We contacted CBS and its owner Paramount today and have not received a response. CBS denied prohibiting an interview with Talarico in a statement reported by Variety. The CBS statement acknowledged giving “legal guidance” about potential consequences under the equal-time rule, though.

“The Late Show was not prohibited by CBS from broadcasting the interview with Rep. James Talarico,” the statement said. “The show was provided legal guidance that the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal-time rule for two other candidates, including Rep. Jasmine Crockett, and presented options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled. The Late Show decided to present the interview through its YouTube channel with on-air promotion on the broadcast rather than potentially providing the equal-time options.”

Colbert put interview on YouTube

Colbert played audio of a recent Carr interview in which the FCC chairman said, “If [Jimmy] Kimmel and Colbert want to continue to do their programming, they don’t want to have to comply with this requirement, then they can go to a cable channel or a podcast or a streaming service and that’s fine.”

Colbert said he “decided to take Brendan Carr’s advice” and interviewed Talarico for a segment posted on his show’s YouTube channel. “The network says I can’t give you a URL or a QR code but I promise you if you go to our YouTube page, you’ll find it,” Colbert said. That interview is available here.

Colbert described the unequal treatment of late-night talk shows and talk radio. “Carr here claims he’s just getting partisanship off the airwaves but the FCC is also in charge of regulating radio broadcasts. And what would you know, Brendan Carr says right-wing talk radio isn’t a target of the FCC’s equal time notice,” Colbert said.

Colbert said that a mere threat, and not an actual rule change, caused CBS to forbid him from interviewing a candidate. “At this point, he’s just released a letter that says he’s thinking about doing away with the exception for late night, he hasn’t done away with it yet,” Colbert said. “But my network is unilaterally enforcing it as if he had. But I want to assure you this decision is for purely financial reasons.”

Colbert pushed out after “big fat bribe” comment

Colbert’s tenure as host is scheduled to end in May. CBS announced it would end the show last year after Colbert called CBS owner Paramount’s $16 million settlement with Trump “a big fat bribe.” Paramount subsequently won FCC approval of an $8 billion merger with Skydance, while agreeing to Carr’s demand to install a “bias monitor.”

FCC Democrat Anna Gomez said today that CBS forbidding the interview with Talarico “is yet another troubling example of corporate capitulation in the face of this administration’s broader campaign to censor and control speech. The FCC has no lawful authority to pressure broadcasters for political purposes or to create a climate that chills free expression. CBS is fully protected under the First Amendment to determine what interviews it airs, which makes its decision to yield to political pressure all the more disappointing.”

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/stephen-colbert-says-cbs-forbid-interview-of-democrat-because-of-fcc-threat/

Warner Bros. seeks higher offer, new terms

Paramount is offering $31 per share, but it wants to buy the entire Warner Bros. Discovery company, while Netflix’s deal is for just the streaming and movie studios divisions. The Warner Bros. letter to Paramount said, “On February 11th, a senior representative of your financial advisor communicated orally to a member of our Board that PSKY would agree to pay $31 per WBD share if we engage with you, and that $31 is not PSKY’s best and final proposal.”

The letter asked Paramount to increase its offer. “We are writing to inform you that Netflix has agreed to provide WBD a waiver of certain terms of the Netflix merger agreement to permit us, through February 23, to engage with PSKY to clarify your proposal, which we understand will include a WBD per share price higher than $31,” Warner Bros. wrote.

Warner Bros. also asked Paramount to accept the same terms that Netflix agreed to. Warner Bros. said terms proposed by Paramount give Paramount the right to terminate or amend the deal, whereas “the Netflix Merger Agreement is binding on Netflix, provides WBD stockholders the opportunity to vote on a specific and binding transaction, and cannot be amended without WBD’s consent.” Warner Bros. also said Paramount’s proposed terms restrict Warner Bros.’ ability to manage its business while the transaction is pending.

Warner Bros. has also repeatedly pointed to Netflix’s superior finances as a reason for preferring its offer. The Warner Bros. board previously called the Paramount bid “illusory” because it requires an “extraordinary amount of debt financing, and described Paramount as “a $14B market cap company with a ‘junk’ credit rating, negative free cash flows, significant fixed financial obligations, and a high degree of dependency on its linear business.”

The Netflix/Warner Bros. deal is facing scrutiny over how it would affect streaming consumers. Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos told a Senate committee that the Netflix and HBO Max streaming services are “complementary” and claimed that the combined company will give users more content for less money.

“We are a one-click cancel, so if the consumer says, ‘That’s too much for what I’m getting,’ they can cancel with one click,” Sarandos said.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/warner-bros-gives-paramount-one-more-week-to-beat-netflix-merger-offer/

Best Buy worker linked to shoplifting ring

In 2023, a few months before Lettera’s alleged fraud scheme started, the National Retail Foundation warned  that monitoring employee theft had become a bigger priority for retailers. In times of inflation, retail theft typically increases, and their survey found that a record level of talent turnover was stressing out retail employees and making it easier for those with malicious intent to get away with fraud.

For Best Buy, threats of losses from stressed-out employees seemingly remain, as inflation pressures persist. Last month, an employee at a Best Buy in Georgia assisted a shoplifting ring in stealing more than $40,000 in merchandise, a local CBS News affiliate reported.

Surveillance footage showed that 20-year-old Dorian Allen allowed shoplifters to simply leave the store without paying for more than 140 items, a police report alleged. Among merchandise stolen were “dozens of PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series S consoles, AirPods, Meta Quest VR headsets, Beats wireless headphones, a PC, a Segway, wireless controllers, and more,” CBS News reported.

Charged with theft, Allen claimed he was being blackmailed by a hacker group who threatened to expose nude photos he shared on Instagram if he didn’t cooperate. Allegedly under duress, Allen memorized descriptions of the shoplifters so that he could allow them to take items without paying. He also allegedly helped thieves load items into their vehicles.

Managers called in police after Allen allegedly spent weeks assisting the shoplifters without detection.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/best-buy-worker-used-managers-code-to-get-99-off-macbooks-cops-say/

Ars could not immediately reach any of these groups to comment on whether ByteDance’s post-launch efforts to add safeguards addressed industry concerns.

MPA chairman and CEO Charles Rivkin has previously accused ByteDance of disregarding “well-established copyright law that protects the rights of creators and underpins millions of American jobs.”

While Disney and other studios are clearly ready to take down any tools that could hurt their revenue or reputation without an agreement in place, they aren’t opposed to all AI uses of their characters. In December, Disney struck a deal with OpenAI, giving Sora access to 200 characters for three years, while investing $1 billion in the technology.

At that time, Disney CEO Robert A. Iger, said that “the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence marks an important moment for our industry, and through this collaboration with OpenAI, we will thoughtfully and responsibly extend the reach of our storytelling through generative AI, while respecting and protecting creators and their works.”

Creators disagree Seedance 2.0 is a game changer

In a blog announcing Seedance 2.0, ByteDance boasted that the new model “delivers a substantial leap in generation quality,” particularly in close-up shots and action sequences.

The company acknowledged that further refinements were needed and the model is “still far from perfect” but hyped that “its generated videos possess a distinct cinematic aesthetic; the textures of objects, lighting, and composition, as well as costume, makeup, and prop designs, all show high degrees of finish.”

ByteDance likely hoped that the earliest outputs from Seedance 2.0 would produce headlines wowed by the model’s capabilities, and it got what it wanted when a single Hollywood stakeholder’s social media comment went viral.

Shortly after Seedance 2.0’s rollout, Deadpool co-writer, Rhett Reese, declared on X that “it’s likely over for us,” The Guardian reported. The screenwriter was impressed by an AI video created by Irish director Ruairi Robinson, which realistically depicted Tom Cruise fighting Brad Pitt. “[I]n next to no time, one person is going to be able to sit at a computer and create a movie indistinguishable from what Hollywood now releases,” Reese opined. “True, if that person is no good, it will suck. But if that person possesses Christopher Nolan’s talent and taste (and someone like that will rapidly come along), it will be tremendous.”

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/bytedance-backpedals-after-seedance-2-0-turned-hollywood-icons-into-ai-clip-art/

Michigan is taking on major oil and gas companies in court, joining nearly a dozen other states that have brought climate-related lawsuits against ExxonMobil and its industry peers. But Michigan’s approach is different: accusing Big Oil not of deceiving consumers or misrepresenting climate change risks, but of driving up energy costs by colluding to suppress competition from cleaner and cheaper technologies like solar power and electric vehicles.

The strategy is risky and might run into challenges, but it could potentially be a game changer if the state can overcome initial dismissal attempts by the industry defendants, legal experts say.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel filed the lawsuit last month in federal District Court against BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell and the American Petroleum Institute. The suit, brought under federal and state antitrust laws, alleges a conspiracy to delay the transition to renewable energy and EVs and maintain market dominance of fossil fuels.

Exxon said in a statement that the state’s action is “yet another legally incoherent effort to regulate by lawsuit. It won’t reduce emissions, it won’t help consumers, and it won’t stand up to the law.”

Chevron did not respond to a request for comment, and BP and Shell declined to comment.

API senior vice president and general counsel Ryan Meyers said that Michigan’s case is “baseless” and “part of a coordinated campaign against an industry that powers everyday life, drives America’s economy, and is actively reducing emissions.”

“We continue to believe that energy policy belongs in Congress, not a patchwork of courtrooms,” Meyers added.

This week during a congressional hearing with Attorney General Pam Bondi testifying, U.S. Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.) referenced Michigan’s lawsuit in arguing that these “novel approaches” to “climate lawfare” require a federal response. Hageman said she is working with House and Senate colleagues to craft legislation aimed at shielding fossil fuel companies from state climate liability laws and lawsuits.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/michigan-accuses-oil-companies-of-antitrust-violations-in-climate-change-lawsuit/

This spring, a Southern California beach town will become the first city in the country where municipal parking enforcement vehicles will use an AI system looking for potential bike lane violations.

Beginning in April, the City of Santa Monica will bring Hayden AI’s scanning technology to seven cars in its parking enforcement fleet, expanding beyond similar cameras already mounted on city buses.

“The more we can reduce the amount of illegal parking, the safer we can make it for bike riders,” Charley Territo, chief growth officer at Hayden AI, told Ars.

Hayden AI’s bus cameras, designed to detect bike lane and bus zone violations, currently exist in two other California cities: Oakland and Sacramento. The company also has installations around the country, including New York City, Washington, DC, and Philadelphia. In September 2025, the company announced that it had installed 2,000 systems on buses worldwide.

Late last year, over a 59-day period, Hayden AI also said its technology detected over 1,100 parking violations at the University of California, San Diego—and 88 percent of those were instances of blocking a bike lane.

Hayden AI says it sells its product to municipalities and related entities to not only increase bus speed (by removing obstructions) but also improve safety.

“We do that by [reducing] one of the biggest causes of collisions with buses—moving out of their lanes,” Territo added. “So the fewer times they have to make a turn, the fewer instances there are [of a crash].”

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/santa-monica-deploys-ai-powered-parking-cameras-to-protect-bike-lanes/

The AT&T policy says postpaid phones purchased at least 60 days ago can be unlocked when the device is paid in full. The T-Mobile policy says that postpaid phones active on the T-Mobile network for at least 40 days can be unlocked after being paid in full. AT&T has a six-month waiting period for unlocking prepaid phones, while T-Mobile has a 365-day waiting period for prepaid phones.

A week after the FCC ruling, Verizon started enforcing a 365-day lock period on phones purchased through its TracFone division. Customers of TracFone and other “Verizon Value” brands have to request unlocks after the year is over as Verizon doesn’t promise to unlock phones automatically for those subsidiary brands.

“Most people pay their bills online”

The policy for Verizon’s flagship brand promises automatic unlocks, albeit with the new restrictions and waits described earlier in this article. John Bergmayer, legal director of consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge, told Ars today that he doesn’t understand why Verizon isn’t offering immediate unlocks to people who pay their bills online.

“Gift cards, sure, are a pretty high-fraud area. But most people pay their bills online with normal credit cards. It’s hard to see what is likely the most common way people pay Verizon as being somehow high-risk,” he said.

Verizon also shouldn’t apply the change retroactively, he said. “People should be able to benefit from the policy that was in place on the day they bought the phone,” Bergmayer told Ars.

Public Knowledge and other consumer advocacy groups urged the FCC last year to reject Verizon’s petition to end the 60-day unlocking requirement, but the FCC sided with Verizon. Although the federal rules have changed, Verizon can be forced to uphold its previous terms in cases where the company tries to change them retroactively.

In December, we wrote about a man who sued Verizon and won after the firm retroactively tried to enforce a new policy and refused to unlock a phone he purchased before the policy change. In that case, Verizon decided it would only unlock phones after “60 days of paid active service” even though FCC rules at the time required unlocks 60 days after activation regardless of whether paid service was maintained.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/verizon-makes-customers-wait-35-days-to-unlock-fully-paid-off-phones/

Both statements verified that the integration never launched and that no Ring customers’ videos were ever sent to Flock.

Ring did not credit users’ privacy concerns for its change of heart. Instead, they claimed that a joint decision was made “following a comprehensive review” where Ring “determined the planned Flock Safety integration would require significantly more time and resources than anticipated.”

Separately, Flock said that “we believe this decision allows both companies to best serve their respective customers and communities.”

The only hint that Ring gave users that their concerns had been heard came in the last line of its blog, which said, “We’ll continue to carefully evaluate future partnerships to ensure they align with our standards for customer trust, safety, and privacy.”

Sharing his views on X and Bluesky, John Scott-Railton, a senior cybersecurity researcher at the Citizen Lab, joined critics calling Ring’s statement insufficient. He posted an image of the ad frame that Markey found creepy next to a statement from Ring, writing, “On the left? A picture of mass surveillance from #Ring’s ad. On the right? A ring [spokesperson] saying that they are not doing mass surveillance. The company cannot have it both ways.”

Ring’s statements so far do not “acknowledge the real issue,” Scott-Railton said, which is privacy risks. For Ring, it seemed like a missed opportunity to discuss or introduce privacy features to reassure concerned users, he suggested, noting the backlash showed “Americans want more control of their privacy right now” and “are savvy enough to see through sappy dog pics.”

“Stop trying to build a surveillance dystopia consumers didn’t ask for” and “focus on shipping good, private products,” Scott-Railton said.

He also suggested that lawmakers should take note of the grassroots support that could possibly help pass laws to push back on mass surveillance. That could help block not just a potential future partnership with Flock, but possibly also stop Ring from becoming the next Flock.

“Ring communications not acknowledging the lesson they just got publicly taught is a bad sign that they hope this goes away,” Scott-Railton said.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/after-creepy-super-bowl-ad-sparks-outrage-ring-abandons-flock-deal/

“The nature and content of the Defendants’ communications with these technology companies” is “critical for determining whether they crossed the line from governmental cajoling to unconstitutional coercion,” EFF’s complaint said.

EFF Senior Staff Attorney Mario Trujillo told Ars that the EFF is confident it can win the fight to expose government demands, but like most FOIA lawsuits, the case is expected to move slowly. That’s unfortunate, he said, because ICE activity is escalating, and delays in addressing these concerns could irreparably harm speech at a pivotal moment.

Like users, platforms are seemingly victims, too, FIRE senior attorney Colin McDonnell told Ars.

They’ve been forced to override their own editorial judgment while navigating implicit threats from the government, he said.

“If Attorney General Bondi demands that they remove speech, the platform is going to feel like they have to comply; they don’t have a choice,” McDonnell said.

But platforms do have a choice and could be doing more to protect users, the EFF has said. Platforms could even serve as a first line of defense, requiring officials to get a court order before complying with any requests.

Platforms may now have good reason to push back against government requests—and to give users the tools to do the same. Trujillo noted that while courts have been slow to address the ICEBlock removal and FOIA lawsuits, the government has quickly withdrawn requests to unmask Facebook users soon after litigation began.

“That’s like an acknowledgement that the Trump administration, when actually challenged in court, wasn’t even willing to defend itself,” Trujillo said.

Platforms could view that as evidence that government pressure only works when platforms fail to put up a bare-minimum fight, Trujillo said.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/platforms-bend-over-backward-to-help-dhs-censor-ice-critics-advocates-say/

In a widely expected move, the Environmental Protection Agency has announced that it is revoking an analysis of greenhouse gases that laid the foundation for regulating their emissions by cars, power plants, and industrial sources. The analysis, called an endangerment finding, was initially ordered by the US Supreme Court in 2007 and completed during the Obama administration; it has, in theory, served as the basis of all government regulations of carbon dioxide emissions since.

In practice, lawsuits and policy changes between Democratic and Republican administrations have meant it has had little impact. In fact, the first Trump administration left the endangerment finding in place, deciding it was easier to respond to it with weak regulations than it was to challenge its scientific foundations, given the strength of the evidence for human-driven climate change.

Legal tactics

The second Trump administration, however, was prepared to tackle the science head-on, gathering a group of contrarians to write a report questioning that evidence. It did not go well, either scientifically or legally.

Today’s announcement ignores the scientific foundations of the endangerment finding and argues that it’s legally flawed. “The Trump EPA’s final rule dismantles the tactics and legal fictions used by the Obama and Biden Administrations to backdoor their ideological agendas on the American people,” the EPA claims. The claim is awkward, given that the “legal fictions” referenced include a Supreme Court decision ordering the EPA to conduct an endangerment analysis.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/as-expected-trumps-epa-guts-climate-endangerment-finding/