Policy

openai-defends-for-profit-shift-as-critical-to-sustain-humanitarian-mission

OpenAI defends for-profit shift as critical to sustain humanitarian mission

OpenAI has finally shared details about its plans to shake up its core business by shifting to a for-profit corporate structure.

On Thursday, OpenAI posted on its blog, confirming that in 2025, the existing for-profit arm will be transformed into a Delaware-based public benefit corporation (PBC). As a PBC, OpenAI would be required to balance its shareholders’ and stakeholders’ interests with the public benefit. To achieve that, OpenAI would offer “ordinary shares of stock” while using some profits to further its mission—”ensuring artificial general intelligence (AGI) benefits all of humanity”—to serve a social good.

To compensate for losing control over the for-profit, the nonprofit would have some shares in the PBC, but it’s currently unclear how many will be allotted. Independent financial advisors will help OpenAI reach a “fair valuation,” the blog said, while promising the new structure would “multiply” the donations that previously supported the nonprofit.

“Our plan would result in one of the best resourced nonprofits in history,” OpenAI said. (During its latest funding round, OpenAI was valued at $157 billion.)

OpenAI claimed the nonprofit’s mission would be more sustainable under the proposed changes, as the costs of AI innovation only continue to compound. The new structure would set the PBC up to control OpenAI’s operations and business while the nonprofit would “hire a leadership team and staff to pursue charitable initiatives in sectors such as health care, education, and science,” OpenAI said.

Some of OpenAI’s rivals, such as Anthropic and Elon Musk’s xAI, use a similar corporate structure, OpenAI noted.

Critics had previously pushed back on this plan, arguing that humanity may be better served if the nonprofit continues controlling the for-profit arm of OpenAI. But OpenAI argued that the old way made it hard for the Board “to directly consider the interests of those who would finance the mission and does not enable the non-profit to easily do more than control the for-profit.

OpenAI defends for-profit shift as critical to sustain humanitarian mission Read More »

ftc-launches-probe-of-microsoft-over-bundling

FTC launches probe of Microsoft over bundling

John Lopatka, a former consultant to the FTC who now teaches antitrust law at Penn State, told ProPublica that the Microsoft actions detailed in the news organization’s recent reporting followed “a very familiar pattern” of behavior.

“It does echo the Microsoft case” from decades ago, said Lopatka, who co-authored a book on that case.

In the new investigation, the FTC has sent Microsoft a civil investigative demand, the agency’s version of a subpoena, compelling the company to turn over information, people familiar with the probe said. Microsoft confirmed that it received the document.

Company spokesperson David Cuddy did not comment on the specifics of the investigation but said the FTC’s demand is “broad, wide ranging, and requests things that are out of the realm of possibility to even be logical.” He declined to provide on-the-record examples. The FTC declined to comment.

The agency’s investigation follows a public comment period in 2023 during which it sought information on the business practices of cloud computing providers. When that concluded, the FTC said it had ongoing interest in whether “certain business practices are inhibiting competition.”

The recent demand to Microsoft represents one of FTC Commissioner Lina Khan’s final moves as chair, and the probe appears to be picking up steam as the Biden administration winds down. The commission’s new leadership, however, will decide the future of the investigation.

President-elect Donald Trump said this month that he will elevate Commissioner Andrew Ferguson, a Republican attorney, to lead the agency. Following the announcement, Ferguson said in a post on X, “At the FTC, we will end Big Tech’s vendetta against competition and free speech. We will make sure that America is the world’s technological leader and the best place for innovators to bring new ideas to life.”

Trump also said he would nominate Republican lawyer Mark Meador as a commissioner, describing him as an “antitrust enforcer” who previously worked at the FTC and the Justice Department. Meador is also a former aide to Sen. Mike Lee, a Utah Republican who introduced legislation to break up Google.

Doris Burke contributed research.

This story originally appeared on ProPublica.

FTC launches probe of Microsoft over bundling Read More »

china’s-plan-to-dominate-legacy-chips-globally-sparks-us-probe

China’s plan to dominate legacy chips globally sparks US probe

Under Joe Biden’s direction, the US Trade Representative (USTR) launched a probe Monday into China’s plans to globally dominate markets for legacy chips—alleging that China’s unfair trade practices threaten US national security and could thwart US efforts to build up a domestic semiconductor supply chain.

Unlike the most advanced chips used to power artificial intelligence that are currently in short supply, these legacy chips rely on older manufacturing processes and are more ubiquitous in mass-market products. They’re used in tech for cars, military vehicles, medical devices, smartphones, home appliances, space projects, and much more.

China apparently “plans to build more than 60 percent of the world’s new legacy chip capacity over the next decade,” and Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said evidence showed this was “discouraging investment elsewhere and constituted unfair competition,” Reuters reported.

Most people purchasing common goods don’t even realize they’re using Chinese chips, including government agencies, and the probe is meant to fix that by flagging everywhere Chinese chips are found in the US. Raimondo said she was “fairly alarmed” that research showed “two-thirds of US products using chips had Chinese legacy chips in them, and half of US companies did not know the origin of their chips including some in the defense industry.”

To deter harms from any of China’s alleged anticompetitive behavior, the USTR plans to spend a year investigating all of China’s acts, policies, and practices that could be helping China achieve global dominance in the foundational semiconductor market.

The agency will start by probing “China’s manufacturing of foundational semiconductors (also known as legacy or mature node semiconductors),” the press release said, “including to the extent that they are incorporated as components into downstream products for critical industries like defense, automotive, medical devices, aerospace, telecommunications, and power generation and the electrical grid.”

Additionally, the probe will assess China’s potential impact on “silicon carbide substrates (or other wafers used as inputs into semiconductor fabrication)” to ensure China isn’t burdening or restricting US commerce.

Some officials were frustrated that Biden didn’t launch the probe sooner, the Financial Times reported. It will ultimately be up to Donald Trump’s administration to complete the investigation, but Biden and Trump have long been aligned on US-China trade strategies, so Trump is not necessarily expected to meddle with the probe. Reuters noted that the probe could set Trump up to pursue his campaign promise of imposing a 60 percent tariff on all goods from China, but FT pointed out that Trump could also plan to use tariffs as a “bargaining chip” in his own trade negotiations.

China’s plan to dominate legacy chips globally sparks US probe Read More »

man-who-claims-he-invented-bitcoin-faces-prison-after-filing-$1.1-trillion-suit

Man who claims he invented bitcoin faces prison after filing $1.1 trillion suit

Wright’s lawsuit names a defendant he calls “BTC Core,” which apparently doesn’t exist. Wright alleges that BTC Core “partners” include 122 corporate entities and 22 individuals who contributed to bitcoin development and research. Wright also named BTC Core as a defendant in a 2022 lawsuit.

This week’s court ruling said that “COPA (and others) say there is no such entity and it is an invention of Dr. Wright’s in his attempt to designate those who are or who have been involved in the development of the software used in various manifestations of Bitcoin as a partnership. They deny there is any such partnership, as Dr. Wright seems to allege. It is not necessary to resolve that issue.”

Corporations and individuals that Wright claims are part of BTC Core “were defendants to various of the previous actions brought by Dr. Wright (and his companies),” Mellor wrote.

Wright suit “repeat[s] his dishonest claim to be Satoshi”

Wright contended that his lawsuit falls outside the bounds of the previous order because his new claims “do not involve him claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto and do not depend on him having invented the Bitcoin system,” Mellor wrote. Mellor rejected Wright’s arguments.

For one thing, Mellor said the earlier order “is not limited to prohibiting claims dependent on Dr. Wright asserting that he is Satoshi Nakamoto.” For another, Mellor pointed out that Wright’s latest lawsuit “does include pleaded contentions that he is Satoshi Nakamoto,” and thus “Dr. Wright is wrong to say that his New Claim does not repeat his dishonest claim to be Satoshi.”

Further, COPA contended “that each of the principal claims in the New Claim can only be maintained by Dr. Wright asserting intellectual property rights which the Order precludes him from asserting in legal proceedings.”

Addressing Wright’s copyright claim, Mellor wrote that “Dr. Wright does not claim a license or any assignment from some other person alleged to be owner of copyright in the relevant works. Therefore Dr. Wright cannot bring this claim for copyright infringement without claiming ownership of the rights which he alleges to have been infringed. That is to say, Dr. Wright cannot bring an infringement claim in relation to the works in question, however it is worded, without breaching the Order.”

Man who claims he invented bitcoin faces prison after filing $1.1 trillion suit Read More »

automakers-excoriated-by-senators-for-fighting-right-to-repair

Automakers excoriated by Senators for fighting right-to-repair

Yesterday, US Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Joshua Hawley (R-MO) sent letters to the heads of Ford, General Motors, and Tesla, as well as the US heads of Honda, Hyundai, Nissan, Stellantis, Subaru, Toyota, and Volkswagen, excoriating them over their opposition to the right-to-repair movement.

“We need to hit the brakes on automakers stealing your data and undermining your right-to-repair,” said Senator Merkley in a statement to Ars. “Time and again, these billionaire corporations have a double standard when it comes to your privacy and security: claiming that sharing vehicle data with repair shops poses cybersecurity risks while selling consumer data themselves. Oregon has one of the strongest right-to-repair laws in the nation, and that’s why I’m working across the aisle to advance efforts nationwide that protect consumer rights.”

Most repairs aren’t at dealerships

The Senators point out that 70 percent of car parts and services currently come from independent outlets, which are seen as trustworthy and providing good value for money, “while nearly all dealerships receive the worst possible rating for price.”

OEMs and their tier-one suppliers restricting the supply of car parts to within their franchised dealership networks also slows down the entire repair process for owners as well as increasing the cost of getting one’s car fixed, the letter states.

As Ars noted recently, more than one in five automotive recalls are now fixed with software patches, and increasingly the right-to-repair fight has centered on things digital—access to diagnostics, firmware, and connected services. The percentage of non-hardware recall fixes will surely grow in the coming years as more and more automakers replace older models with software-defined vehicles.

Automakers excoriated by Senators for fighting right-to-repair Read More »

crypto-scammers-posing-as-real-brands-on-x-are-easily-hacking-youtubers

Crypto scammers posing as real brands on X are easily hacking YouTubers

“I’m fighting with Google now,” Townsend told Ars. “I don’t expect any real answers from them.”

How YouTubers can avoid being targeted

As YouTube appears evasive, Townsend has been grateful for long-time subscribers commenting to show support, which may help get his videos amplified more by the algorithm. On YouTube, he also said that because “the outpouring of support was beyond anything” he could’ve expected, it kept him “sane” through sometimes 24-hour periods of silence without any updates on when his account would be restored.

Townsend told Ars that he rarely does sponsorships, but like many in the fighting game community, his inbox gets spammed with offers constantly, much of which he assumes are scams.

“If you are a YouTuber of any size,” Townsend explained in his YouTube video, “you are inundated with this stuff constantly,” so “my BS detector is like, okay, fake, fake, fake, fake, fake, fake, fake. But this one just, it looked real enough, like they had their own social media presence, lots of followers. Everything looked real.”

Brian_F echoed that in his video, which breaks down how the latest scam evolved from more obvious scams, tricking even skeptical YouTubers who have years of experience dodging phishing scams in their inboxes.

“The game has changed,” Brian_F said.

Townsend told Ars that sponsorships are rare in the fighting game community. YouTubers are used to carefully scanning supposed offers to weed out the real ones from the fakes. But Brian_F’s video pointed out that scammers copy/paste legitimate offer letters, so it’s already hard to distinguish between potential sources of income and cleverly masked phishing attacks using sponsorships as lures.

Part of the vetting process includes verifying links without clicking through and verifying identities of people submitting supposed offers. But if YouTubers are provided with legitimate links early on, receiving offers from brands they really like, and see that contacts match detailed LinkedIn profiles of authentic employees who market the brand, it’s much harder to detect a fake sponsorship offer without as many obvious red flags.

Crypto scammers posing as real brands on X are easily hacking YouTubers Read More »

us-temporarily-bans-drones-in-parts-of-nj,-may-use-“deadly-force”-against-aircraft

US temporarily bans drones in parts of NJ, may use “deadly force” against aircraft

The Federal Aviation Administration temporarily banned drones over parts of New Jersey yesterday and said “the United States government may use deadly force against” airborne aircraft “if it is determined that the aircraft poses an imminent security threat.”

The FAA issued 22 orders imposing “temporary flight restrictions for special security reasons” until January 17, 2025. “At the request of federal security partners, the FAA published 22 Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) prohibiting drone flights over critical New Jersey infrastructure,” an FAA statement said.

Each NOTAM (Notice to Air Missions) affects a specific area. “No UAS [Unmanned Aircraft System] operations are authorized in the areas covered by this NOTAM” unless they have clearance for specific operations, the FAA said. Allowed operations include support for national defense, law enforcement, firefighting, and commercial operations “with a valid statement of work.”

“Pilots who do not adhere to the following proc[edure] may be intercepted, detained and interviewed by law enforcement/security personnel,” the FAA said. Violating the order could result in “civil penalties and the suspension or revocation of airmen certificates,” and criminal charges, the FAA said.

The New Jersey orders affect areas in Evesham, Hamilton, Bridgewater, Cedar Grove, Metuchen, North Brunswick Township, Camden, Gloucester City, Westampton, South Brunswick, Edison, Branchburg, Sewaren, Jersey City, Harrison, Elizabeth, Bayonne, Winslow, Burlington, Clifton, Hancocks Bridge, and Kearny.

5,000 tips to FBI, but nothing “anomalous”

The latest notices follow numerous sightings of objects that appeared to be drones, which worried New Jersey residents and prompted state and federal officials to investigate and issue several public statements. The FAA last month imposed temporary flight restrictions at the Picatinny Arsenal, an Army research and manufacturing facility, and a Bedminster golf course owned by President-elect Donald Trump.

On December 16, a joint statement was issued by the US Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the FAA, and Department of Defense. The “FBI has received tips of more than 5,000 reported drone sightings in the last few weeks with approximately 100 leads generated,” but evidence so far suggests “the sightings to date include a combination of lawful commercial drones, hobbyist drones, and law enforcement drones, as well as manned fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, and stars mistakenly reported as drones,” the statement said. “We have not identified anything anomalous and do not assess the activity to date to present a national security or public safety risk over the civilian airspace in New Jersey or other states in the northeast.”

US temporarily bans drones in parts of NJ, may use “deadly force” against aircraft Read More »

amazon’s-rto-delays-exemplify-why-workers-get-so-mad-about-mandates

Amazon’s RTO delays exemplify why workers get so mad about mandates

Concern about RTO planning is underscored by Amazon reportedly lacking enough space for its current in-office policy. Bloomberg said that “in recent interviews, employees complained of working from shared desks, crowded corporate canteens, and a lack of conference rooms for confidential calls or team meetings.”

The publication also pointed to employee displeasure with having to work in an office full-time when other tech firms have more lax policies. This could result in Amazon losing some of its best talent. Per the study from the University of Pittsburgh, Baylor University, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, and Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business researchers, senior, skilled workers are more likely to depart a company over an RTO mandate because they have “more connections with other companies.”

Employees eyeing greener pastures could put Amazon at risk of losing some of its most experienced employees. That also reportedly happened to Apple, Microsoft, and SpaceX following their RTO mandates, per a May study from University of Chicago and University of Michigan researchers (PDF). Following Amazon’s RTO announcement, 73 percent of 2,285 workers that Blind surveyed said they were “considering looking for another job” due to the rule change.

Finally, banning remote work while giving workers a few months to figure out how to adjust resulted in a lot of negative discourse, including Garman reportedly telling workers that if they don’t work well in offices, “that’s okay; there are other companies around.” As the November RTO study put it:

“An RTO announcement can be a big and sudden event that is distasteful to most employees, especially when the decision has not been well communicated, potentially triggering an immediate response of employees searching for and switching to new jobs.”

If Amazon had communicated RTO dates with greater accuracy once office plans were finalized, it could have alleviated some of the drama that followed the announcement and the negative impact that had on employee morale.

For its part, Amazon has instituted a tool for reserving conference rooms, which requires workers to commit to using the space so it’s not wasted, Bloomberg reported.

But with companies now having had years to plot their RTO approaches, employees are expecting more accurate communication and smooth transitions that align with their respective department’s culture. Amazon’s approach missed those marks.

Amazon’s RTO delays exemplify why workers get so mad about mandates Read More »

$2-per-megabyte:-at&t-mistakenly-charged-customer-$6,223-for-3.1gb-of-data

$2 per megabyte: AT&T mistakenly charged customer $6,223 for 3.1GB of data

An AT&T customer who switched to the company’s FirstNet service for first responders got quite the shock when his bill came in at $6,223.60, instead of the roughly $260 that his four-line plan previously cost each month.

The Texas man described his experience in a now-deleted Reddit post three days ago, saying he hadn’t been able to get the obviously incorrect bill reversed despite calling AT&T and going to an AT&T store in Dallas. The case drew plenty of attention and the bill was finally wiped out several days after the customer contacted the AT&T president’s office.

The customer said he received the billing email on December 11. An automatic payment was scheduled for December 15, but he canceled the autopay before the money was charged. The whole mess took a week to straighten out.

“I have been with AT&T for over a decade and I have always had unlimited plans so I knew this was a mistake,” he wrote. “The only change I have made to my account is last month I moved my line over to FirstNet. I am a first responder and I was told my price per month would actually go down a few dollars a month.”

“We have apologized for the inconvenience”

AT&T confirmed to Ars today that it “straightened out the customer’s bill.”

“We understand how frustrating this must have been for [the customer] and we have apologized for the inconvenience. We have resolved his concerns about his bill and are investigating to determine what caused this system error,” an AT&T spokesperson told Ars.

The customer posted screenshots of his bill, which helpfully pointed out, “Your bill increased $5,956.92” since the previous month. It included a $5.73 “discount for first responder appreciation,” but that wasn’t enough to wipe out a $6,194 line item listed as “Data Pay Per use 3,097MB at $2.00 per MB.”

$2 per megabyte: AT&T mistakenly charged customer $6,223 for 3.1GB of data Read More »

supreme-court-to-decide-if-tiktok-should-be-banned-or-sold

Supreme Court to decide if TikTok should be banned or sold

While the controversial US law doesn’t necessarily ban TikTok, it does seem designed to make TikTok “go away,” Greene said, and such a move to interfere with a widely used communications platform seems “unprecedented.”

“The TikTok ban itself and the DC Circuit’s approval of it should be of great concern even to those who find TikTok undesirable or scary,” Greene said in a statement. “Shutting down communications platforms or forcing their reorganization based on concerns of foreign propaganda and anti-national manipulation is an eminently anti-democratic tactic, one that the US has previously condemned globally.”

Greene further warned that the US “cutting off a tool used by 170 million Americans to receive information and communicate with the world, without proving with evidence that the tools are presently seriously harmful” would “greatly” lower “well-established standards for restricting freedom of speech in the US.”

TikTok partly appears to be hoping that President-elect Donald Trump will disrupt enforcement of the law, but Greene said it remains unclear if Trump’s plan to “save TikTok” might just be a plan to support a sale to a US buyer. At least one former Trump ally, Steven Mnuchin, has reportedly expressed interest in buying the app.

For TikTok, putting pressure on Trump will likely be the next step, “if the Supreme Court ever says, ‘we agree the law is valid,'” Greene suggested.

“Then that’s it,” Greene said. “There’s no other legal recourse. You only have political recourses.”

Like other civil rights groups, the EFF plans to remain on TikTok’s side as the SCOTUS battle starts.

“We are pleased that the Supreme Court will take the case and will urge the justices to apply the appropriately demanding First Amendment scrutiny,” Greene said.

Supreme Court to decide if TikTok should be banned or sold Read More »

tp-link-faces-possible-us-ban-as-hijacked-routers-fuel-chinese-attacks

TP-Link faces possible US ban as hijacked routers fuel Chinese attacks

Chinese hackers use botnet of TP-Link routers

Microsoft warned on October 31 that hackers working for the Chinese government are using a botnet of thousands of routers, cameras, and other Internet-connected devices for attacks on users of Microsoft’s Azure cloud service. Microsoft said that “SOHO routers manufactured by TP-Link make up most of this network,” referring to routers for small offices and home offices.

The WSJ said its sources allege that “TP-Link routers are routinely shipped to customers with security flaws, which the company often fails to address” and that “TP-Link doesn’t engage with security researchers concerned about them.” The article notes that “US officials haven’t disclosed any evidence that TP-Link is a witting conduit for Chinese state-sponsored cyberattacks.”

We contacted TP-Link today and will update this article if it provides a response. A TP-Link spokesperson told the WSJ that the company “welcome[s] any opportunities to engage with the US government to demonstrate that our security practices are fully in line with industry security standards, and to demonstrate our ongoing commitment to the US market, US consumers, and addressing US national security risks.”

A March 2024 Hudson Institute policy memo by Michael O’Rielly, a former Federal Communications Commission member, said it remained “unclear how prevalent TP-Link’s vulnerabilities are compared to other wireless routers—from China or elsewhere—as there is no definitive comparison or ranking of routers based on security.” O’Rielly urged federal agencies to “keep track of TP-Link and other manufacturers’ cybersecurity practices and ownership structure, including any ties to the Chinese government,” but said “there is no evidence to suggest negligence or maliciousness with regard to past vulnerabilities or weaknesses in TP-Link’s security.”

New push against Chinese tech

TP-Link routers don’t seem to be tied to an ongoing Chinese hack of US telecom networks, dubbed Salt Typhoon. But that attack increased government officials’ urgency for taking action against Chinese technology companies. For example, the Biden administration is “moving to ban the few remaining operations of China Telecom,” a telco that was mostly kicked out of the US in 2021, The New York Times reported on Monday.

TP-Link faces possible US ban as hijacked routers fuel Chinese attacks Read More »

companies-issuing-rto-mandates-“lose-their-best-talent”:-study

Companies issuing RTO mandates “lose their best talent”: Study


Despite the risks, firms and Trump are eager to get people back into offices.

Return-to-office (RTO) mandates have caused companies to lose some of their best workers, a study tracking over 3 million workers at 54 “high-tech and financial” firms at the S&P 500 index has found. These companies also have greater challenges finding new talent, the report concluded.

The paper, Return-to-Office Mandates and Brain Drain [PDF], comes from researchers from the University of Pittsburgh, as well as Baylor University, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, and Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business. The study, which was published in November, spotted this month by human resources publication HR Dive, and cites Ars Technica reporting, was conducted by collecting information on RTO announcements and sourcing data from LinkedIn. The researchers said they only examined companies with data available for at least two quarters before and after they issued RTO mandates. The researchers explained:

To collect employee turnover data, we follow prior literature … and obtain the employment history information of over 3 million employees of the 54 RTO firms from Revelio Labs, a leading data provider that extracts information from employee LinkedIn profiles. We manually identify employees who left a firm during each period, then calculate the firm’s turnover rate by dividing the number of departing employees by the total employee headcount at the beginning of the period. We also obtain information about employees’ gender, seniority, and the number of skills listed on their individual LinkedIn profiles, which serves as a proxy for employees’ skill level.

There are limits to the study, however. The researchers noted that the study “cannot draw causal inferences based on our setting.” Further, smaller firms and firms outside of the high-tech and financial industries may show different results. Although not mentioned in the report, relying on data from a social media platform could also yield inaccuracies, and the number of skills listed on a LinkedIn profile may not accurately depict a worker’s skill level.

Still, the study provides insight into how employees respond to RTO mandates and the effect it has on corporations and available talent at a time when entities like Dell, Amazon, and the US government are getting stricter about in-office work.

Higher turnover rates

The researchers concluded that the average turnover rates for firms increased by 14 percent after issuing return-to-office policies.

“We expect the effect of RTO mandates on employee turnover to be even higher for other firms” the paper says.

The researchers included testing to ensure that the results stemmed from RTO mandates “rather than time trends.” For example, the researchers found that “there were no significant increases in turnover rates during any of the five quarters prior to the RTO announcement quarter.”

Potentially alarming for employers is the study finding that senior and skilled employees were more likely to leave following RTO mandates. This aligns with a study from University of Chicago and University of Michigan researchers published in May that found that Apple and Microsoft saw senior-level employee bases decrease by 5 percentage points and SpaceX a decrease of 5 percentage points. (For its part, Microsoft told Ars that the report did not align with internal data.)

Senior employees are expected to be more likely to leave, the new report argues, because such workers have “more connections with other companies” and have easier times finding new jobs. Further, senior, skilled employees are “dissatisfied” when management blames remote work for low productivity.

Similarly, the report supports concerns from some RTO-resistant employees that back-to-office mandates have a disproportionate impact on certain groups, like women, which the researchers said show “more pronounced” attrition rates following RTO mandates:

Importantly, the effect on female employee turnover is almost three times as high as that on male employees … One possible reason for these results is that female employees are more affected by RTO mandates due to their greater family responsibilities, which increases their demand for workplace flexibility and work-life balance.

Trouble finding talent

RTO mandates also have a negative impact on companies’ ability to find new employees, the study found. After examining over 2 million job postings, the researchers concluded that companies with RTO mandates take longer to fill job vacancies than before:

On average, the time it takes for an RTO firm to fill its job vacancies increases by approximately 23 percent, and the hire rate decreases by 17 percent after RTO mandates.

The researchers also found “significantly higher hiring costs induced by RTO mandates” and concluded that the findings combined “suggest that firms lose their best talent after RTO mandates and face significant difficulties replacing them.”

“The weakest form of management”

RTO mandates can obviously drive away workers who prioritize work-life balance, avoiding commutes and associated costs, and who feel more productive working in a self-controlled environment. The study, however, points to additional reasons RTO mandates make some people quit.

One reason cited is RTO rules communicating “a culture of distrust that encourages management through monitoring.” The researchers noted that Brian Elliott, CEO at Work Forward and a leadership adviser, described this as the “weakest form of management—and one that drives down employee engagement” in a November column for MIT Sloan Management Review.

Indeed, RTO mandates have led to companies like Dell performing VPN tracking, and companies like Amazon, Google, JP Morgan Chase, Meta, and TikTok reportedly tracking badge swipes, resulting in employee backlash.

The new study also pointed to RTO mandates making employees question company leadership and management’s decision-making abilities. We saw this with Amazon, when over 500 employees sent a letter to Amazon Web Services (AWS) CEO Matt Garman, saying that they were “appalled to hear the non-data-driven explanation you gave for Amazon imposing a five-day in-office mandate.”

Employees are also put off by the drama that follows an aggressive RTO policy, the report says:

An RTO announcement can be a big and sudden event that is distasteful to most employees, especially when the decision has not been well communicated, potentially triggering an immediate response of employees searching for and switching to new jobs.

After Amazon announced it would kill remote work in early 2025, a study by online community Blind found that 73 percent of 2,285 Amazon employees surveyed were “considering looking for another job” in response to the mandate.

“A wave of voluntary terminations”

The paper points to reasons that employees may opt to stay with a company post-RTO mandates. Those reasons include competitive job markets, personal costs associated with switching jobs, loyalty, and interest in the collaborative and social aspects of working in-office.

However, with the amount of evidence that RTO mandates drive employees away, some question if return-to-office mandates are subtle ways to reduce headcount without layoffs. Comments like AWS’s Garman reportedly telling workers that if they don’t like working in an office, “there are other companies around” have fueled this theory, as has Dell saying remote workers can’t get promoted. A BambooHR survey of 1,504 full-time US employees, including 504 HR managers or higher, in March found that 25 percent of VP and C-suite executives and 18 percent of HR pros examined “admit they hoped for some voluntary turnover during an RTO.”

Yesterday, President-elect Donald Trump said he plans to do away with a deal that allowed the Social Security Administration’s union to work remotely into 2029 and that those who don’t come back into the office will “be dismissed.” Similarly, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who Trump announced will head a new Department of Government Efficiency, wrote in a November op-ed that “requiring federal employees to come to the office five days a week would result in a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome.”

Helen D. (Heidi) Reavis, managing partner at Reavis Page Jump LLP, an employment, dispute resolution, and media law firm, previously told Ars that employees “can face an array of legal consequences for encouraging workers to quit via their RTO policies.” Still, RTO mandates are set to continue being a point of debate and tension at workplaces into the new year.

Photo of Scharon Harding

Scharon is Ars Technica’s Senior Product Reviewer writing news, reviews, and analysis on consumer technology, including laptops, mechanical keyboards, and monitors. She’s based in Brooklyn.

Companies issuing RTO mandates “lose their best talent”: Study Read More »