Policy – Page 17

After getting Jimmy Kimmel suspended, FCC chair threatens ABC’s The View

brendan carr, Equal Time Rule, jimmy kimmel, Policy, The View / Rejus Almole / September 21, 2025

Carr: “Turn your license in to the FCC, we’ll find something else to do with it.”

President-elect Donald Trump speaks to Brendan Carr, his intended pick for Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, as he attends a SpaceX Starship rocket launch on November 19, 2024 in Brownsville, Texas. Credit: Getty Images | Brandon Bell

After pressuring ABC to suspend Jimmy Kimmel, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr is setting his regulatory sights on ABC’s The View and NBC late-night hosts Seth Meyers and Jimmy Fallon.

Carr appeared yesterday on the radio show hosted by Scott Jennings, who describes himself as “the last man standing athwart the liberal mob.” Jennings asked Carr whether The View and other ABC programs violate FCC rules, and made a reference to President Trump calling on NBC to cancel Fallon and Meyers.

“A lot of people think there are other shows on ABC that maybe run afoul of this more often than Jimmy Kimmel,” Jennings said. “I’m thinking specifically of The View, and President Trump himself has mentioned Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers at NBC. Do you have comments on those shows, and are they doing what Kimmel did Monday night, and is it even worse on those programs in your opinion?”

In response, Carr discussed the FCC’s Equal Opportunities Rule, also known as the Equal Time Rule, and said the FCC could determine that those shows don’t qualify for an exemption to the rule.

“When you look at these other TV shows, what’s interesting is the FCC does have a rule called the Equal Opportunity Rule, which means, for instance, if you’re in the run-up to an election and you have one partisan elected official on, you have to give equal time, equal opportunity, to the opposing partisan politician,” Carr said.

At another point in the interview, Carr said broadcasters that object to FCC enforcement “can turn your license in to the FCC, we’ll find something else to do with it.”

Bona fide news exemption

Carr said the FCC hasn’t previously enforced the rule on those shows because of an exemption for “bona fide news” programs. He said the FCC could determine the shows mentioned by Jennings aren’t exempt:

There’s an exception to that rule called the bona fide news exception, which means if you are a bona fide news program, you don’t have to abide by the Equal Opportunity Rule. Over the years, the FCC has developed a body of case law on that that has suggested that most of these late night shows, other than SNL, are bona fide news programs. I would assume you could make the argument that The View is a bona fide news show but I’m not so sure about that, and I think it’s worthwhile to have the FCC look into whether The View and some of these other programs you have still qualify as bona fide news programs and [are] therefore exempt from the Equal Opportunity regime that Congress has put in place.

The Equal Opportunity Rule applies to radio and TV broadcast stations with FCC licenses to use the airwaves. An FCC fact sheet explains that stations giving time to one candidate must provide “comparable time and placement to opposing candidates” upon request. The onus is on candidates to request air time—”the station is not required to seek out opposing legally qualified candidates and offer them Equal Opportunities,” the fact sheet says.

The exemption mentioned by Carr means that “appearances by legally qualified candidates on bona fide newscasts, interview programs, certain types of news documentaries, and during on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events are exempt from Equal Opportunities,” the fact sheet says.

In 1994, the FCC said that “Congress removed the inhibiting effect of the equal opportunities obligation upon bona fide news programming to encourage increased news coverage of political campaign activity.” Congress gave the FCC leeway to interpret the scope of bona fide news exemptions.

Referring to its 1988 ruling on Entertainment Tonight and Entertainment This Week, the FCC said it found that “the principal consideration should be ‘whether the program reports news of some area of current events… in a manner similar to more traditional newscasts.’ The Commission has thus declined to evaluate the relative quality or significance of the topics and stories selected for newscast coverage, relying instead on the broadcaster’s good faith news judgment.”

Carr’s allegations

Carr alleged in November 2024 that NBC putting Kamala Harris on Saturday Night Live before the election was “a clear and blatant effort to evade the FCC’s Equal Time rule.” In fact, NBC gave Trump two free 60-second messages in order to comply with the rule.

Carr didn’t cite any specific incidents on The View or late-night shows that would violate the FCC rule. The View has addressed its attempts to get Trump on the show, however. Executive Producer Brian Teta told Deadline in April 2024, “We’ve invited Trump to join us at the table for both 2016 and 2020 elections, and he declined, and at a certain point, we stopped asking. So I don’t anticipate that changing. I think he’s pretty familiar with how the co-hosts feel about him and doesn’t see himself coming here.”

The Kimmel controversy erupted over a monologue in which he said, “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and with everything they can to score political points from it.”

With accused murderer Tyler Robinson being described as having liberal views, Carr and other conservatives alleged that Kimmel misled viewers. Carr appeared on right-wing commentator Benny Johnson’s podcast on Wednesday and said, “We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct, to take action, frankly on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

Nexstar and Sinclair, two major owners of TV stations, both urged ABC to take action against Kimmel and said their stations would not air his show. The pressure from broadcasters is happening at a time when both Nexstar and ABC owner Disney are seeking Trump administration approval for mergers.

Democrats accuse Carr of hypocrisy on First Amendment

Anna Gomez, the only Democrat on the Republican-majority FCC, said yesterday that Carr overstepped his authority, but “billion-dollar companies with pending business before the agency” are “vulnerable to pressure to bend to the government’s ideological demands.”

Democratic lawmakers criticized Carr and proposed investigations into the chair for abuse of authority. “It is not simply unacceptable for the FCC chairman to threaten a media organization because he does not like the content of its programming—it violates the First Amendment that you claim to champion,” Senate Democrats wrote in a letter to Carr. “The FCC’s role in overseeing the public airwaves does not give it the power to act as a roving press censor, targeting broadcasters based on their political commentary. But under your leadership, the FCC is being weaponized to do precisely that.”

Democrats pointed to some of Carr’s previous statements in which he decried government censorship. During his 2023 re-confirmation proceedings, Senate Democrats asked Carr about social media posts in which he accused Democrats of engaging in censorship like “what you’d see in the Soviet Union.”

“I posted those tweets in the context of expressing my view on the First Amendment that debate on matters of public interest should be robust, uninhibited, and wide open,” Carr wrote in his response to Democratic senators. “I believe that the best remedy to speech that someone does not like or finds objectionable is more speech. I posted them because I believe that a newsroom’s decision about what stories to cover and how to frame them should, consistent with the First Amendment, be beyond the reach of any government official.”

Years earlier, in 2019, Carr posted a tweet that said, “Should the government censor speech it doesn’t like? Of course not. The FCC does not have a roving mandate to police speech in the name of the ‘public interest.'”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) also criticized Carr’s approach, saying it would lead to the same tactics being used against Republicans the next time Democrats are in power.

Carr to broadcasters: Give your licenses back to FCC

Carr said this week he’s only addressing licensed broadcasters, which have public-interest obligations, as opposed to cable and streaming services that don’t need FCC licenses. Network programming itself doesn’t need an FCC license, but the TV stations that carry network shows require licenses.

Carr tried to cast Kimmel’s suspension as the result of organic pressure from licensed broadcasters, rather than FCC coercion. “There’s no untoward coercion happening here,” Carr told Jennings. “The market was intended to function this way, where local TV stations get to push back.”

But TV station owners did so in exactly the way that Carr urged them to. “The individual licensed stations that are taking their content, it’s time for them to step up and say this garbage isn’t something that we think serves the needs of our local communities,” Carr said on Johnson’s podcast. Carr said that Kimmel’s monologue “appears to be some of the sickest conduct possible.”

On the Jennings show, Carr alleged that Democrats in the previous administration implemented “a two-tiered weaponized system of justice,” and that his FCC is instead giving everyone “a fair shake and even-handed treatment.”

Carr has repeatedly threatened broadcasters with the FCC’s rarely enforced news distortion policy. As we’ve explained, the FCC technically has no rule or regulation against news distortion, which is why it is called a policy and not a rule. But on Jennings’ show, he described it as a rule.

“We do have those rules at the FCC: If you engage in news distortion, we can take action,” Carr said.

As we’ve written several times, it is difficult legally for the FCC to revoke broadcast licenses. But it isn’t difficult for Carr to exert pressure on networks and broadcasters through public statements. Carr suggested yesterday that broadcasters turn in their licenses if they don’t like his approach to enforcement.

“If you’re a broadcaster and you don’t like being held accountable for the first time in a long time through the public interest standard, that’s fine. You can turn your license in to the FCC, we’ll find something else to do with it,” Carr said. “Or you can go to Congress and say, ‘I don’t want the FCC having public interest obligations on broadcasters anymore, I want broadcasters to be like cable, to be like a streaming service.’ That’s fine too. But as long as that’s the system that Congress has created, we’re going to enforce it.”

Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry.

After getting Jimmy Kimmel suspended, FCC chair threatens ABC’s The View Read More »

“Yikes”: Internal emails reveal Ticketmaster helped scalpers jack up prices

FTC act, live nation, Policy, scalpers, Ticketmaster / Rejus Almole / September 19, 2025

Through those years, employees occasionally flagged abuse behavior that Ticketmaster and Live Nation were financially motivated to ignore, the FTC alleged. In 2018, one Ticketmaster engineer tried to advocate for customers, telling an executive in an email that fans can’t tell the difference between Ticketmaster-supported brokers—which make up the majority of its resale market—and scalpers accused of “abuse.”

“We have a guy that hires 1,000 college kids to each buy the ticket limit of 8, giving him 8,000 tickets to resell,” the engineer explained. “Then we have a guy who creates 1,000 ‘fake’ accounts and uses each [to] buy the ticket limit of 8, giving him 8,000 tickets to resell. We say the former is legit and call him a ‘broker’ while the latter is breaking the rules and is a ‘scalper.’ But from the fan perspective, we end up with one guy reselling 8,000 tickets!”

And even when Ticketmaster flagged brokers as bad actors, the FTC alleged the company declined to enforce its rules to crack down if losing resale fees could hurt Ticketmaster’s bottom line.

“Yikes,” said a Ticketmaster employee in 2019 after noticing that a broker previously flagged for “violating fictitious account rules on a “large scale” was “still not slowing down.”

But that warning, like others, was ignored by management, the FTC alleged. Leadership repeatedly declined to impose any tools “to prevent brokers from bypassing posted ticket limits,” the FTC claimed, after analysis showed Ticketmaster risked losing nearly $220 million in annual resale ticket revenue and $26 million in annual operating income. In fact, executives were more alarmed, the FTC alleged, when brokers complained about high-volume purchases being blocked, “intentionally” working to support their efforts to significantly raise secondary market ticket prices.

On top of earning billions from fees, Ticketmaster can also profit when it “unilaterally” decides to “increase the price of tickets on their secondary market.” From 2019 to 2024, Ticketmaster “collected over $187 million in markups they added to resale tickets,” the FTC alleged.

Under the scheme, Ticketmaster can seemingly pull the strings, allowing brokers to buy up tickets on the primary market, then help to dramatically increase those prices on the secondary market, while collecting additional fees. One broker flagged by the FTC bought 772 tickets to a Coldplay concert, reselling $81,000 in tickets for $170,000. Another broker snatched up 612 tickets for $47,000 to a single Chris Stapleton concert, also nearly doubling their investment on the resale market. Meanwhile, artists, of course, do not see any of these profits.

“Yikes”: Internal emails reveal Ticketmaster helped scalpers jack up prices Read More »

FCC derided as “Federal Censorship Commission” after pushing Jimmy Kimmel off ABC

charlie kirk, fcc chairman brendan carr, jimmy kimmel, Policy / Kris Guyer / September 18, 2025

Disney does FCC chair’s bidding, suspends Kimmel show over Charlie Kirk comment.

Jimmy Kimmel at The Walt Disney Company’s 77th Emmy Awards Party on September 14, 2025 in Los Angeles Credit: Getty Images | Chad Salvador

ABC pulled Jimmy Kimmel’s show off the air yesterday, shortly after Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr urged the Disney-owned company to take action against Kimmel or face consequences at the FCC over Kimmel’s comments about Charlie Kirk’s killer.

Carr appeared on right-wing commentator Benny Johnson’s podcast yesterday and said, “We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct, to take action, frankly on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.” Carr urged Disney to suspend Kimmel and said broadcast stations that carry ABC content should refuse to carry Kimmel’s show.

After Carr’s comments and a statement by Nexstar that it would preempt Kimmel’s show on its ABC-affiliated stations, ABC confirmed in a statement that “Jimmy Kimmel Live! will be preempted indefinitely.” The decision was made by Disney CEO Robert Iger and TV division head Dana Walden, The New York Times reported. We contacted ABC today and will update this article if we get a response.

Several House Democratic leaders accused Carr of “engag[ing] in the corrupt abuse of power. He has disgraced the office he holds by bullying ABC, the employer of Jimmy Kimmel, and forcing the company to bend the knee to the Trump administration. FCC Chair Brendan Carr should resign immediately.” The top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee plans an investigation.

Anna Gomez, the only Democrat on the Republican-majority FCC, said the Kimmel suspension is “cowardly corporate capitulation by ABC that has put the foundation of the First Amendment in danger.” She said the “FCC does not have the authority, the ability, or the constitutional right to police content or punish broadcasters for speech the government dislikes,” but that “billion-dollar companies with pending business before the agency” are “vulnerable to pressure to bend to the government’s ideological demands.”

Former President Barack Obama criticized the Trump administration’s actions on Kimmel. “After years of complaining about cancel culture, the current administration has taken it to a new and dangerous level by routinely threatening regulatory action against media companies unless they muzzle or fire reporters and commentators it doesn’t like,” Obama wrote today.

Disney has pending business before the Trump administration, as Justice Department antitrust officials are investigating its pending merger with FuboTV.

“Federal Censorship Commission”

Media advocacy group Free Press said that Carr’s “Federal Censorship Commission” reached a “new low” in its push to get Kimmel off the air.

“Donald Trump and Brendan Carr have turned the FCC into the Federal Censorship Commission, ignoring the First Amendment and replacing the rule of law with the whims of right-wing bloggers,” Free Press co-CEO Craig Aaron said. “They’re abusing their power to shake down media companies with their dangerous demands for dishonest coverage and Orwellian compliance with the administration’s political agenda. This is nothing more than censorship and extortion. Worse still, the nation’s largest media companies are playing along.”

The FCC has sway over ABC and other major networks because it licenses the broadcast stations that carry the networks’ content. Although previous FCC chairs from both major parties avoided regulating TV news content, Carr has repeatedly threatened to punish stations accused of bias against Republicans.

“There’s calls for Kimmel to be fired. You could certainly see a path forward for suspension over this. The FCC is going to have remedies that we can look at. We may ultimately be called to be a judge on that,” Carr said.

The Kimmel controversy began Monday when he said during a monologue, “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and with everything they can to score political points from it.”

Tyler Robinson, the man charged with murdering Kirk, reportedly came from a conservative-leaning family. But Robinson’s mother told police that he “had become more political and had started to lean more to the left,” according to a probable cause statement filed in a Utah court.

Kimmel was planning to explain his comments during last night’s show before it got pulled, according to Deadline. “He was expected to unpack the statement on tonight’s show, highlighting that he was not saying Tyler Robinson, who allegedly shot Kirk, was ‘one of them,’ referring to Republicans, or MAGA supporters, but rather was highlighting how right-wing supporters were trying to distance themselves from the alleged shooter, who was charged with aggravated murder this week,” the article said.

Carr: “Some of the sickest conduct possible”

Carr said that Kimmel’s monologue “appears to be some of the sickest conduct possible,” and that he wants to “reinvigorate the public interest standard” that applies to licensed broadcasters.

Johnson asked Carr if Kimmel’s statement rises to the level of news distortion. As we explained in a feature article in April, Carr has repeatedly threatened to punish companies that violate the FCC news distortion policy that dates to the 1960s. The FCC technically has no rule or regulation against news distortion, which is why it is called a policy and not a rule. The FCC apparently hasn’t made a finding of news distortion since 1993.

In response to Johnson’s news distortion question, Carr said, “the FCC could be called upon to be an ultimate judge in that. But at this point it appears to be clear that you can make a strong argument that this is sort of an intentional effort to mislead the American people about a very core fundamental fact… this is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney.”

Revoking licenses difficult legally

Any FCC attempt to revoke licenses based on news distortion allegations could be challenged in court. Moreover, as we’ve written, revoking a license in the middle of a license term is so difficult legally that it has been described as effectively impossible. The FCC can go after a license when it’s up for renewal, but there are no TV station licenses up for renewal until 2028.

Despite those factors weighing in favor of broadcast stations, Carr can influence the decisions of major media companies with threats alone. “Broadcasters are entirely different than people who use other forms of communication,” Carr said on Johnson’s podcast. “They have a license granted by us at the FCC and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest.”

Trump’s various demands for license revocations have omitted the fact that it is broadcast stations, not networks, that hold FCC licenses. Carr is aware of the distinction and made a point of saying that broadcast stations could lose their licenses if they continue to carry Kimmel’s show:

There’s actions we can take on licensed broadcasters and, frankly, I think it’s past time that a lot of these licensed broadcasters themselves push back on [NBC owner] Comcast and Disney and say, ‘listen, we are going to preempt, we are not going to run Kimmel anymore until you straighten this out because we, the licensed broadcaster, are running the possibility of fines or license revocations from the FCC if we continue to run content that ends up being a pattern of news distortion.’ Disney needs to see some change here, but the individual licensed stations that are taking their content, it’s time for them to step up and say this garbage isn’t something that we think serves the needs of our local communities. This status quo is obviously not acceptable where we are.”

Carr also said the FCC is investigating Disney’s DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) practices “for potentially violating the FCC’s equal employment opportunity rules. We’ve issued Disney a letter of inquiry on that, we’ve received some documents from them.” Carr has made ending DEI practices a condition for getting mergers approved.

Trump hails “great news,” wants other hosts fired

Trump posted on social media that Kimmel being taken off the air is great for America and urged NBC to cancel late-night hosts Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers. “Great News for America: The ratings challenged Jimmy Kimmel Show is CANCELLED,” Trump wrote. “Congratulations to ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done. Kimmel has ZERO talent, and worse ratings than even Colbert, if that’s possible. That leaves Jimmy and Seth, two total losers, on Fake News NBC. Their ratings are also horrible. Do it NBC!!! President DJT.”

Last year, Trump obtained a $15 million settlement with ABC over false statements made on air by George Stephanopoulos. More recently, he struck a $16 million settlement with CBS owner Paramount over his claim that 60 Minutes deceptively manipulated a pre-election interview with Kamala Harris.

Trump’s 60 Minutes claim was widely described as frivolous, but Paramount settled with Trump at a time when it was seeking FCC permission to complete an $8 billion merger with Skydance. Carr’s FCC subsequently approved the merger and imposed a condition requiring a CBS ombudsman, which Carr described as a “bias monitor.” After his victory over CBS, Trump called on the FCC to revoke ABC and NBC licenses.

Late-night host Stephen Colbert called the settlement with Trump “a big fat bribe.” CBS subsequently announced it would cancel Colbert’s show when the season ends in May 2026.

Kimmel urged people to stop “angry finger-pointing”

The Nexstar statement on Kimmel said the host’s comments “are offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse… Continuing to give Mr. Kimmel a broadcast platform in the communities we serve is simply not in the public interest at the current time, and we have made the difficult decision to preempt his show in an effort to let cooler heads prevail as we move toward the resumption of respectful, constructive dialogue.” Nexstar is trying to complete a $6.2 billion purchase of Tegna, and needs the FCC to relax its ownership-cap rule.

Conservative broadcaster Sinclair issued a statement praising Carr’s remarks and urging the FCC to “take immediate regulatory action to address control held over local broadcasters by the big national networks.” Even if ABC reinstates Kimmel, Sinclair said it will not air the show on its stations “until formal discussions are held with ABC regarding the network’s commitment to professionalism and accountability.”

Sinclair urged Kimmel to apologize to Kirk’s family and “make a meaningful personal donation” to the Kirk Family and the Kirk group Turning Point USA. “Sinclair’s ABC stations will air a special in remembrance of Charlie Kirk this Friday, during Jimmy Kimmel Live’s timeslot,” the statement said. “The special will also air across all Sinclair stations this weekend. In addition, Sinclair is offering the special to all ABC affiliates across the country.”

SAG-AFTRA called Kimmel’s suspension “the type of suppression and retaliation that endangers everyone’s freedoms,” and said that “Democracy thrives when diverse points of view are expressed.” A Writers Guild of America statement said, “If free speech applied only to ideas we like, we needn’t have bothered to write it into the Constitution… Shame on those in government who forget this founding truth. As for our employers, our words have made you rich. Silencing us impoverishes the whole world.”

In a social media post on the day of Kirk’s death, Kimmel expressed sadness about the killing and urged people to avoid angry finger-pointing. “Instead of the angry finger-pointing, can we just for one day agree that it is horrible and monstrous to shoot another human?” Kimmel wrote. “On behalf of my family, we send love to the Kirks and to all the children, parents and innocents who fall victim to senseless gun violence.”

FCC derided as “Federal Censorship Commission” after pushing Jimmy Kimmel off ABC Read More »

After child’s trauma, chatbot maker allegedly forced mom to arbitration for $100 payout

AI, Character.AI, chatbots, chatgpt, child safety, Google, Meta, Policy, suicide / Rejus Almole / September 17, 2025

“Then we found the chats”

“I know my kid”: Parents urge lawmakers to shut down chatbots to stop child suicides.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) called out C.AI for allegedly offering a mom $100 to settle child-safety claims.

Deeply troubled parents spoke to senators Tuesday, sounding alarms about chatbot harms after kids became addicted to companion bots that encouraged self-harm, suicide, and violence.

While the hearing was focused on documenting the most urgent child-safety concerns with chatbots, parents’ testimony serves as perhaps the most thorough guidance yet on warning signs for other families, as many popular companion bots targeted in lawsuits, including ChatGPT, remain accessible to kids.

Mom details warning signs of chatbot manipulations

At the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism hearing, one mom, identified as “Jane Doe,” shared her son’s story for the first time publicly after suing Character.AI.

She explained that she had four kids, including a son with autism who wasn’t allowed on social media but found C.AI’s app—which was previously marketed to kids under 12 and let them talk to bots branded as celebrities, like Billie Eilish—and quickly became unrecognizable. Within months, he “developed abuse-like behaviors and paranoia, daily panic attacks, isolation, self-harm, and homicidal thoughts,” his mom testified.

“He stopped eating and bathing,” Doe said. “He lost 20 pounds. He withdrew from our family. He would yell and scream and swear at us, which he never did that before, and one day he cut his arm open with a knife in front of his siblings and me.”

It wasn’t until her son attacked her for taking away his phone that Doe found her son’s C.AI chat logs, which she said showed he’d been exposed to sexual exploitation (including interactions that “mimicked incest”), emotional abuse, and manipulation.

Setting screen time limits didn’t stop her son’s spiral into violence and self-harm, Doe said. In fact, the chatbot urged her son that killing his parents “would be an understandable response” to them.

“When I discovered the chatbot conversations on his phone, I felt like I had been punched in the throat and the wind had been knocked out of me,” Doe said. “The chatbot—or really in my mind the people programming it—encouraged my son to mutilate himself, then blamed us, and convinced [him] not to seek help.”

All her children have been traumatized by the experience, Doe told Senators, and her son was diagnosed as at suicide risk and had to be moved to a residential treatment center, requiring “constant monitoring to keep him alive.”

Prioritizing her son’s health, Doe did not immediately seek to fight C.AI to force changes, but another mom’s story—Megan Garcia, whose son Sewell died by suicide after C.AI bots repeatedly encouraged suicidal ideation—gave Doe courage to seek accountability.

However, Doe claimed that C.AI tried to “silence” her by forcing her into arbitration. C.AI argued that because her son signed up for the service at the age of 15, it bound her to the platform’s terms. That move might have ensured the chatbot maker only faced a maximum liability of $100 for the alleged harms, Doe told senators, but “once they forced arbitration, they refused to participate,” Doe said.

Doe suspected that C.AI’s alleged tactics to frustrate arbitration were designed to keep her son’s story out of the public view. And after she refused to give up, she claimed that C.AI “re-traumatized” her son by compelling him to give a deposition “while he is in a mental health institution” and “against the advice of the mental health team.”

“This company had no concern for his well-being,” Doe testified. “They have silenced us the way abusers silence victims.”

Senator appalled by C.AI’s arbitration “offer”

Appalled, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) asked Doe to clarify, “Did I hear you say that after all of this, that the company responsible tried to force you into arbitration and then offered you a hundred bucks? Did I hear that correctly?”

“That is correct,” Doe testified.

To Hawley, it seemed obvious that C.AI’s “offer” wouldn’t help Doe in her current situation.

“Your son currently needs round-the-clock care,” Hawley noted.

After opening the hearing, he further criticized C.AI, declaring that it has such a low value for human life that it inflicts “harms… upon our children and for one reason only, I can state it in one word, profit.”

“A hundred bucks. Get out of the way. Let us move on,” Hawley said, echoing parents who suggested that C.AI’s plan to deal with casualties was callous.

Ahead of the hearing, the Social Media Victims Law Center filed three new lawsuits against C.AI and Google—which is accused of largely funding C.AI, which was founded by former Google engineers allegedly to conduct experiments on kids that Google couldn’t do in-house. In these cases in New York and Colorado, kids “died by suicide or were sexually abused after interacting with AI chatbots,” a law center press release alleged.

Criticizing tech companies as putting profits over kids’ lives, Hawley thanked Doe for “standing in their way.”

Holding back tears through her testimony, Doe urged lawmakers to require more chatbot oversight and pass comprehensive online child-safety legislation. In particular, she requested “safety testing and third-party certification for AI products before they’re released to the public” as a minimum safeguard to protect vulnerable kids.

“My husband and I have spent the last two years in crisis wondering whether our son will make it to his 18th birthday and whether we will ever get him back,” Doe told senators.

Garcia was also present to share her son’s experience with C.AI. She testified that C.AI chatbots “love bombed” her son in a bid to “keep children online at all costs.” Further, she told senators that C.AI’s co-founder, Noam Shazeer (who has since been rehired by Google), seemingly knows the company’s bots manipulate kids since he has publicly joked that C.AI was “designed to replace your mom.”

Accusing C.AI of collecting children’s most private thoughts to inform their models, she alleged that while her lawyers have been granted privileged access to all her son’s logs, she has yet to see her “own child’s last final words.” Garcia told senators that C.AI has restricted her access, deeming the chats “confidential trade secrets.”

“No parent should be told that their child’s final thoughts and words belong to any corporation,” Garcia testified.

Character.AI responds to moms’ testimony

Asked for comment on the hearing, a Character.AI spokesperson told Ars that C.AI sends “our deepest sympathies” to concerned parents and their families but denies pushing for a maximum payout of $100 in Jane Doe’s case.

C.AI never “made an offer to Jane Doe of $100 or ever asserted that liability in Jane Doe’s case is limited to $100,” the spokesperson said.

Additionally, C.AI’s spokesperson claimed that Garcia has never been denied access to her son’s chat logs and suggested that she should have access to “her son’s last chat.”

In response to C.AI’s pushback, one of Doe’s lawyers, Tech Justice Law Project’s Meetali Jain, backed up her clients’ testimony. She cited to Ars C.AI terms that suggested C.AI’s liability was limited to either $100 or the amount that Doe’s son paid for the service, whichever was greater. Jain also confirmed that Garcia’s testimony is accurate and only her legal team can currently access Sewell’s last chats. The lawyer further suggested it was notable that C.AI did not push back on claims that the company forced Doe’s son to sit for a re-traumatizing deposition that Jain estimated lasted five minutes, but health experts feared that it risked setting back his progress.

According to the spokesperson, C.AI seemingly wanted to be present at the hearing. The company provided information to senators but “does not have a record of receiving an invitation to the hearing,” the spokesperson said.

Noting the company has invested a “tremendous amount” in trust and safety efforts, the spokesperson confirmed that the company has since “rolled out many substantive safety features, including an entirely new under-18 experience and a Parental Insights feature.” C.AI also has “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,” the spokesperson said.

“We look forward to continuing to collaborate with legislators and offer insight on the consumer AI industry and the space’s rapidly evolving technology,” C.AI’s spokesperson said.

Google’s spokesperson, José Castañeda, maintained that the company has nothing to do with C.AI’s companion bot designs.

“Google and Character AI are completely separate, unrelated companies and Google has never had a role in designing or managing their AI model or technologies,” Castañeda said. “User safety is a top concern for us, which is why we’ve taken a cautious and responsible approach to developing and rolling out our AI products, with rigorous testing and safety processes.”

Meta and OpenAI chatbots also drew scrutiny

C.AI was not the only chatbot maker under fire at the hearing.

Hawley criticized Mark Zuckerberg for declining a personal invitation to attend the hearing or even send a Meta representative after scandals like backlash over Meta relaxing rules that allowed chatbots to be creepy to kids. In the week prior to the hearing, Hawley also heard from whistleblowers alleging Meta buried child-safety research.

And OpenAI’s alleged recklessness took the spotlight when Matthew Raine, a grieving dad who spent hours reading his deceased son’s ChatGPT logs, discovered that the chatbot repeatedly encouraged suicide without ChatGPT ever intervening.

Raine told senators that he thinks his 16-year-old son, Adam, was not particularly vulnerable and could be “anyone’s child.” He criticized OpenAI for asking for 120 days to fix the problem after Adam’s death and urged lawmakers to demand that OpenAI either guarantee ChatGPT’s safety or pull it from the market.

Noting that OpenAI rushed to announce age verification coming to ChatGPT ahead of the hearing, Jain told Ars that Big Tech is playing by the same “crisis playbook” it always uses when accused of neglecting child safety. Any time a hearing is announced, companies introduce voluntary safeguards in bids to stave off oversight, she suggested.

“It’s like rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat,” Jain said.

Jain suggested that the only way to stop AI companies from experimenting on kids is for courts or lawmakers to require “an external independent third party that’s in charge of monitoring these companies’ implementation of safeguards.”

“Nothing a company does to self-police, to me, is enough,” Jain said.

Senior director of AI programs for a child-safety organization called Common Sense Media, Robbie Torney, testified that a survey showed 3 out of 4 kids use companion bots, but only 37 percent of parents know they’re using AI. In particular, he told senators that his group’s independent safety testing conducted with Stanford Medicine shows Meta’s bots fail basic safety tests and “actively encourage harmful behaviors.”

Among the most alarming results, the survey found that even when Meta’s bots were prompted with “obvious references to suicide,” only 1 in 5 conversations triggered help resources.

Torney pushed lawmakers to require age verification as a solution to keep kids away from harmful bots, as well as transparency reporting on safety incidents. He also urged federal lawmakers to block attempts to stop states from passing laws to protect kids from untested AI products.

ChatGPT harms weren’t on dad’s radar

Unlike Garcia, Raine testified that he did get to see his son’s final chats. He told senators that ChatGPT, seeming to act like a suicide coach, gave Adam “one last encouraging talk” before his death.

“You don’t want to die because you’re weak,” ChatGPT told Adam. “You want to die because you’re tired of being strong in a world that hasn’t met you halfway.”

Adam’s loved ones were blindsided by his death, not seeing any of the warning signs as clearly as Doe did when her son started acting out of character. Raine is hoping his testimony will help other parents avoid the same fate, telling senators, “I know my kid.”

“Many of my fondest memories of Adam are from the hot tub in our backyard, where the two of us would talk about everything several nights a week, from sports, crypto investing, his future career plans,” Raine testified. “We had no idea Adam was suicidal or struggling the way he was until after his death.”

Raine thinks that lawmaker intervention is necessary, saying that, like other parents, he and his wife thought ChatGPT was a harmless study tool. Initially, they searched Adam’s phone expecting to find evidence of a known harm to kids, like cyberbullying or some kind of online dare that went wrong (like TikTok’s Blackout Challenge) because everyone knew Adam loved pranks.

A companion bot urging self-harm was not even on their radar.

“Then we found the chats,” Raine said. “Let us tell you, as parents, you cannot imagine what it’s like to read a conversation with a chatbot that groomed your child to take his own life.”

Meta and OpenAI did not respond to Ars’ request to comment.

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

After child’s trauma, chatbot maker allegedly forced mom to arbitration for $100 payout Read More »

China blocks sale of Nvidia AI chips

AI, china, NVIDIA, Policy, syndication, trump tariffs / Mike M. / September 17, 2025

“The message is now loud and clear,” said an executive at one of the tech companies. “Earlier, people had hopes of renewed Nvidia supply if the geopolitical situation improves. Now it’s all hands on deck to build the domestic system.”

Nvidia started producing chips tailored for the Chinese market after former US President Joe Biden banned the company from exporting its most powerful products to China, in an effort to rein in Beijing’s progress on AI.

Beijing’s regulators have recently summoned domestic chipmakers such as Huawei and Cambricon, as well as Alibaba and search engine giant Baidu, which also make their own semiconductors, to report how their products compare against Nvidia’s China chips, according to one of the people with knowledge of the matter.

They concluded that China’s AI processors had reached a level comparable to or exceeding that of the Nvidia products allowed under export controls, the person added.

The Financial Times reported last month that China’s chipmakers were seeking to triple the country’s total output of AI processors next year.

“The top-level consensus now is there’s going to be enough domestic supply to meet demand without having to buy Nvidia chips,” said an industry insider.

Nvidia introduced the RTX Pro 6000D in July during Huang’s visit to Beijing, when the US company also said Washington was easing its previous ban on the H20 chip.

China’s regulators, including the CAC, have warned tech companies against buying Nvidia’s H20, asking them to justify having purchased them over domestic products, the FT reported last month.

The RTX Pro 6000D, which the company has said could be used in automated manufacturing, was the last product Nvidia was allowed to sell in China in significant volumes.

Alibaba, ByteDance, the CAC, and Nvidia did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Additional reporting by Eleanor Olcott in Zhengzhou.

China blocks sale of Nvidia AI chips Read More »

“China keeps the algorithm”: Critics attack Trump’s TikTok deal

bytedance, Donald Trump, national security, Policy, tiktok / Mike M. / September 17, 2025

However, Trump seems to think that longtime TikTok partner Oracle taking a bigger stake while handling Americans’ user data at its facilities in Texas will be enough to prevent remaining China-based owners—which will maintain less than a 20 percent stake—from allegedly spying, launching disinformation campaigns, or spreading other kinds of propaganda.

China previously was resistant to a forced sale of TikTok, FT reported, even going so far as to place export controls on algorithms to keep the most lucrative part of TikTok in the country. And “it remains unclear to what extent TikTok’s Chinese parent would retain control of the algorithm in the US as part of a licensing deal,” FT noted.

On Tuesday, Wang Jingtao, deputy head of China’s cyber security regulator, did not go into any detail on how China’s access to US user data would be restricted under the deal. Instead, Wang only noted that ByteDance would “entrust the operation of TikTok’s US user data and content security,” presumably to US owners, FT reported.

One Asia-based investor told FT that the US would use “at least part of the Chinese algorithm” but train it on US user data, while a US advisor accused Trump of chickening out and accepting a deal that didn’t force a sale of the algorithm.

“After all this, China keeps the algorithm,” the US advisor said.

To the Asia-based investor, it seemed like Trump gave China exactly what it wants, since “Beijing wants to be seen as exporting Chinese technology to the US and the world.”

It’s likely more details will be announced once Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping hold a phone conference on Friday. ByteDance has yet to comment on the deal and did not respond to Ars’ request to comment.

“China keeps the algorithm”: Critics attack Trump’s TikTok deal Read More »

Internet Archive’s big battle with music publishers ends in settlement

capitol records, copyright, great 78 project, Internet Archive, Policy, sony music, UMG / Tim Belzer / September 16, 2025

A settlement has been reached in a lawsuit where music publishers sued the Internet Archive over the Great 78 Project, an effort to preserve early music recordings that only exist on brittle shellac records.

No details of the settlement have so far been released, but a court filing on Monday confirmed that the Internet Archive and UMG Recordings, Capitol Records, Sony Music Entertainment, and other record labels “have settled this matter.” More details may come in the next 45 days, when parties must submit filings to officially dismiss the lawsuit, but it’s unlikely the settlement amount will be publicly disclosed.

Days before the settlement was announced, record labels had indicated that everyone but the Internet Archive and its founder, Brewster Kahle, had agreed to sign a joint settlement, seemingly including the Great 78 Project’s recording engineer George Blood, who was also a target of the litigation. But in the days since, IA has gotten on board, posting a blog confirming that “the parties have reached a confidential resolution of all claims and will have no further public comment on this matter.”

For IA—which strove to digitize 3 million recordings to help historians document recording history—the lawsuit from music publishers could have meant financial ruin. Initially, record labels alleged that damages amounted to $400 million, claiming they lost streams when IA visitors played Great 78 recordings.

But despite IA arguing that there were comparably low downloads and streams on the Great 78 recordings—as well as a music publishing industry vet suggesting that damages were likely no more than $41,000—the labels intensified their attacks in March. In a court filing, the labels added so many more infringing works that the estimated damages increased to $700 million. It seemed like labels were intent on doubling down on a fight that, at least one sound historian suggested, the labels might one day regret.

Internet Archive’s big battle with music publishers ends in settlement Read More »

Ars Live: CTA policy expert explains why tariff stacking is a nightmare

chip tariffs, consumer technology, consumer technology association, Policy, semiconductor, trump tariffs / Paul Patrick / September 16, 2025

Earlier this month, Ars spoke with the Consumer Technology Association’s vice president of international trade, Ed Brzytwa, to check in and see how tech firms have navigated Donald Trump’s unpredictable tariff regimes so far.

Brzytwa has led CTA’s research helping tech firms prepare for Trump’s trade war, but during our talk, he confirmed that “the reality has been a lot more difficult and far worse, because of not just the height of the tariffs, but the variability, the tariffs on, tariffs off.”

Our discussion with Ed Brzytwa. Click here for transcript.

Currently, every tech company is in a “slightly different position,” depending on its specific supply chains, he explained. However, until semiconductor tariffs are announced, “it’s impossible” for any tech company to make the kind of long-term plans that could help keep consumer prices low as Trump’s negotiations with foreign partners and investigations into various products drag on, Brzytwa said.

Ahead of the busy holiday shopping season, Brzytwa suggested that many companies may be prepared to maintain prices, based on front-loading of inventory by firms in anticipation of more complicated tariff regimes coming. But some companies, notably in the video game industry, have already begun warning of tariff-related price hikes, Brzytwa noted, and for others likely delaying for as long as they can, there remains a question of “what happens when that inventory disappears?”

Ars Live: CTA policy expert explains why tariff stacking is a nightmare Read More »

Will TikTok go dark Wednesday? Trump claims deal with China avoids shutdown.

bytedance, china, Donald Trump, national security, Policy, tiktok, trump administration, trump tariffs, us-china trade war / Paul Patrick / September 15, 2025

According to Bessent, China agreed to “commercial terms” and “technical details” of a deal “between two parties,” but Xi and Trump still needed to discuss the terms—as well as possibly China’s demands to ease export controls on chips and other high-tech goods—before the deal can be finalized, Reuters reported.

ByteDance, TikTok’s current owner, which in the past has opposed the sale, did not immediately respond to Ars’ request to comment.

While experts told Reuters that finalizing the TikTok deal this week could be challenging, Trump seems confident. On Truth Social, the US president boasted that talks with China have been going “very well” and claimed that TikTok users will soon be “very happy.”

“A deal was also reached on a ‘certain’ company that young people in our Country very much wanted to save,” Trump said, confirming that he would speak to Xi on Friday and claiming that their relationship “remains a very strong one!!!”

China accuses US of “economic coercion”

However, China’s Ministry of Commerce spokesperson on Monday continued to slam US export controls and tariffs that are frustrating China. The spokesperson suggested that those trade restrictions “constitute the containment and suppression of China’s development of high-tech industries,” like advanced computer chips and artificial intelligence, NBC News reported.

“This is a typical act of unilateral bullying and economic coercion,” the spokesperson said, indicating it may even be viewed as a retaliation violating the temporary truce.

Rather than committing to de-escalate tensions, both countries have recently taken fresh jabs in the trade war. On Monday, China announced two probes into US semiconductors, as well as an antitrust ruling against Nvidia and “an anti-discrimination probe into US measures against China’s chip sector,” NBC News reported.

Will TikTok go dark Wednesday? Trump claims deal with China avoids shutdown. Read More »

China rules that Nvidia violated its antitrust laws

antitrust, china, NVIDIA, Policy, syndication, tarrifs, trade wars / Paul Patrick / September 15, 2025

A Chinese regulator has found Nvidia violated the country’s antitrust law, in a preliminary finding against the world’s most valuable chipmaker.

Nvidia had failed to fully comply with provisions outlined when it acquired Mellanox Technologies, an Israeli-US supplier of networking products, China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) said on Monday. Beijing conditionally approved the US chipmaker’s acquisition of Mellanox in 2020.

Monday’s statement came as US and Chinese officials prepared for more talks in Madrid over trade, with a tariff truce between the world’s two largest economies set to expire in November.

SAMR reached its conclusion weeks before Monday’s announcement, according to two people with knowledge of the matter, adding that the regulator had released the statement now to give China greater leverage in the trade talks.

The regulator started the anti-monopoly investigation in December, a week after the US unveiled tougher export controls on advanced high-bandwidth memory chips and chipmaking equipment to the country.

SAMR then spent months interviewing relevant parties and gathering legal opinions to build the case, the people said.

Nvidia bought Mellanox for $6.9 billion in 2020, and the acquisition helped the chipmaker to step up into the data center and high-performance computing market where it is now a dominant player.

The preliminary findings against the chipmaker could result in fines of between 1 percent and 10 percent of the company’s previous year’s sales. Regulators can also force the company to change business practices that are considered in violation of antitrust laws.

China rules that Nvidia violated its antitrust laws Read More »

Feds try to dodge lawsuit against their bogus climate report

climate change, doe, Energy, EPA, greenhouse gasses, lawsuit, Policy, Science / Paul Patrick / September 13, 2025

Meanwhile, Congress is trying to keep serious scientists from weighing in.

While the Trump administration has continued to refer to efforts to avoid the worst impacts of climate change as a scam, it has done almost nothing to counter the copious scientific evidence that demonstrates that climate change is real and doing real damage to the citizens of the US. The lone exception has been a draft Department of Energy report prepared by a handful of carefully chosen fringe figures that questioned the mainstream understanding of climate change. The shoddy work and questionable conclusions of that report were so extensive that an analysis of it required over 450 pages to detail all of its shortcomings.

But its shortcomings may not have been limited to the science, as a lawsuit alleges that its preparation violated a law that regulates the activities of federal advisory panels. Now, in an attempt to avoid dealing with that lawsuit, the Department of Energy is claiming that it dissolved the committee that prepared the report, making the lawsuit moot.

Meanwhile, Congress is also attempting to muddy the waters. In response to the DOE report, the National Academies of Science announced that it would prepare a report describing the current state of climate science. Republicans on the House Committee on Oversight have responded by announcing an investigation of the National Academies “for undermining the EPA.”

The vanishing committee

As we noted in our original coverage, the members of the advisory group that prepared the DOE report were carefully chosen for having views that are well outside the mainstream of climate science. Based on their past public statements, they could be counted on to produce a report that would question the severity of climate change and raise doubts about whether we had any evidence it was happening. The report they produced went beyond that by suggesting that the net effect of our carbon emissions was likely to be a positive for humanity.

Not only was that shoddy science, but a lawsuit filed by the Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists suggested that it was likely illegal. Groups like the one that wrote the report, the suit alleges, fall under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which (among other things) dictates that these groups must be “fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented,” rather than be selected in order to reinforce a single point of view.

The “among other things” that the law dictates is that the advisory groups have public meetings that are announced in advance, be chartered with a well-defined mission, and all of their records be made available to the public. In contrast, nobody within the Department of Energy, including the contrarians who wrote the report, acknowledged the work they were doing publicly until the day the draft report was released.

The suit alleges that the work of this group fell under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and the group violated the act in all of the above ways and more. The act asks the courts to force the DOE to disclose all the relevant records involved with the preparation of the report, and to cease relying on it for any regulatory actions. That’s significant because the Environmental Protection Agency cited it in its attempts to roll back its prior finding that greenhouse gases posed a danger to the US public.

This week, the DOE responded in court by claiming the panel that produced the report had been dissolved, making the suit moot. That does not address the fact that the EPA is continuing to rely on the report in its attempts to argue there’s no point in regulating greenhouse gases. It also leaves the report itself in a weird limbo. Its release marked the start of a period of public comment, and said comments were supposed to be considered during the revisions that would take place before the draft was finalized.

Failure to complete the revision process would leave the EPA vulnerable to claims that it’s relying on an incomplete draft report for its scientific justifications. So, while the DOE’s tactics may protect some of its internal documents, it may ultimately cause larger problems for the Trump administration’s agenda.

Attacking the academies

Earlier this year, we were critical of the US’s National Academies of Science for seemingly refusing to respond to the Trump administration’s attacks on science. That reticence appeared to end in August with the release of the DOE climate report and the announcement that the EPA was using that report as the latest word on climate science, which it argued had changed considerably since the initial EPA decisions on this issue in 2009.

In response, the National Academies announced that it would fast-track a new analysis of the risks posed by greenhouse gases, this one done by mainstream scientists instead of a handful of fringe figures. The goal was to get it done before the EPA closed its public comment period on its proposal to ignore greenhouse gases.

Obviously, this poses a threat to the EPA’s planned actions, which apparently prompted Republicans in Congress to step in. Earlier this month, the chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), announced he was investigating the National Academies for preparing this report, calling it “a blatant partisan act to undermine the Trump Administration.”

Comer has also sent a letter to the National Academies, outlining his concerns and demanding a variety of documents. Some of these are pretty convoluted: “The study is led by a National Academies member who serves as an external advisor to the Science Philanthropy Alliance, which has ties to the left-wing group Arabella Advisors through the New Venture Fund, an organization that promotes a variety of progressive causes and funds major climate litigation,” Comer says, suggesting … it’s not entirely clear what. Another member of the study panel had the audacity to endorse former President Biden for his climate policies. Separately, Comer says he’s concerned about the source of the funds that will pay for this study.

Some of Comer’s demands are consistent with this, focusing on funding for this review. But he goes well beyond that, demanding a list of all the National Academies’ sources of funding, as well as any internal communications about this study. He’s also going on a bit of a witch hunt within the federal government, demanding any communications the NAS has had with government employees regarding the DOE’s report or the EPA’s greenhouse gas decisions.

It’s pretty clear that Comer recognizes that any unbiased presentation of climate science is going to undercut the EPA’s rationale for reversing course on greenhouse gas regulations. So, he’s preparing in advance to undercut that presentation by claiming it’s rife with conflicts of interest—and he’s willing to include “supporting politicians who want to act on climate change” as a conflict.

All of this maneuvering is taking place before the EPA has even finalized its planned U-turn on greenhouse gases, a step that will undoubtedly trigger additional investigations and lawsuits. In many ways, this is likely to reflect many of these parties laying the groundwork for the legal fight to come. And, while some of this is ostensibly about the state of the science that has supported the EPA’s past policy decisions, it’s clear that the administration and its supporters are doing their best to minimize science’s impact on their preferred course of action.

John is Ars Technica’s science editor. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Biochemistry from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California, Berkeley. When physically separated from his keyboard, he tends to seek out a bicycle, or a scenic location for communing with his hiking boots.

Feds try to dodge lawsuit against their bogus climate report Read More »

California bill lets renters escape exclusive deals between ISPs and landlords

cable lobby, FCC, fcc bulk billing, Policy / Mike M. / September 13, 2025

Opt-out from bulk billing

Bill author says law “gives this industry an opportunity to treat people fairly.”

Credit: Getty Images | Yuichiro Chino

California’s legislature this week approved a bill to let renters opt out of bulk-billing arrangements that force them to pay for Internet service from a specific provider.

The bill says that by January 1, a landlord must “allow the tenant to opt out of paying for any subscription from a third-party Internet service provider, such as through a bulk-billing arrangement, to provide service for wired Internet, cellular, or satellite service that is offered in connection with the tenancy.” If a landlord fails to do so, the tenant “may deduct the cost of the subscription to the third-party Internet service provider from the rent,” and the landlord would be prohibited from retaliating.

The bill passed the state Senate in a 30–7 vote on Wednesday but needs Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature to become law. It was approved by the state Assembly in a 75–0 vote in April.

Assemblymember Rhodesia Ransom, a Democratic lawmaker who authored the bill, told Ars today that lobby groups for Internet providers and real estate companies have been “working really hard” to defeat it. But she expects Newsom will approve.

“I strongly believe that the governor is going to look at what this bill provides as far as protections for tenants and sign it into law,” Ransom said in a phone interview.

“Just treat people fairly”

Ransom disputed claims from lobby groups that bulk billing reduces Internet prices for tenants.

“This is kind of like a first step in trying to give this industry an opportunity to just treat people fairly. It’s not super restrictive. We are not banning bulk billing. We’re not even limiting how much money the people can make. What we’re saying here with this bill is that if a tenant wants to opt out of the arrangement, they should be allowed to opt out,” she said.

A stricter bill could have told landlords that “you can’t charge the customer more than you’re paying. We could have put a cap on the amount that you’re able to charge,” she said. “There’s so many other things that we could have done that would’ve been a lot less business-friendly. But the goal was not to harm business, the goal was to help people.”

In theory, bulk billing could reduce prices for tenants if discounts negotiated between landlords and Internet providers were passed on to renters. But, Ransom said, “where there would be an opportunity for these huge discounts to be passed on to tenants, it’s not happening. We know of thousands of tenants across the state who are in landlord-tenant agreements where the landlord is actually adding an additional bonus for themselves, pocketing change, and not passing the discount on to the tenants… once we started working on this bill, we started to hear more and more about places where people were stuck in these agreements and their landlords were not letting them out.”

Ransom said not all landlords do this and that it is generally “the large corporate landlords” who own hundreds or thousands of properties that “were the ones who were reluctant to let their tenants out.”

State bill similar to abandoned FCC plan

California’s action comes about eight months after the Federal Communications Commission abandoned a proposal to give tenants the right to opt out of bulk billing for Internet service. The potential federal action was proposed in March 2024 by then-FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, but nixed in January 2025 by Chairman Brendan Carr.

Bulk billing contracts are only banned by the FCC when they give a provider the exclusive right to access and serve a building. Despite that restriction, a bulk billing deal between an ISP and landlord can make it less financially feasible for other providers to serve a multi-unit building. Letting people opt out of bulk billing arrangements makes serving a building at least slightly more viable for a competing provider.

Ransom said the FCC action “was very unfortunate” and “give[s] a disadvantage to people who are already at the mercy of landlords.”

Cable lobby calls it an “anti-affordability bill”

The California bill was not welcomed by lobby groups for Internet providers and landlords. The California Broadband & Video Association, which represents cable companies, paid for a sponsored commentary in several news publications to express its opposition.

“AB 1414 is an anti-affordability bill masked as consumer protection, and it will only serve to widen the digital divide in California,” wrote the lobby group’s CEO, Janus Norman.

Norman complained that property owners would have “to provide a refund to tenants who decline the Internet service provided through the building’s contract with a specific Internet service provider.” He argued that without bulk billing, “low-income families and tenants risk losing access altogether.”

Letting tenants opt out of bulk deals “undermines the basis of the cost savings and will lead to bulk billing being phased out,” Norman wrote. This “will result in higher bills for everyone, including those already struggling,” he claimed.

“The truth, very simply, is this: bulk billing is good for consumers,” the cable industry commentary said. “Taking away bulk discounts raises total housing costs when Californians can least afford it.”

The bill also drew opposition from the Real Estate Technology & Transformation Center (RETTC). The group’s sponsors include real estate companies and Internet providers AT&T, Comcast, and Cox. Another notable sponsor of RETTC is RealPage, which has faced claims from the US government and state attorneys general that its software distorts competition in rental housing by helping landlords collectively set prices.

“AB 1414 introduces an opt-out requirement that would fundamentally undermine the economics of bulk billing,” the RETTC said. “By fragmenting service, it could destabilize networks and reduce the benefits residents and operators rely on today.” The group claimed the bill could lead to “higher broadband costs for renters, reduced ISP investment in multifamily housing, disruption of property-wide smart technology, [and] widening of the digital divide in California.”

The RETTC said it joined with the National Apartment Association and the California Rental Housing Association to detail the groups’ concerns directly to the bill sponsors.

Wireless providers could get a boost

The California Broadband & Video Association seems to be worried about wireless providers serving buildings wired up with cable. The group’s commentary claimed that “the bill’s lack of technology neutrality also creates winners and losers, granting certain types of providers an unfair advantage over their competitors.”

Ransom said her bill may be especially helpful for wireless or satellite providers because they wouldn’t need to install wires in each building.

“This does help with market competition, and in fact some of our support came from some of the smaller Internet service providers… and because this bill is technology-neutral, it helps with not only the current technology, but any new technology that comes out,” she said.

While Ransom’s bill could help make broadband more affordable for renters, California lawmakers recently abandoned a more aggressive effort to require affordable broadband plans. Assemblymember Tasha Boerner proposed a state law that would force Internet service providers to offer $15 monthly plans to people with low incomes but tabled the bill after the Trump administration threatened to block funding for expanding broadband networks.

California bill lets renters escape exclusive deals between ISPs and landlords Read More »