Weinhold wrote in another chat, “I have VIP parking up to $250 lol.” Baker replied, “I almost feel bad taking advantage of them.” Weinhold then mentioned that he raised club prices to $125, and Baker replied, “I wonder if I can get $225.”

Live Nation said the messages aren’t reflective of the company’s general operations. “The Slack exchange from one junior staffer to a friend absolutely doesn’t reflect our values or how we operate,” Live Nation said in a statement provided to Ars today. “Because this was a private Slack message, leadership learned of this when the public did, and will be looking into the matter promptly. Our business only works when fans have great experiences, which is why we’ve capped amphitheater venue fees at 15 percent and have invested $1 billion in the last 18 months into US venues and fan amenities.”

The US and states said Live Nation is downplaying Baker’s position at the company. “Defendants’ brief fails to mention this individual has since been promoted and now serves as Head of Ticketing for Venue Nation, with responsibilities relating to all of Live Nation’s venues,” the plaintiffs’ brief said.

Live Nation said in a March 8 filing that the messages aren’t relevant to the trial because they concerned fees for things like VIP club access, premier parking, or lawn chair rentals. “These products are not primary concert tickets, are sold separately from tickets, and are not part of the ticketing services markets at issue in this trial; they bear no relevance to the parties’ claims and defenses,” Live Nation told the court.

Live Nation: Messages could “inflame the jury”

Live Nation said the only purpose of using the exhibits as evidence “is to portray Defendants in an unflattering light and inflame the jury against Defendants,” and that the exhibits “would confuse and mislead the jury, invite decision-making on an improper emotional basis, and cause unfair prejudice to Defendants.” The company also asked the court to bar plaintiffs “from questioning Ben Baker or any other witness about the substance of these Exhibits or about similar communications concerning ancillary, fan-facing products and services not encompassed by the markets and claims proceeding to trial.”

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/03/live-nation-director-boasted-of-gouging-ticket-buyers-robbing-them-blind/

Bankman-Fried’s plan to reinvent himself as a Republican, Buckley noted, was detailed in a Google Document that the court reviewed before convicting Bankman-Fried in 2024.

Buckley said the document showed how, “in the aftermath of FTX’s collapse,” Bankman-Fried “mapped out a rehabilitation and pardon campaign.” Attached to an email from Bankman-Fried’s account, the Google Doc was marked “confidential” and started with a note that emphasized that “these are all random probably bad ideas that aren’t vetted.”

However, many of the ideas were executed as planned, Buckley wrote. For example, Bankman-Fried planned to “come out as Republican” in an interview with Tucker Carlson, which happened.

“In March 2025, the defendant gave an interview to Tucker Carlson in which he portrayed himself as a disaffected Democrat who had become sympathetic to Republicans before his arrest” and “suggested his political reorientation contributed to his prosecution,” Buckley wrote.

Bankman-Fried also, in his document, considered using X to “come out against the woke agenda” and push the narrative that he had hidden Republican donations, which also happened.

“That checklist is being executed with near-perfect fidelity,” Buckley alleged. However, the plan isn’t working, and Bankman-Fried’s X posts aren’t causing Trump officials to warm to him, he said. “Evidence, not politics, drove the Government’s prosecution of the defendant,” Buckley insisted.

“Contrary to his claim that he has been targeted for his politics, the public record establishes unambiguously that the defendant was a major, publicly identified financial supporter of Democratic causes,” Buckley wrote. Later, he emphasized, “The motion’s suggestion that he was somehow prosecuted because of his party affiliation inverts the factual reality: he was a major donor, not a political adversary.”

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/03/trumps-doj-is-not-falling-for-sam-bankman-frieds-maga-makeover-on-x/

In addition to parrying with SpaceX over its proposed, vastly larger orbital data center constellation, Amazon is seeking some regulatory relief of its own. Most pressing for Amazon is a deadline to deploy half of its Amazon Leo constellation, intended to ultimately comprise 3,236 satellites, by July 30. The company will not meet this deadline, with only a little more than three months to go, and Amazon has requested an extension, asking for it to be moved to July 30, 2028.

Carr pulls up

On Wednesday, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr injected himself into the SpaceX-Amazon fracas over megaconstellations.

“Amazon should focus on the fact that it will fall roughly 1,000 satellites short of meeting its upcoming deployment milestone, rather than spending their time and resources filing petitions against companies that are putting thousands of satellites in orbit,” Carr said on X, the social media network owned by Musk.

There are arguments to be made in favor of both SpaceX and Amazon regarding their competing concerns. For example, SpaceX is likely to be able to greatly accelerate the rate at which it launches satellites with the forthcoming Starship rocket. So saying it will take centuries to put its data centers into space is not likely true.

However, it is valid to criticize SpaceX’s application for 1 million satellites, which is an extraordinary number of spacecraft that would completely change many things about low-Earth orbit. The SpaceX application did not contain critical information about the size, mass, and other details needed to evaluate the constellation for safety and other concerns.

It cannot be comfortable for Amazon and Bezos to see Carr weighing in so publicly and favorably on Musk’s side. Legally, Carr is allowed to have strongly held policy views. But he is not supposed to single out companies for preferential treatment.

https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/03/fcc-chair-blasts-amazon-after-it-criticizes-spacex-megaconstellation/

The testing occurred between November 5, 2025, and December 11, 2025, and results were shared with the companies. Because the tests were three to four months ago, the latest versions were not evaluated. Google, Microsoft, Meta, and OpenAI told Ars today that updates they implemented after the research was conducted have made their chatbots better at discouraging violence.

Imran Ahmed, the CCDH’s CEO, said that “AI chatbots, now embedded into our daily lives, could be helping the next school shooter plan their attack or a political extremist coordinate an assassination.” He accused tech companies of “choosing negligence in pursuit of so-called innovation.”

A spokesperson for Character.AI told Ars that the company is reviewing the study but that “without the context of the full chats, it’s impossible to fully evaluate the model’s responses… It’s important to remember that the user-created Characters on our site are fictional. They are intended for entertainment and roleplaying, and we have taken robust steps to make that clear. For example, we have prominent disclaimers in every chat to remind users that a Character is not a real person and that everything a Character says should be treated as fiction.”

Character.AI said it has been “rolling out changes so that under-18 users no longer have the ability to engage in open-ended chats with Characters,” and is using “new age assurance technology to help ensure users are grouped into the correct age experience.” This includes “developing our own age estimation model in-house and partnering with third-party services.” The firm added that it removes characters “that violate our terms of service, including school shooters.”

A Perplexity spokesperson issued a statement that didn’t acknowledge any problems with the company’s technology. “People can select any of the top AI models on Perplexity and get safer, more accurate answers,” it said. “Perplexity is consistently the safest AI platform because our own safeguards are always additive to any existing safeguards in any underlying model.”

OpenAI told Ars that the CCDH “report’s methodology is flawed and misleading. ChatGPT is trained to reject requests for violent or hateful material, and the findings show it consistently refused to give instructions on acquiring weapons. We continuously strengthen these safeguards and our latest ChatGPT model is even better at detecting and refusing violent requests.”

OpenAI said that ChatGPT refused to answer questions on “what kind of hunting rifle would be best for a long-range target,” but provided publicly available information such as addresses or maps. Conflating those two types of responses is misleading, OpenAI said. The tests were conducted on GPT-5.1, and updates made since that version have improved detection and refusals for violent content, OpenAI said.

OpenAI was sued this week by the family of a victim of the Tumbler Ridge mass shooting in British Columbia. As the CCDH report says, “reporting indicates that OpenAI staff flagged the suspect internally for using ChatGPT in ways consistent with planning violence. Rather than escalating concern to law enforcement, the company chose to remain silent.”

Researchers posed as teens

The testing was conducted with accounts representing made-up teen users in the US and Ireland, with the age set to the minimum allowed on each platform. A minimum age of 18 was required by Anthropic, DeepSeek, Character.AI, and Replika, while the other platforms had minimum ages of 13.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/03/use-a-gun-or-beat-the-crap-out-of-him-ai-chatbot-urged-violence-study-finds/

WSJ reports include Binance comments

It also seems worth noting that Binance’s complaint claimed that the Journal made no changes to its report to include statements from the company; however, the report has clearly been edited.

For example, Binance’s lawsuit protests a subheading on the article that said, “Weeks after Trump pardoned Binance’s founder, the company dismantled [the] probe and suspended the investigators.” A current reading of that article, however, shows the subheading now includes a note that “Binance denied inquiry ended or staff fired for the concerns.” An archived version of the article suggests that an update was made on the day the article was published.

Additionally, a subsequent WSJ report, out today—confirming a Justice Department probe into Binance—includes many, if not all, of the statements that Binance accused the Journal of refusing to put on record.

For Binance, the lawsuit seems unlikely to stall government probes, particularly since critics like Blumenthal continue to closely monitor the exchange’s alleged attempts to influence the Trump administration.

After Donald Trump controversially pardoned Binance founder Zhao for his 2023 crypto crimes, the president admitted that “I don’t know who he is.” Alarmed by the pardon, some lawmakers like Blumenthal are concerned that “instead of actually preventing illicit use, Binance has sought to evade accountability and influence the White House through lobbying and a financial partnership with World Liberty Financial (WLFI), the cryptocurrency firm owned by the sons of President Trump and his special envoy Steve Witkoff.”

According to Blumenthal, Binance is now a “vital engine” of Trump’s family business, as “about 85 percent of WLFI’s stablecoins (USD1) are held in Binance accounts.”

To ensure that Binance isn’t using its potential influence to dodge accountability for its role in allowing “the illicit use of cryptocurrencies, including by Iranian and Russian entities, to bypass US sanctions,” Blumenthal is seeking a wide range of records. Despite shedding some light on why Binance claims it fired its compliance staff, Binance’s complaint, which seems to depend on the court making the same inferences from WSJ’s report as the exchange does, most likely will not satisfy the senator’s inquiry.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/03/binance-sues-wsj-over-report-sparking-government-probes-into-exchange/

Google and OpenAI staff support lawsuit

Another brief supporting Anthropic was filed by various technical, engineering, and research employees of Google and OpenAI. Google is an investor in Anthropic. The Google and OpenAI employees wrote that “mass domestic surveillance powered by AI poses profound risks to democratic governance—even in responsible hands.” On the topic of autonomous weapon systems, they wrote that “current AI models are not reliable enough to bear the responsibility of making lethal targeting decisions entirely alone, and the risks of their deployment for that purpose require some kind of response and guardrails.”

The Google and OpenAI employees said that in using the supply chain risk designation “in response to Anthropic’s contract negotiations, [the Pentagon] introduces an unpredictability in our industry that undermines American innovation and competitiveness. It chills professional debate on the benefits and risks of frontier AI systems and various ways that risks can be addressed to optimize the technology’s deployment.”

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei explained the company’s objections to certain AI uses in a February 26 post. “We support the use of AI for lawful foreign intelligence and counterintelligence missions. But using these systems for mass domestic surveillance is incompatible with democratic values,” he wrote.

Current law allows the government to “purchase detailed records of Americans’ movements, web browsing, and associations from public sources without obtaining a warrant,” and “AI makes it possible to assemble this scattered, individually innocuous data into a comprehensive picture of any person’s life—automatically and at massive scale,” Amodei wrote.

CEO: Autonomous weapons too risky

Amodei expressed support for partially autonomous weapons like those used in Ukraine, but not for fully autonomous weapon systems “that take humans out of the loop entirely and automate selecting and engaging targets.” He said that fully autonomous weapons “may prove critical for our national defense” eventually but that AI is not yet reliable enough to power them.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/03/anthropic-sues-us-over-blacklisting-white-house-calls-firm-radical-left-woke/

State attorneys general were “kept in the dark and excluded materially from settlement discussions” while they prepared for trial, the filing said. On March 5, the states were “notified of the near-final terms of the settlement at 4 P.M.” and given one day to determine whether to accept or reject them,” the filing said.

States to take over lead role at trial

The US was taking the lead role in the case before the settlement was announced. In addition to seeking a mistrial, the states asked the court to stay the proceedings to give them time “to fully prepare to assume the lead role at trial and explore settlement.”

The states “have had no opportunity to obtain and reallocate the resources necessary to try the case on their own or to meaningfully discuss the settlement with Defendants and attempt to negotiate the terms,” the filing said. “Moreover, despite the primary role that DOJ has played before the jury, the United States (and several additional individual Plaintiff States) will now vanish from the trial… Due to the substantial prejudice caused by this settlement and DOJ’s abrupt exit after taking the lead role up to and during the first week of trial, a mistrial is warranted.”

New York took the lead role in the states’ filing today. “The settlement recently announced with the US Department of Justice fails to address the monopoly at the center of this case, and would benefit Live Nation at the expense of consumers. We cannot agree to it,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said today. “My attorney general colleagues and I have a strong case against Live Nation, and we will continue our lawsuit to protect consumers and restore fair competition to the live entertainment industry.”

Most of the states that backed the filing have Democratic attorneys general. But the group is bipartisan with Republican attorneys general from Kansas, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming.

Other states involved in the lawsuit either decided to join the US settlement or have not yet taken a position. States agreeing to the settlement are Arkansas, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and South Dakota, the filing said. The other states involved in the lawsuit are Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Texas, and West Virginia.

This article was updated with a statement from Live Nation.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/03/us-blindsides-states-with-surprise-settlement-in-live-nation-ticketmaster-trial/

For gamers, the Switch 2 already had a higher price tag than expected, at $450. Lashing out over the sticker shock, a swarm of disgruntled online protesters urged Nintendo to “drop the price.”

There was speculation that the price hike was linked to tariffs. But Nintendo of America President Doug Bowser told The Verge that the jump from the Switch’s debut price of $300 was not directly due to tariffs. Instead, it seemed that Nintendo had joined other game companies in raising console prices to historic highs, an Ars review found. But Bowser acknowledged that Trump’s IEEPA tariffs were still “fresh” at that moment, telling The Verge that, “like many companies right now,” Nintendo was “actively assessing what the impact may be.” Understandably, gamers braced for more price increases.

It only took a month before Nintendo President Shuntaro Furukawa foreshadowed tariff-linked price increases, a game industry news site closely monitoring Nintendo’s tariff moves reported. In May, Furukawa conceded that software wasn’t as impacted, but “hardware involves special factors such as tariffs,” which Nintendo must take into account, “while conducting careful and repeated deliberations when determining price.”

However, Furukawa said that the overall calculus for Nintendo weighed against increasing the Switch 2 price even more to cover tariffs, because seemingly Nintendo feared a higher price point would rob Switch 2 of sales and its games of exposure. As he explained:

Our basic policy is that for any country or region, if tariffs are imposed, we recognize them as part of the cost and incorporate them into the price. However, this year marks our first new dedicated video game system launch in eight years, so given our unique situation, our priority is to maintain the momentum of our platforms, which is extremely important for our dedicated video game platform business. Consequently, if the assumptions on tariffs change, we will consider what kind of price adjustments would be appropriate, taking into account various factors such as the market conditions.

By August, the Switch 2 price remained stable, but Nintendo had increased prices on the original Switch, as well as Switch 2 accessories, citing “market conditions.”

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/03/nintendo-sues-for-full-tariff-refund-after-backlash-over-price-hikes/

“It is not lost on the Court the important role of datasets in AI training and development, and that, hypothetically, datasets and details about them could be trade secrets,” Bernal wrote. But xAI “has not alleged that it actually uses datasets that are unique, that it has meaningfully larger or smaller datasets than competitors, or that it cleans its datasets in unique ways.”

Therefore, xAI is not likely to succeed on the merits of its Fifth Amendment claim.

The same goes for First Amendment arguments. xAI failed to show that the law improperly “forces developers to publicly disclose their data sources in an attempt to identify what California deems to be ‘data riddled with implicit and explicit biases,’” Bernal wrote.

To xAI, it seemed like the state was trying to use the law to influence the outputs of its chatbot Grok, the company argued, which should be protected commercial speech.

Over the past year, Grok has increasingly drawn global public scrutiny for its antisemitic rants and for generating nonconsensual intimate imagery (NCII) and child sexual abuse materials (CSAM). But despite these scandals, which prompted a California probe, Bernal contradicted xAI, saying California did not appear to be trying to regulate controversial or biased outputs, as xAI feared.

“Nothing in the language of the statute suggests that California is attempting to influence Plaintiff’s models’ outputs by requiring dataset disclosure,” Bernal wrote.

Addressing xAI’s other speech concerns, he noted that “the statute does not functionally ask Plaintiff to share its opinions on the role of certain datasets in AI model development or make ideological statements about the utility of various datasets or cleaning methods.”

“No part of the statute indicates any plan to regulate or censor models based on the datasets with which they are developed and trained,” Bernal wrote.

Public “cannot possibly” care about AI training data

Perhaps most frustrating for xAI as it continues to fight to block the law, Bernal also disputed that the public had no interest in the training data disclosures.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/03/musk-fails-to-block-california-data-disclosure-law-he-fears-will-ruin-xai/

In recent years, however, Apple has been developing more sophisticated mechanisms to identify where an App Store user is physically located. In 2023, the tech outlet 9to5Mac reported that Apple devices had created a new system called “countryd” to precisely determine a person’s location based on “data such as current GPS location, country code from the Wi-Fi router, and information obtained from the SIM card.”

Observers theorized that the new system was created in response to the European Union’s Digital Markets Act, which went into effect in 2024 and required Apple to begin allowing people in the EU to download apps from third-party app marketplaces. Apple complied with the EU regulation, but it restricted the accessibility of alternative app stores only to people physically in the territory of the EU.

The exact mechanism Apple uses to enable geoblocking of iPhone apps is unclear, says Friso Bostoen, assistant professor of law at Tilburg University who has studied the effect of EU regulations on Apple. “Presumably, there’s some on-device processing saying, ‘Look, this phone is somewhere in the EU borders, so you get an eligibility green check mark.’” And if the device detects that an EU resident leaves the region for more than 90 days, according to Apple’s policy, that eligibility is withdrawn, Bostoen says.

The new restriction on ByteDance apps in the US resembles the EU-specific geographical restrictions that were previously reported. Some ByteDance users have said that they are able to circumvent the restrictions by using virtual private networks, which allow people to spoof their device’s location, but the work-arounds aren’t foolproof.

“Apple may use the IP address of your Internet connection to approximate your location in order to determine whether certain apps that are subject to legal restrictions in some regions can be made available to you,” the App Store’s legal terms explicitly state. But according to online archives of the terms page, this specific sentence was added at the end of January 2025, shortly after the company first removed ByteDance apps from the US version of the App Store.

So far, there’ve been few instances of Apple actually implementing technical capabilities to geoblock users. “However, you could think about this having some wider spillover effects if this becomes the more general way of ensuring that apps that shouldn’t be available indeed aren’t available,” Bostoen says. “If Apple gets more sophisticated about blocking access in a way that cannot simply be circumvented with a VPN, obviously citizens in those places are now left with much less liberty.”

This story originally appeared on wired.com.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/03/apple-users-in-the-us-can-no-longer-download-bytedances-chinese-apps/