The Federal Communications Commission voted 2–1 today to eliminate the National Television Ownership Rule, claiming authority to repeal a limit that was set by Congress over 20 years ago.

The rule prohibits any single broadcast station owner from reaching more than 39 percent of all TV households in the US. Under Chairman Brendan Carr, the FCC is replacing the rule with a “case-by-case review” of each proposed merger.

“This will empower the FCC to approve deals that promote the public interest while allowing the agency to reject any deals that do not meet that standard,” Carr’s office said in a press release today. Without the 39 percent rule, broadcasters will be better able to compete against streaming companies that don’t face similar limits, Carr’s office said.

The change, if not stopped by courts, will make it easier for Carr to allow broadcast mergers that result in more favorable news coverage for President Trump. Carr has consistently threatened to revoke licenses from broadcasters who have drawn Trump’s ire, including by ordering an early license review of all ABC-owned stations.

Carr said local broadcast TV stations are becoming “undifferentiated passthroughs of national programming produced in Hollywood and New York,” and he justified repealing the ownership rule by arguing it will help the stations invest in local news.

“Trump-aligned billionaires to swallow up stations”

“Repealing the national cap will provide essential relief for local broadcasters by restoring a healthy counterbalance to the growing leverage of national programmers,” Carr said at today’s meeting. “Increased scale will enable broadcasters to attract the capital and advertising revenue needed to sustain and produce trusted and community-focused news and programming.”

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/08/trump-fcc-kills-tv-ownership-cap-claiming-authority-over-limit-set-by-congress/

The NAACP alleged that xAI and a subsidiary company built and operated 27 natural gas-fired turbines in Southaven, Mississippi, without the required Clean Air Act permits. The turbines generated electricity to power xAI’s nearby Colossus 2 data center. The NAACP alleged that the gas plant released harmful pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides and formaldehyde, which can increase rates of asthma, respiratory diseases, heart problems, and certain cancers.

Had xAI applied for a permit to operate the turbines under the Clean Air Act, the EPA would have required xAI to use the best available technology to reduce those emissions. But xAI never applied to the EPA for a permit.

A request from the federal government

In June 2026, the US Department of Justice asked the judge to dismiss the case, claiming, among other arguments, that citizen suits cannot proceed when the federal government does not oppose the polluting behavior.

The Justice Department’s court filing cited two executive orders signed by President Donald Trump within days of the start of his second term—one declaring a “national energy emergency” and the other seeking to support “American leadership in artificial intelligence.”

According to the Justice Department, the NAACP’s lawsuit threatens “artificial intelligence innovation” and national security. The government’s filing goes on to argue that citizen lawsuits were not intended to allow everyday citizens to enforce laws in ways that go against what the federal government deems is in the public interest.

Instead, the Justice Department claimed, citizen suits should be allowed by the court only when the government fails to enforce the statute, and not when the government has decided that executive branch policy means enforcement action is contrary to the public interest.

Conflict between the government and the public

This is the first time the Justice Department has taken this position in court. But defendants and judges have questioned the constitutionality of citizen suits in the past.

Some critics, including the Trump administration, view citizen suits as a way for citizens to usurp the executive branch’s prosecutorial authority. Supporters of the citizen suit provisions, on the other hand, say they allow regular people to exercise their statutory rights to advocate for a clean and healthy environment and enforce environmental laws when the government’s efforts fall short.

Regardless of how the court rules in the NAACP case against xAI, I believe the filing from the Trump administration is another step in a broader effort to consolidate government power in the executive branch.

Sarah J. Morath is professor of law and associate dean for international affairs at Wake Forest University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/08/trump-wants-the-power-to-stop-the-public-from-suing-polluters/

The joint statement confirmed that GARM will remain inactive as a result of the WFA’s settlement with X. No other concessions were discussed.

The rest of the statement claims that the settlement “resets the relationship between the two organizations,” which are now supposedly “fully aligned in the view that brands, platforms, and consumers will all benefit from brand-safety innovation.”

Additionally, the WFA said it is aligned with X on “its commitment to freedom of speech,” which seems to be a nod to the controversial reports on X content that Musk said triggered his “war” with advertisers. Those reports found that as hateful content was increasing on the platform, X ad controls weren’t working to stop big brands’ ads from appearing next to posts touting Hitler and the Nazi Party.

It’s unclear why advertisers settled, since a court ruled in March that the ad boycott was perfectly legal and X’s antitrust claims fell apart without proof of consumer harm. The next month, X appealed, but it appeared to be dragging its feet in filing a brief as an appellant, asking the court for an extension until August.

Perhaps settlement negotiations were already underway.

For Musk, the settlement comes shortly after the launch of X Money, a payments product offered through his social media platform that he hopes will help X be less reliant on advertisers for revenue.

Whether X Money can succeed at the scale required to meaningfully rival X’s advertising business will likely depend on X removing barriers to adoption. Those include the possibility that X Money transactions could be declined if an automated support error mistakenly suspends a user’s X account without warning. There’s also the simpler problem that X Money isn’t available in all 50 states.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/07/musk-went-to-war-sought-jail-time-for-x-ad-boycotts-but-case-ends-with-a-whimper/

Comcast is likely to dispute the negligence claim and may dispute at least some of the factual allegations. Comcast provided a statement to Ars today in which it said it disagrees with the complaint, but did not provide any details. Comcast also did not say whether it still employs the manager.

“The Company has zero tolerance for harassment, humiliation, or any behavior that compromises a respectful and safe workplace,” Comcast said in the statement provided to Ars. “This matter is in litigation so we will not comment on the specific allegations, other than to say that we disagree with the claims in the complaint and its characterization of the alleged events, and intend to fully respond through the legal process.”

Figueroa is seeking compensatory damages for “past and future economic losses” and for emotional distress. The complaint was filed on July 9 in a Connecticut superior court and was described in articles published yesterday by Law360 and The Desk.

Peterson maintained a chart in the back office that ranked store sales staff and “identified the employees who either had been recently assaulted or were scheduled to be assaulted in this way,” the lawsuit said. The complaint includes a photo of what is said to be the chart, which includes people’s first names followed by a month and a “pie face” emoji.

Image from lawsuit against Comcast.

“An objective, reasonable person in Plaintiff’s position would have felt compelled to resign his employment as a result of this work atmosphere that Defendant—through its employees, servants, agents—created,” the lawsuit said. “As a result of the pervasive, repeated, and ongoing threats of violence—and actual violence inflicted on co-workers not meeting sales goals—Plaintiff resigned his position with Defendant, resulting in his constructive discharge from Defendant’s employment.”

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/07/comcast-store-punished-low-sales-by-smashing-pies-in-workers-faces-lawsuit-claims/

“A company whose users request just ten images in violation of the statute would face exposure up to $5 million in civil penalties alone. A company with a thousand violative images could be fined up to $500 million. And a business whose users created a hundred thousand images covered by [the law] (not at all unlikely for a publicly available program with millions of users generating billions of images) could owe an eye-popping $50 billion dollars.”

Additionally, the law gives victims a right to sue xAI over any individual output, which increases xAI’s financial risks.

The penalties are so severe, xAI said in its lawsuit that it was finally preparing to update Grok to block harmful outputs after more than six months of backlash and probes pressuring the firm to tighten its safeguards.

“Confronted with $500,000-per-image strict liability and no safe harbor, xAI has no practical choice but to restrict Grok Imagine’s image-editing features in various ways when the statute takes effect on August 1, 2026,” xAI argued. “Protected speech freely available before the law takes effect will thus be chilled.”

However, xAI would prefer to leave Grok unchanged and continue relying on its terms of use stipulating that users could be banned for using Grok to make CSAM or other kinds of non-consensual intimate images (NCII), its complaint said.

“But for [the law] and its penalties, xAI would continue to offer the editing feature exactly as it does today,” xAI said.

Nudification law is unconstitutional, xAI says

To defend Grok, Musk’s firm is turning to the First Amendment, arguing that Minnesota’s law is a “clumsy attempt to prohibit ‘nudification’” that “sweeps in a wide range of fully protected speech.” That includes nude images generated with “artistic, scientific, political, satirical, educational, medical, or religious value,” xAI argued.

Most egregiously, “liability attaches even if the depicted persons consented—or created the image themselves—and even if the image is never shared,” xAI emphasized in its complaint.

Minnesota has less restrictive means to block harms from nudification, xAI argued, while claiming that the Take It Down Act already protected users from harms of distribution.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/07/elon-musks-xai-is-trying-to-sue-its-way-out-of-a-grok-reckoning/

Even for researchers who secure approval, “there’s no guarantee that the data is good,” said L. K. Seiling, coordinator of the DSA40 Collaboratory, a German initiative that tracks 46 DSA applications. API data is often difficult for a colleague to reproduce, so a researcher’s work cannot be checked for errors, which Iamnitchi said is a “basic requirement of science.”

DSA40 data shows that of 46 tracked applications, 20 were approved and 14 rejected. But approval rates vary widely: TikTok approved 11 of 13 applications, while X rejected 11 of 23. The true rejection rate is likely higher because the tracker relies on voluntary reporting, Seiling said.

“There’s no structured advantage for researchers to use this pathway,” Seiling said. “Data access as it’s set up right now tries to disincentivize researchers.”

A TikTok spokesperson told WIRED the company has given more than 1,500 research teams access to its tools, approved 130 applications in the EU in the second half of last year, and that its daily quota of 1,000 API requests lets researchers pull up to 100,000 video and comment records a day, or up to 2 million follower records. TikTok said it considers its research tools compliant with the DSA but “would welcome further public guidance.”

A Meta spokesperson said CrowdTangle covered only a fraction of the company’s public data, while the Meta Content Library and API that replaced it are “the most comprehensive research tools to date.” They cover Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp Channels, and Threads with “robust privacy protections,” and qualified nonprofit researchers, including journalists, can apply.

There are few workarounds. Iamnitchi and Allen said they resort to scraping on the platforms that allow it, a time-consuming process that exports website data into spreadsheets. Even with sophisticated tools, scraping “is not very comprehensive,” Allen said. It cannot capture an account’s complete follower list, making coordinated disinformation networks difficult to map.

One way to challenge a rejected request is to take the platforms to court. Allen said DRI and the Society for Civil Rights applied for access to X’s API in April 2024 to study political discourse ahead of Germany’s federal election. X rejected the request in November, prompting DRI to sue in February 2025.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/07/big-tech-accused-of-stonewalling-european-social-media-researchers/

Paramount Skydance agreed to a longer-term delay of its $111 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, preventing the companies from combining until after a judge rules on the merits of a case in which a dozen states challenged the legality of the merger.

Under a stipulation filed in court today, the states and companies agreed that the merger will not be completed and the firms will not integrate their operations until “five days after the merits determination in these matters,” or on June 1, 2027, whichever is earlier. The delay was also agreed to by the Writers Guild of America, which filed its own lawsuit to block the merger. If there is no merits determination by June 1, the plaintiffs could seek a preliminary injunction to keep blocking the deal.

The agreement amounts to “a months-long halt” to the merger, New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office said. “Halting this merger while our case proceeds is a critical victory in our efforts to uphold the law and protect the film and television industries,” James said.

Paramount also claimed victory, telling media outlets that “the result is exactly what we have sought from the outset: a direct path to a trial based on the evidence. This is the fastest and clearest way to prove that this transaction is good for competition, good for consumers, and good for creators, a conclusion dozens of competition authorities around the world have already reached.”

Led by California, 12 states sued Paramount and WBD and won a temporary restraining order against the merger on Monday. Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín at US District Court for the Northern District of California found that the deal is likely to reduce competition substantially and violate antitrust laws.

The states sued after the merger was greenlit by the Trump administration. The US approval reportedly surprised US Department of Justice staff lawyers who led the agency’s investigation into the deal and were leaning toward recommending a lawsuit to block it.

States say the merger will eliminate competition by combining two of the five major Hollywood movie studios and two of the five major owners of basic cable TV channels. “We are eager to continue to make our case in court and celebrate another tremendous win in our effort to ensure this unlawful merger never sees the light of day,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said today.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/07/after-court-loss-paramount-agrees-to-delay-warner-bros-merger-until-trial/

RFK Jr. and many like him, who fear the clearly defined and well-understood proteins in vaccines, are perfectly willing to inject various peptides in the complete absence of any safety data. However, unlike most of the peptide fans who share anecdotes online, Kennedy is in a position to turn his hobby into policy.

While the FDA has already used its standard processes to approve peptide drugs like insulin and some recently developed weight loss drugs, the lack of safety and efficacy data has kept most peptides off the market. The Biden administration also blocked their manufacture by compounding pharmacies, which make specialty drugs. But, earlier this year, Kennedy announced his interest in reversing that ban.

At the time of his announcement, Ars’ Beth Mole wrote, “Outside experts and watchdogs suspect that before the first meeting in July, Kennedy will work to stack the advisory board with questionably qualified allies who will come with a predetermined decision to ease access to the drugs—no rigorous scientific evaluation needed.” That’s exactly what came to pass. In June, Kennedy added members to the advisory group who, with one exception, had obvious interests in the manufacture and sale of the unapproved peptides.

Yesterday, those newly appointed members provided the decisive votes for overturning the ban, with all of the pre-Kennedy members voting against doing so. Despite Kennedy’s earlier claim that “independent experts will rigorously evaluate each substance on its scientific merits using full clinical, pharmacological, and safety evidence,” no such evidence was presented at the meeting.

According to The New York Times, when asked by a committee member whether the FDA had ever approved anything that had never been tested in humans before, an FDA official said it had not. That may be a critical factor in what happens next. The committee’s role is advisory, and the FDA could reject its recommendations. Doing so, however, would place the FDA’s experts in direct conflict with the wishes of Kennedy, who can simply fire them.

https://arstechnica.com/health/2026/07/rfk-jr-s-hand-picked-committee-approves-manufacture-of-peptides-he-uses/

After criticism from a federal judge, the Department of Justice yesterday withdrew demands for phone records and grand jury testimony from New York Times reporters who wrote about security concerns related to the Air Force One jet donated to Trump by Qatar.

It was a setback in the Trump administration’s attempts to unmask journalists’ confidential sources. US District Judge Arun Subramanian “grilled Justice Department lawyers for nearly an hour over their handling of the subpoenas” during a hearing on Thursday, The New York Times wrote.

“Either we can quash the subpoenas, or you could withdraw the subpoenas,” Subramanian reportedly told Sean Buckley, chief counsel for the US attorney in New York’s southern district.

Subramanian reportedly said during the hearing that subpoenas to reporters “are not the first thing you do—they are the last thing you do,” and that “it’s a matter of basic compliance with the law.” Government lawyers agreed to withdraw the subpoenas during the hearing.

“As stated on the record during the July 23, 2026, hearing, the Government has voluntarily withdrawn the challenged subpoenas, including the subpoenas issued to the journalists as well as the third-party subpoenas. Those subpoenas are null and void. As a result, the motions to quash are moot,” Subramanian wrote in an order yesterday.

NYT: “Brazen effort to intimidate the press”

The NYT reported on Monday that the US government sought phone and text messaging records of NYT journalists and their relatives, including one reporter’s mother and two reporters’ spouses. This was in addition to subpoenas demanding that reporters testify before a federal grand jury.

On July 15, the NYT filed a motion to quash the subpoenas seeking grand jury testimony. The motion called the demands “a brazen effort to intimidate the press into abandoning its critical, constitutionally protected role.” The motion said armed federal agents served the subpoenas at the journalists’ homes, ordering them to appear before a grand jury within three business days.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/07/judge-rebuffs-trump-admin-demand-for-phone-records-from-nyt-reporters/

The legal theory behind the lawsuits is not specific to any industry. “Plaintiffs have filed class actions against companies across varying industries and points in the supply chain from food manufacturers to logistics providers. The specific allegations in each case differ, but the primary legal theory is the same: companies cannot pass tariff costs to consumers and retain government refunds for the same tariffs,” Foley & Lardner lawyers Erik Swanholt and Kelsey Boehm wrote.

Holland & Knight lawyers wrote in a legal alert that “any business that both passed tariff costs through to customers and is pursuing government refunds could become a litigation target.”

Nintendo tries to compel arbitration

With lawsuits in the early stages, no court has ruled on the core legal theories, Holland & Knight lawyers wrote. Businesses have several potential defenses, such as arguing that there can be no unjust enrichment when there is a contract between the parties.

“In many jurisdictions, unjust enrichment is unavailable where an express contract governs the parties’ relationship,” Holland & Knight partners Ashley Akers and Austin Rainwater wrote.

Businesses can also argue “that the challenged charges were imposed while the IEEPA tariffs remained legally effective and enforceable,” the Holland & Knight alert said. “According to this view, the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision invalidating the tariffs does not necessarily render charges collected before that decision unlawful or create a retroactive obligation to refund amounts previously paid.”

Although the lawsuit against Nintendo did not allege breach of contract, the Holland & Knight alert said some of the tariff cases make this claim. “This is the principal claim in many shipping and logistics cases. Plaintiffs allege that tariff-related surcharges were not authorized under applicable shipping agreements, terms of service or tariff schedules,” the law firm said.

Companies are likely to ask courts to enforce mandatory arbitration provisions contained in their terms and conditions, and Nintendo has already done so. Nintendo filed a motion to compel arbitration with Hoffert because of evidence that he “affirmatively accepted contractual agreements with Nintendo at least twice.” Nintendo said in its motion to dismiss that it “expressly reserves the right to move to compel Mr. Sharan’s claims to arbitration if discovery reveals his claims are arbitrable.”

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/07/nintendo-customers-have-no-legal-right-to-tariff-refunds-company-tells-judge/