems to believe there’s another option to keep TikTok in the US without forcing a sale.

It remains unclear if lawmakers will approve Trump’s plan if it doesn’t force a sale of TikTok. US Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), who co-sponsored the law, issued a statement last week insisting that “ByteDance divesting remains the only real solution to protect our national security and guarantee Americans access to TikTok.”

Krishnamoorthi declined Ars’ request to comment on whether leaked details of Trump’s potential deal to save TikTok could potentially violate the divest-or-ban law. But debate will likely turn on how the law defines “qualified divestiture.”

Under the law, qualified divestiture could be either a “divestiture or similar transaction” that meets two conditions. First, the transaction is one that Trump “determines, through an interagency process, would result in the relevant foreign adversary controlled application no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary.” Second, the deal blocks any foreign adversary-controlled entity or affiliate from interfering in TikTok US operations, “including any cooperation” with foreign adversaries “with respect to the operation of a content recommendation algorithm or an agreement with respect to data sharing.”

That last bit seems to suggest that lawmakers might clash with Trump over ByteDance controlling TikTok’s algorithm, even if a company like Oracle or Perplexity serves as a gatekeeper to Americans’ data safeguarding US national security interests.

Experts told NPR that ByteDance could feasibly maintain a minority stake in TikTok US under the law, with Trump seeming to have “wide latitude to interpret” what is or is not a qualified divestiture. One congressional staffer told NPR that lawmakers might be won over if the Trump administration secured binding legal agreements “ensuring ByteDance cannot covertly manipulate the app.”

The US has tried to strike just such a national security agreement with ByteDance before, though, and it ended in lawmakers passing the divest-or-ban law. During the government’s court battle with TikTok over the law, the government repeatedly argued that prior agreement—also known as “Project Texas,” which ensured TikTok’s US recommendation engine was stored in the Oracle cloud and deployed in the US by a TikTok US subsidiary—was not enough to block Chinese influence. Proposed in 2022, the agreement was abruptly ended in 2023 when the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) determined only divestiture would resolve US concerns.

CFIUS did not respond to Ars’ request for comment.

The key problem at that point was ByteDance maintaining control of the algorithm, the government successfully argued in a case that ended in a Supreme Court victory.

“Even under TikTok’s proposed national security agreement, the source code for the recommendation engine would originate in China,” the government warned.

That seemingly leaves a vulnerability that any Trump deal allowing ByteDance to maintain control of the algorithm would likely have to reconcile.

“Under Chinese national-security laws, the Chinese government can require a China-based company to ‘surrender all its data,'” the US argued. That ultimately turned TikTok into “an espionage tool” for the Chinese Communist Party.

There’s no telling yet if Trump’s plan can set up a better version of Project Texas or convince China to sign off on a TikTok sale. Analysts have suggested that China may agree to a TikTok sale if Trump backs down on tariff threats.

ByteDance did not respond to Ars’ request for comment.

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.

Trump’s reported plans to save TikTok may violate SCOTUS-backed law Read More »

couple-allegedly-tricked-ai-investors-into-funding-wedding,-houses

Couple allegedly tricked AI investors into funding wedding, houses

To further the alleged scheme, he “often described non-existent revenue, inflated cash balances,” and “otherwise exaggerated customer relationships,” the US Attorney’s Office said, to convince investors to spend millions. As Beckman’s accomplice, Lau allegedly manipulated documents, including documents allegedly stolen from the venture capital firm that employed her while supposedly hiding her work for GameOn.

The scheme apparently also included forging audits and bank statements, as well as using “the names of at least seven real people—including fake emails and signatures—without their permission to distribute false and fraudulent GameOn financial and business information and documents with the intent to defraud GameOn and its investors,” the US Attorney’s Office said.

At perhaps the furthest extreme, Lau allegedly falsified account statements, including once faking a balance of over $13 million when that account only had $25 in it. The FBI found that GameOn’s revenues never exceeded $1 million in any year, while Beckman allegedly inflated sales to investors, including claiming that sales in one quarter in 2023 got as high as $72 million.

Beckman and Lau allegedly went to great lengths to hide the scheme while diverting investor funds to their personal accounts. While GameOn employees allegedly sometimes went without paychecks, Beckman and Lau allegedly stole funds to buy expensive San Francisco real estate and pay for their wedding in 2023. If convicted, they may be forced to forfeit a $4.2 million house, a Tesla Model X, and other real estate and property purchased with their allegedly ill-gotten gains, the indictment said.

It took about five years for the cracks to begin to show in Beckman’s scheme. Beginning in 2023, Beckman increasingly started facing “questions about specific customers and specific revenue from those customers,” the indictment said. By February 2024, Beckman at last “acknowledged to at least one GameOn consultant” that a flagged audit report “did not contain accurate financial information,” but allegedly, he “attempted to shift blame to others for the inaccuracies.”

Couple allegedly tricked AI investors into funding wedding, houses Read More »

isp-failed-to-comply-with-new-york’s-$15-broadband-law—until-ars-got-involved

ISP failed to comply with New York’s $15 broadband law—until Ars got involved


New York’s affordable broadband law

Optimum wasn’t ready to comply with law, rejected low-income man’s request twice.

Credit: Getty Images | imagedepotpro

When New York’s law requiring $15 or $20 broadband plans for people with low incomes took effect last week, Optimum customer William O’Brien tried to sign up for the cheap Internet service. Since O’Brien is in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), he qualifies for one of the affordable plans that Internet service providers must offer New Yorkers who meet income eligibility requirements.

O’Brien has been paying Optimum $111.20 a month for broadband—$89.99 for the broadband service, $14 in equipment rental fees, a $6 “Network Enhancement Fee,” and $1.21 in tax. He was due for a big discount under the New York Affordable Broadband Act (ABA), which says that any ISP with over 20,000 customers must offer either a $15 plan with download speeds of at least 25Mbps or a $20 plan with at least 200Mbps speeds, and that the price must include “any recurring taxes and fees such as recurring rental fees for service provider equipment required to obtain broadband service and usage fees.”

Despite qualifying for a low-income plan under the law’s criteria, O’Brien’s request was denied by Optimum. He reached out to Ars, just like many other people who have read our articles about bad telecom customer service. Usually, these problems are fixed quickly after we reach out to an Internet provider’s public relations department on the customer’s behalf.

That seemed to be the way it was going, as Optimum’s PR team admitted the mistake and told us that a customer relations specialist would reach out to O’Brien and get him on the right plan. But O’Brien was rejected again after that.

We followed up with Optimum’s PR team, and they had to intervene a second time to make sure the company gave O’Brien what he’s entitled to under the law. The company also updated its marketing materials after we pointed out that its Optimum Advantage Internet webpage still said the low-income plan wasn’t available to current customers, former users who disconnected less than 60 days ago, and former customers whose accounts were “not in good standing.” The New York law doesn’t allow for those kinds of exceptions.

O’Brien is now on a $14.99 plan with 50Mbps download and 5Mbps upload speeds. He was previously on a 100Mbps download plan and had faster upload speeds, but from now on he’ll be paying nearly $100 less a month.

Obviously, telecom customers shouldn’t ever have to contact a news organization just to get a basic problem solved. But the specter of media coverage usually causes an ISP to take quick action, so it was surprising when O’Brien was rejected a second time. Here’s what happened.

“We don’t have that plan”

O’Brien contacted Optimum (which used to be called Cablevision and is now owned by Altice USA) after learning about the New York law from an Ars article. “I immediately got on Optimum’s website to chat with live support but they refused to comply with the act,” O’Brien told us on January 15, the day the law took effect.

A transcript of O’Brien’s January 15 chat with Optimum shows that the customer service agent told him, “I did check on that and according to the policy we don’t have that credit offer in Optimum right now.” O’Brien provided the agent a link to the Ars article, which described the New York law and mentioned that Optimum offers a low-income plan for $15.

“After careful review, I did check on that, it is not officially from Optimum and in Optimum we don’t have that plan,” the agent replied.

O’Brien provided Ars with documents showing that he is in SNAP and thus qualifies for the low-income plan. We provided this information to the Optimum PR department on the morning of January 17.

“We have escalated this exchange with our teams internally to ensure this issue is rectified and will be reaching out to the customer directly today to assist in getting him on the right plan,” an Optimum spokesperson told us that afternoon.

A specialist from Optimum’s executive customer relations squad reached out to O’Brien later on Friday. He missed the call, but they connected on Tuesday, January 21. She told O’Brien that Optimum doesn’t offer the low-income plan to existing customers.

“She said their position is that they offer the required service but only for new customers and since I already have service I’m disqualified,” O’Brien told us. “I told her that I’m currently on food stamps and that I used to receive the $30 a month COVID credit but this did not matter. She claimed that since Optimum offers a $15, 50Mbps service… that they are in compliance with the law.”

Shortly after the call, the specialist sent O’Brien an email reiterating that he wasn’t eligible, which he shared with Ars. “As discussed prior to this notification, Optimum offers a low-income service for $15.00. However, we were unable to change the account to that service because it is an active account with the service,” she wrote.

Second try

We contacted Optimum’s PR team again after getting this update from O’Brien. On Tuesday evening, the specialist from executive customer relations emailed O’Brien to say, “The matter was reviewed, and I was advised that I could upgrade the account.”

After another conversation with the specialist on Wednesday, O’Brien had the $15 plan. O’Brien told us that he “asked why I had to fight tooth and nail for this” and why he had to contact a news organization to get it resolved. “I claimed that it’s almost like no one there has read the legislation, and it was complete silence,” he told us.

On Wednesday this week, the Optimum spokesperson told us that “it seems that there has been some confusion among our care teams on the implementation of the ABA over the last week and how it should be correctly applied to our existing low-cost offers.”

Optimum has offered its low-cost plan for several years, with the previously mentioned restrictions that limit it to new customers. The plan website wasn’t updated in time for the New York law, but now says that “new and existing residential Internet customers in New York” qualify. The new-customer restriction still applies elsewhere.

“Our materials have been updated, including all internal documents and trainings, in addition to our external website,” Optimum told us on Wednesday this week.

Law was in the works for years

Broadband lobby groups convinced a federal judge to block the New York affordability law in 2021, but a US appeals court reversed the ruling in April 2024. The Supreme Court decided not to hear the case in mid-December, allowing the law to take effect.

New York had agreed to delay enforcement until 30 days after the case’s final resolution, which meant that it took effect on January 15. The state issued an order on January 9 reminding ISPs that they had to comply.

“We have been working as fast as we can to update all of our internal and external materials since the ABA was implemented only last week—there was quite a fast turnaround between state officials notifying us of the intended implementation date and pushing this live,” Optimum told Ars.

AT&T decided to completely stop offering its 5G home Internet service in New York instead of complying with the state law. The law doesn’t affect smartphone service, and AT&T doesn’t offer wired home Internet in New York.

Optimum told us it plans to market its low-income plan “more broadly and conduct additional outreach in low-income areas to educate customers and prospects of this offer. We want to make sure that those eligible for this plan know about it and sign up.”

O’Brien was disappointed that he couldn’t get a faster service plan. As noted earlier, the New York law lets ISPs comply with either a $15 plan with download speeds of at least 25Mbps or a $20 plan with at least 200Mbps speeds. ISPs don’t have to offer both.

“I did ask about 200Mbps service, but they said they are not offering that,” he said. Optimum offers a $25 plan with 100Mbps speeds for low-income users. But even in New York, that one still isn’t available to customers who were already subscribed to any other plan.

Failure to comply with the New York law can be punished with civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation. The state attorney general can sue Internet providers to enforce the law. O’Brien said he intended to file a complaint against Optimum with the AG and is still hoping to get a 200Mbps plan.

We contacted Attorney General Letitia James’ office on Wednesday to ask about plans for enforcing the law and whether the office has received any complaints so far, but we haven’t gotten a response.

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.

ISP failed to comply with New York’s $15 broadband law—until Ars got involved Read More »

all-federal-agencies-ordered-to-terminate-remote-work—ideally-within-30-days

All federal agencies ordered to terminate remote work—ideally within 30 days

Exceptions may be granted

Ezell’s memo expanded criticism of the Biden administration’s approach to remote work, suggesting that it enabled federal unions’ alleged attempts “to abuse the collective-bargaining process to guarantee full-time telework into the indefinite future and forestall any requirement to return to the office.”

Suspecting that the “rampant use of telework is likely underreported,” the committee’s report concluded that “even the reported levels are excessive, there is little evidence that it is enhancing productivity or addressing recruitment and retention gaps, and there is evidence it is harming agency missions and citizen-facing services.”

To overcome these supposed deficiencies, the committee recommended that remote work policies be linked to performance metrics, rather than “employee preferences or union demands.” Any remote work that is granted should be tracked through automated systems, the report further prescribed, and any attempts for federal agencies to compete for talent using remote work perks should not be tolerated.

This will allow the government to alleviate the “national embarrassment” of empty offices and “dispose of unneeded property and terminate unnecessary leases,” the report said.

While some employees may be eligible for RTO exemptions—either to accommodate a disability or qualifying medical condition, or for some “other compelling reason certified by the agency head and the employee’s supervisor”—Ezell’s memo insisted that a general return-to-office push was necessary. He said that Trump’s presidential memo reflected “a simple reality” that “the only way to get employees back to the office is to adopt a centralized policy requiring return-to-work for all agencies across the federal government.”

“Seeking to cajole individual agencies to try to get employees to return to the worksite has not succeeded,” Ezell said.

Although Trump’s memo set no deadline for RTO efforts to begin, Ezell gave federal agency heads rather short notice to fall in line. All agencies must submit their RTO plans by 5 pm ET on Friday, January 24, Ezell’s memo said.

Those plans should specify “the date that the agency will be in full compliance with the new telework policy,” with a recommended deadline of 30 days to comply, Ezell said.

All federal agencies ordered to terminate remote work—ideally within 30 days Read More »

trump-can-save-tiktok-without-forcing-a-sale,-bytedance-board-member-claims

Trump can save TikTok without forcing a sale, ByteDance board member claims

TikTok owner ByteDance is reportedly still searching for non-sale options to stay in the US after the Supreme Court upheld a national security law requiring that TikTok’s US operations either be shut down or sold to a non-foreign adversary.

Last weekend, TikTok briefly went dark in the US, only to come back online hours later after Donald Trump reassured ByteDance that the US law would not be enforced. Then, shortly after Trump took office, he signed an executive order delaying enforcement for 75 days while he consulted with advisers to “pursue a resolution that protects national security while saving a platform used by 170 million Americans.”

Trump’s executive order did not suggest that he intended to attempt to override the national security law’s ban-or-sale requirements. But that hasn’t stopped ByteDance, board member Bill Ford told World Economic Forum (WEF) attendees, from searching for a potential non-sale option that “could involve a change of control locally to ensure it complies with US legislation,” Bloomberg reported.

It’s currently unclear how ByteDance could negotiate a non-sale option without facing a ban. Joe Biden’s extended efforts through Project Texas to keep US TikTok data out of China-controlled ByteDance’s hands without forcing a sale dead-ended, prompting Congress to pass the national security law requiring a ban or sale.

At the WEF, Ford said that the ByteDance board is “optimistic we will find a solution” that avoids ByteDance giving up a significant chunk of TikTok’s operations.

“There are a number of alternatives we can talk to President Trump and his team about that are short of selling the company that allow the company to continue to operate, maybe with a change of control of some kind, but short of having to sell,” Ford said.

Trump can save TikTok without forcing a sale, ByteDance board member claims Read More »

court-rules-fbi’s-warrantless-searches-violated-fourth-amendment

Court rules FBI’s warrantless searches violated Fourth Amendment

“Certainly, the Court can imagine situations where obtaining a warrant might frustrate the purpose of querying, particularly where exigency requires immediate querying,” DeArcy Hall wrote. “This is why the Court does not hold that querying Section 702-acquired information always requires a warrant.”

Ruling renews calls for 702 reforms

While digital rights groups like the EFF and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) cheered the ruling as providing much-needed clarity, they also suggested that the ruling should prompt lawmakers to go back to the drawing board and reform Section 702.

Section 702 is set to expire on April 15, 2026. Over the years, Congress has repeatedly voted to renew 702 protections, but the EFF is hoping that DeArcy Hall’s ruling will perhaps spark a sea change.

“In light of this ruling, we ask Congress to uphold its responsibility to protect civil rights and civil liberties by refusing to renew Section 702 absent a number of necessary reforms, including an official warrant requirement for querying US persons data and increased transparency,” the EFF wrote in a blog.

A warrant requirement could help truly end backdoor searches, the EFF suggested, and ensure “that the intelligence community does not continue to trample on the constitutionally protected rights to private communications.”

The ACLU warned that reforms are especially critical now, considering that unconstitutional backdoor searches have been “used by the government to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans, including protesters, members of Congress, and journalists.”

Patrick Toomey, the deputy director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, dubbed 702 “one of the most abused provisions of FISA.”

“As the court recognized, the FBI’s rampant digital searches of Americans are an immense invasion of privacy and trigger the bedrock protections of the Fourth Amendment,” Toomey said. “Section 702 is long overdue for reform by Congress, and this opinion shows why.”

Court rules FBI’s warrantless searches violated Fourth Amendment Read More »

trump’s-fcc-chair-gets-to-work-on-punishing-tv-news-stations-accused-of-bias

Trump’s FCC chair gets to work on punishing TV news stations accused of bias

Carr has made it clear that he wants the FCC to punish news broadcasters that he perceives as being unfair to Trump or Republicans in general. He claimed that NBC putting Harris on Saturday Night Live before the election was “a clear and blatant effort to evade the FCC’s Equal Time rule,” even though NBC gave Trump two free 60-second messages in order to comply with the rule.

Carr also told Fox News that he is interested in investigating the complaint against CBS when the FCC reviews a pending deal involving Skydance and Paramount, which owns and operates 28 local broadcast TV stations of the CBS Television Network. “I’m pretty confident that news distortion complaint over the CBS 60 Minutes transcript is something that is likely to arise in the context of the FCC’s review of that transaction,” Carr said.

Carr “intends to weaponize the FCC”

After Rosenworcel dismissed the complaints, the Center for American Rights said it would keep fighting. “We fundamentally believe that several actions taken by the three major networks were partisan, dishonest and designed to support Vice President Harris in her bid to become President,” the group said in a statement provided to Ars last week. “We will continue to pursue avenues to ensure the American public is protected from media manipulation of our Republic. The First Amendment does not protect intentional misrepresentation or fraud.”

In a statement applauding Carr’s reversal today, the group said that Rosenworcel’s “last-minute actions were political, not based on a principled defense of the First Amendment.”

Networks have denied allegations of bias. “Former President Donald Trump is accusing 60 Minutes of deceitful editing of our Oct. 7 interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. That is false,” CBS said. “60 Minutes gave an excerpt of our interview to Face the Nation that used a longer section of her answer than that on 60 Minutes. Same question. Same answer. But a different portion of the response.”

Rosenworcel last week also rejected a petition to deny a license renewal for WTXF-TV in Philadelphia, a station owned and operated by Fox. The Media and Democracy Project petition alleged that Fox willfully distorted news with false reports of fraud in the 2020 election that Trump lost.

Rosenworcel said the complaints and petition she dismissed “come from all corners—right and left—but what they have in common is they ask the FCC to penalize broadcast television stations because they dislike station behavior, content, or coverage.” Yesterday, advocacy group Public Knowledge said that “in reinstating just those complaints that suit his partisan agenda, Chairman Carr has made it plain he intends to weaponize the FCC to threaten political speech and news coverage he disagrees with.”

Trump’s FCC chair gets to work on punishing TV news stations accused of bias Read More »

uk-opens-probe-into-google’s-and-apple’s-mobile-platforms

UK opens probe into Google’s and Apple’s mobile platforms

Last week, the CMA opened its first such case, reviewing Google’s dominance in search and advertising.

The CMA is already in the process of probing Google and Apple in a separate investigation into mobile web browsers and cloud gaming, which has provisionally found the two companies were “holding back competition” in browsers.

“Android’s openness has helped to expand choice, reduce prices, and democratize access to smartphones and apps. It’s the only example of a successful and viable open source mobile operating system,” said Oliver Bethell, Google’s senior director of competition.

“We favor a way forward that avoids stifling choice and opportunities for UK consumers and businesses alike, and without risk to UK growth prospects,” he added.

Apple, which says its app platform supports hundreds of thousands of UK jobs, said it would “continue to engage constructively” with the CMA.

“Apple believes in thriving and dynamic markets where innovation can flourish,” the company said. “We face competition in every segment and jurisdiction where we operate, and our focus is always the trust of our users.”

The CMA’s probe will add to the worldwide scrutiny that both companies are already facing over their dominance of the smartphone market.

Apple clashed with Brussels several times last year over the implementation of the Digital Markets Act, making changes to its platform after the European Commission accused the iPhone maker of failing to comply with its “online gatekeeper” rules.

If designated, the UK’s “strategic market status” lasts for a five-year period, and companies can be fined up to 10 percent of global turnover for breaching conduct rules.

© 2025 The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved. Not to be redistributed, copied, or modified in any way.

UK opens probe into Google’s and Apple’s mobile platforms Read More »

apple-must-face-suit-over-alleged-policy-of-underpaying-female-workers

Apple must face suit over alleged policy of underpaying female workers

While some of Apple’s defense was deemed “demonstrably inaccurate” and most of its arguments “insufficient,” Apple did successfully argue against efforts to seize back pay for former female employees no longer working for Apple who were seemingly also impacted by allegedly sexist policies implemented in 2020. That claim must be dropped as the proposed class action moves forward.

Additionally, another claim alleging pay disparity that was linked to racial discrimination was suspended. But the Apple worker suing, Zainab Bori, will have a chance to amend her claim that she was fired as retaliation for filing a discrimination complaint. It could survive if she adds currently missing evidence that “she suffered an adverse employment action” while working under a manager with an alleged “history of negative interactions with African American employees,” Schulman’s order said.

Apple did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment.

In a press release sent to Ars, Eve Cervantez, a lawyer representing Apple workers suing, celebrated the court’s ruling.

“I am really pleased with today’s ruling,” Cervantez said. “This start low, stay low practice has been a no-win situation for women working at Apple for years. So, I’m glad they will have their day in court.”

Apple accused of ignoring hostile work environment

For Justina Jong—whom the complaint noted joined Apple in 2013 and has helped lead “cross-functional teams that improve the App Review experience for global app developers”—this week’s win might be particularly encouraging after Apple allegedly refused to take her experience with sexual harassment seriously.

Jong has alleged that in 2019, Blaine Weilert, a senior member of an Apple talent development team, touched her in a sexually suggestive manner without consent. Although Weilert admitted to the act and was disciplined, Apple tried and failed to argue this was a one-time offense that didn’t constitute a hostile work environment or warrant Jong’s repeated requests to be moved away from Weilert in Apple’s offices.

Apple must face suit over alleged policy of underpaying female workers Read More »

trump-admin-fires-security-board-investigating-chinese-hack-of-large-isps

Trump admin fires security board investigating Chinese hack of large ISPs

“Effective immediately, the Department of Homeland Security will no longer tolerate any advisory committee[s] which push agendas that attempt to undermine its national security mission, the President’s agenda or Constitutional rights of Americans,” the DHS statement said.

The Cyber Safety Review Board operates under the DHS’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which has been criticized by Republican lawmakers for allegedly trying to “surveil and censor Americans’ speech on social media.”

Democrat: Board will be stacked with Trump loyalists

A Democratic lawmaker said that Trump appears ready to stack the Cyber Safety Review Board with “loyalists.” House Committee on Homeland Security Ranking Member Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) made the criticism in his opening statement at a hearing today.

“Before I close, I would also like to express my concern regarding the dismissal of the non-government members of advisory committees inside the Department, including the Cyber Safety Review Board and the CISA Advisory Committee,” Thompson’s statement reads. “The CSRB is in the process of investigating the Salt Typhoon hack of nine major telecommunications companies, and it is a national security imperative that the investigation be completed expeditiously. I am troubled that the President’s attempt to stack the CSRB with loyalists may cause its important work on the Salt Typhoon campaign to be delayed.”

Thompson said Republicans have been trying to shut down CISA over “false allegations and conspiracy theories.” The conservative Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 alleged that “CISA has devolved into an unconstitutional censoring and election engineering apparatus of the political Left.”

The DHS memo dismissing board members was published yesterday by freelance cybersecurity reporter Eric Geller, who quoted an anonymous source as saying the Cyber Safety Review Board’s review of Salt Typhoon is “dead.” Geller wrote that other advisory boards affected by the mass dismissal include the Artificial Intelligence Safety and Security Board, the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council, the National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee, the National Infrastructure Advisory Council, and the Secret Service’s Cyber Investigations Advisory Board.

“The CSRB was ‘less than halfway’ done with its Salt Typhoon investigation, according to a now-former member,” Geller wrote. The former member was also quoted as saying, “There are still professional staff for the CSRB and I hope they will continue some of the work in the interim.”

House Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Mark Green (R-Tenn.) told Nextgov/FCW that “President Trump’s new DHS leadership should have the opportunity to decide the future of the Board. This could include appointing new members, reviewing its structure, or deciding if the Board is the best way to examine cyber intrusions.”

Trump admin fires security board investigating Chinese hack of large ISPs Read More »

trump-issues-flurry-of-orders-on-tiktok,-doge,-social-media,-ai,-and-energy

Trump issues flurry of orders on TikTok, DOGE, social media, AI, and energy


A roundup of executive orders issued by Trump after his second inauguration.

US President Donald Trump after being sworn in at his inauguration on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. Credit: Getty Images

President Donald Trump’s flurry of day-one actions included a reprieve for TikTok, the creation of a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an order on social media “censorship,” a declaration of an energy emergency, and reversal of a Biden order on artificial intelligence.

The TikTok executive order attempts to delay enforcement of a US law that requires TikTok to be banned unless its Chinese owner ByteDance sells the platform. “I am instructing the Attorney General not to take any action to enforce the Act for a period of 75 days from today to allow my Administration an opportunity to determine the appropriate course forward in an orderly way that protects national security while avoiding an abrupt shutdown of a communications platform used by millions of Americans,” Trump’s order said.

TikTok shut down in the US for part of the weekend but re-emerged after Trump said on Sunday that he would issue an order to “extend the period of time before the law’s prohibitions take effect, so that we can make a deal to protect our national security.” Trump also suggested that the US should own half of TikTok.

Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-N.J.) criticized Trump’s TikTok action. “I have serious concerns with President Trump’s executive order because he is circumventing national security legislation passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress… ByteDance has had 270 days to sell TikTok to an American company, and it’s disgraceful they spent all that time playing political games rather than working to find a buyer,” Pallone said.

Trump’s order doesn’t necessarily remove liability for any company that helps TikTok stay available in the US, The Washington Post reported:

Legal experts and some lawmakers said that with the ban already in force, companies that host or distribute the app will be in violation and could be held liable, no matter what Trump says. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, warned Sunday after Trump detailed his TikTok plans that companies could still “face hundreds of billions of dollars of ruinous liability under the law,” even if Trump’s Justice Department does not enforce it.

Trump also issued an order revoking numerous Biden administration orders. One is an October 2023 order titled Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence. That Biden order, as we wrote at the time, “includes testing mandates for advanced AI models to ensure they can’t be used for creating weapons, suggestions for watermarking AI-generated media, and provisions addressing privacy and job displacement.”

In other White House actions we wrote about yesterday and today, Trump ordered the US to withdraw from the World Health Organization and reversed steps taken to promote electric vehicles.

DOGE

Trump’s executive order establishing a Department of Government Efficiency has been expected since November, when he announced the plan and said that DOGE would be led by Elon Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. Instead of creating a brand-new department, the order gives a new name to the existing US Digital Service.

“The United States Digital Service is hereby publicly renamed as the United States DOGE Service (USDS) and shall be established in the Executive Office of the President,” Trump’s order said.

The US Digital Service was launched in 2014 by the Obama administration as a “small team of America’s best digital experts” to “work in collaboration with other government agencies to make websites more consumer friendly, to identify and fix problems, and to help upgrade the government’s technology infrastructure.”

Trump said in November that DOGE “will pave the way for my Administration to dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies.” Yesterday’s executive order said the department will focus on “modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.”

Federal agencies will have to collaborate with DOGE. “Among other things, the USDS Administrator shall work with Agency Heads to promote inter-operability between agency networks and systems, ensure data integrity, and facilitate responsible data collection and synchronization,” the order said. “Agency Heads shall take all necessary steps, in coordination with the USDS Administrator and to the maximum extent consistent with law, to ensure USDS has full and prompt access to all unclassified agency records, software systems, and IT systems. USDS shall adhere to rigorous data protection standards.”

Speech on social media

Trump tackled social media in an order titled Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship. The order targets the Biden administration’s practice of contacting social media platforms about content that government officials believe should have been moderated or blocked.

In 2023, the Supreme Court blocked an injunction that would have prevented the Biden administration from pressuring social media firms to take down content. Justices expressed skepticism during oral arguments about whether federal government officials should face limits on their communications with social media networks like Facebook and ruled in favor of the Biden administration in June 2024.

Despite the Biden court win, Trump’s order described the Biden administration’s approach as a threat to the First Amendment.

“Over the last 4 years, the previous administration trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech on online platforms, often by exerting substantial coercive pressure on third parties, such as social media companies, to moderate, deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech that the Federal Government did not approve,” Trump’s order said. “Under the guise of combatting ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ and ‘malinformation,’ the Federal Government infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States in a manner that advanced the Government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate. Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society.”

The order goes on to say that federal government employees and officials are prohibited from “engag[ing] in or facilitat[ing] any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.” Trump further directed his administration to”identify and take appropriate action to correct past misconduct by the Federal Government related to censorship of protected speech.”

Fossil fuels good, wind bad

On the energy front, the most striking executive order is one declaring that the US is facing an energy emergency. This comes despite the fact that the US has been producing, in the words of its own agency, “more crude oil than any country, ever.” It’s also producing record volumes of natural gas. Prices for both have been low in part due to this large supply. Yet the executive order states that “identification, leasing, development, production, transportation, refining, and generation capacity of the United States are all far too inadequate to meet our Nation’s needs.”

The order describes ways to streamline permitting for all of these under emergency provisions overseen by the US Army Corps of Engineers. On the face of it, this would seem to also be good for wind and solar power, which are produced domestically and suffer from permitting barriers and a backlog of requests for connections to the grid. But toward the end of the text, “energy” is defined in a way that excludes wind and solar. “The term ‘energy’ or ‘energy resources’ means crude oil, natural gas, lease condensates, natural gas liquids, refined petroleum products, uranium, coal, biofuels, geothermal heat, the kinetic movement of flowing water, and critical minerals,” the order says.

If the animosity toward the fastest-growing sources of renewable energy weren’t clear there, a separate executive order makes them explicit, as Trump is putting a temporary end to all offshore wind lease sales. “This withdrawal temporarily prevents consideration of any area in the [Offshore Continental Shelf] for any new or renewed wind energy leasing for the purposes of generation of electricity or any other such use derived from the use of wind,” it reads. “This withdrawal does not apply to leasing related to any other purposes such as, but not limited to, oil, gas, minerals, and environmental conservation.”

The ostensible reason for this is “alleged legal deficiencies” in the environmental reviews that were conducted prior to the leasing process. There will also be an attempt to claw back existing leases. The secretary of the interior and attorney general are instructed to “conduct a comprehensive review of the ecological, economic, and environmental necessity of terminating or amending any existing wind energy leases.”

As an added bonus, the same accusations of legal deficiencies is leveled against a single land-based project, the proposed Lava Ridge wind farm in Idaho. So all government activities related to that project are on hold until it’s reviewed.

“Burdensome” regulations targeted

When it comes to fossil fuel development on the continental shelf, a Trump order alleges that “burdensome and ideologically motivated regulations” are impeding development. The order takes several steps to speed up permitting of fossil fuel projects. It also kills a grab bag of climate-related programs.

One of the most prominent efforts is to do away with the emissions waivers, allowed under the Clean Air Act, which enable states like California to set stricter rules than the federal government. The Supreme Court recently declined even to consider an attempt to challenge these waivers. Yet as part of an attack on electric vehicles, the administration is adopting a policy of “terminating, where appropriate, state emissions waivers that function to limit sales of gasoline-powered automobiles.”

Also targeted for termination is the American Climate Corps, a job training program focused on people entering the workforce. The Biden administration’s effort to determine and consider the social cost of carbon emissions during federal rulemaking will also be ended.

Several federal rules and executive orders will be targets, notably those on implementing the energy provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, which have subsidized renewable energy and funded programs like carbon capture and hydrogen production. Many of these are already formal rules published in the Federal Register, which means that new rulemaking processes will be required to eliminate them, something that typically takes over a year and can be subject to court challenge.

In a separate part of the order, titled “Terminating the Green New Deal,” the Order suspends funding provided under two laws that were not part of the Green New Deal: the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Given those funds have already been allocated by Congress, it’s not clear how long Trump can delay this spending.

Finally, Trump decided he would attack the foundation of US efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions: the EPA’s finding that greenhouse gasses are a threat to the public as defined by the Clean Air Act. The endangerment finding is solidly based on well-established science, so much so that attempts to challenge it during the first Trump administration were reportedly abandoned as being unrealistic. Now, the incoming EPA administrator is given just 30 days to “submit joint recommendations to the Director of [Office of Management and Budget] on the legality and continuing applicability of the Administrator’s findings.”

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 issues flurry of orders on TikTok, DOGE, social media, AI, and energy Read More »

trump-orders-us-withdrawal-from-the-world-health-organization

Trump orders US withdrawal from the World Health Organization

The United States noticed its withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2020 due to the organization’s mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic that arose out of Wuhan, China, and other global health crises, its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states.  In addition, the WHO continues to demand unfairly onerous payments from the United States, far out of proportion with other countries’ assessed payments.  China, with a population of 1.4 billion, has 300 percent of the population of the United States, yet contributes nearly 90 percent less to the WHO.

Health experts fear that a US withdrawal from the agency would significantly diminish the agency’s resources and capabilities, leave the world more vulnerable to health threats, and isolate the US, hurting its own interests and leaving the country less prepared to respond to another pandemic. The New York Times noted that a withdrawal would mean that the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would lose, among many things, access to global health data that the WHO compiles.

It remains legally unclear if Trump can unilaterally withdrawal the country from the WHO, or if the withdrawal also requires a joint act with Congress.

Trump orders US withdrawal from the World Health Organization Read More »